I was actually really impressed with Stewart in the Maddow interview. I do agree with Jesse's criticism that he ducks too often behind the label of "entertainer" or "comedian" - (in the interview, the preferred label is "satirist," which he himself admits may come off as snobbish). Maddow presses him to acknowledge his influence - his position on the field of the "game," since they are using that kind of language - to no real avail. It does seem a bit disingenuous. Whether his intention is merely to be satirist or not, I think at this point he is seen as much more. I know I take him as seriously as anything else I watch on TV, I just get some good laughs along the way. While I can understand why he wouldn't want to admit publicly that he has crossed this invisible threshold into "real news," I don't find his argument too convincing. Whether something purports to be "news" or "satire" is probably less significant than how it is received.

That said, I think your discussion of Stewart's position missed the point a little. His criticism is much more aimed at the increasing polarization of the "24 hour news cycle" than at the two parties themselves. Maddow, as a host of a show on MSNBC, is preoccupied with defending first herself, then her network, and I think by proxy, the other left-leaning news networks from the "false equivalency" between what they do and what Fox News does. While Stewart lets her off the hook a little, I think he does a good job of holding up the mirror. His main and strongest point is that responding to Fox News by simply becoming more openly ideological only contributes to the problem. While Jesse's point that Stewart's emphasis on the middle might carry the implicit message that Radical=wrong is well taken, what I heard more than that was a pretty sensible call for the news to do a better job covering the news. Rather than lining up with one party and painting issues either red or blue, why not focus on corruption wherever it may be found? If an issue is complex, (which almost all are), then the reporting should be sophisticated, though the conclusions may be somewhat ambivalent. I hear Stewart kind of sticking up for the viewer, suggesting that while on the one hand picking a side and sticking to it may ensure a certain audience's loyalty, there are many who would prefer to get the facts, messy as they are, and draw their own conclusions. I really appreciate his sensitivity to context, and what I think is an above average level of respect for how people's differing views of issues are tied to legitimate identities.