Social science: The flaw in columnist thinking

As someone who goes through quite a bit of printed (and posted) media pretty much daily, I've often wondered what columnists do when they just can't flush an idea out of their enormous brains (serious - ENORMOUS! Just ask any one of 'em. They'll tell you.). Does the Washington Post Co. own some deep, magical well bubbling over with faux insights and snappy headlines? Is Artie Sulzberger guardian and manager of a sizable rainy-day deposit of poorly-sourced excoriation and outrageous claims (Tierny's personal stash, no doubt)? But today I realized, upon stumbling across Richard Morin's A2 column in the Post, they simply turn to social scientists. Here's the glorious lede: This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy. The column cites a study done by two ECU polisci profs that found kids who watch The Daily Show develop cynical views about politics. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media... Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls... Alright. First of all, Richie, a series of lengthy quotes from the latest issue of American Politics Research linked up with a few segues and prepositional phrases does not a good column make. Second of all, maybe people watching TDS are more cynical about politics because Stewart gives a more realistic picture of what sensationally insane jackasses most of the folks on Capitol Hill really are. And then we have the fact that the profs put up CBS News as their "control group" in this little experiment. CBS NEWS? Give me a break! The networks (which you describe as "hard news"...ok, whatever) are terrified of alienating even a single one of their viewers. As a result the reporters are forced to pick the lowest common denominator for their audience. Not exactly great broadcast journalism. These networks live in mortal fear of being labeled "BIASED", and as a result, water down their coverage to include only the most basic of facts in language that reads like the line down the middle of a highway, and is just as boring. If anything, milquetoast networks and the bloviation of cable news programming have both prevented people from really thinking about the implications of a piece of news. The networks because they refuse to entertain the thought that news might MEAN something, and the cable shows because they spend all their time trying to tell you what it all means, which some people like, others laugh at, and still others just plain resent. Meanwhile, all Stewart is doing is pointing out how absurdly our elected officials act, again and again, consistently reaching new heights of disingenuous shenanigans. Don't blame him for the fact that those guys are such a treasure trove of hilarity.