Jon Stewart on Friday’s CNN political show “Crossfire” called hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala “partisan hacks” whose style of so-called journalism is “hurting America”. His appearance was gutsy, funny, and penetrating, just like The Daily Show.

Video downloads (Windows Media and MPEG-4) here or BitTorrent files (only Windows Media) here. (To play Windows Media files, non-Windows users will likely need VLC.)

It’s sad that Mr. Stewart’s Daily Show, a satirical pseudo-news show on Comedy Central, is often more informative than “real” political news programs.

The invisible hand of the news-for-ratings market is fantastic at generating profit and satisfied (or satiated) customers but doesn’t seem to do as well at keeping the populace informed. Arguing against that by saying that they’re just making what the customer wants is commiting the same mistake ultra-leftists are often rightly accused of: ignoring human nature and arguing ideology over experience. What’s the answer? I don’t know; but cable news “debates”, talk radio, and the dominant political parties (along with an attitude toward politics that would be more appropriate for sports fans than responsible citizens) have made political discussion in the United States sound like an elementary school classroom. And we revel in it — look at a commercial for nearly any political TV program.

I’ve been struck by the poorness of the system during each of the presidential debates — even a political junkie wouldn’t be able to keep up with the figures of potentially dubious accuracy thrown out by the candidates. If you feel you were able to refute the arguments of at least one of them intelligently: is this because you were informed — from reputable sources! — on the topics discussed or were you using your political party’s talking points to counter those of “the enemy”?

So, what should we expect candidates to do in this environment? Why would we expect truth from them? Why would we expect ourselves and our fellow citizens to be properly informed?