If the state funded broadcaster is not willing to entertain other points of view [...] then why should they be funded by the state? Because there are people in that state who have those opinions [and] if the mainstream broadcaster is not prepared to entertain those points of view, then is it really serving its public?

Stewart: The real issue is that TV news can either bring clarity or noise. And it tends to not seem to know the difference between them. … We do a show that doesn't try to bring noise. I think that we have a more consistent point of view than most news shows, I'll say that.
Bulger: What's that point of view?
Stewart: That theater doesn't make for authentic public discourse.

belief that where there is a problem, there must be a solution, I shall conclude with the following suggestions. We must, as a start, not delude ourselves with preposterous notions such as the straight Luddite position as outlined, for example, in Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Americans will not shut down any part of their technological apparatus, and to suggest that they do so is to make no suggestion at all. It is almost equally unrealistic to expect that nontrivial modifications in the availability of media will ever be made. Many civilized nations limit by law the amount of hours television may operate and thereby mitigate the role television plays in public life. But I believe that this is not a possibility in America. Once having opened the Happy Medium to full public

In the shift from direct democracy to representational democracy, the printed book became an embodiment of thought for the physically absent author; and so the popular art form of the popular book and the pamphlet re-presented ideas and contributed to the public space of political philosophies of the Enlightenment. Television, however, now brings forth this new kind of public space, and it calls into being this new world, not of the educated citizenry in a republic, but of the electropeasantry in the state of Entertainment. Recall how people stopped singing in pubs when they brought in the TV set, and you will appreciate the new passivity in which people stop voting for their representatives as TV takes over the electoral campaigns.

I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests.

Television, as the most "public" of media, has its limits.

The role of television is the illusion of company, noise. I call it the fifth wall and the second window: the window of illusion.

Part of the reason that politicians have come to believe that the public is stupid and has no attention span is that television had a 30-second attention span. So you had to assume your audience remembered nothing, knew nothing, and could flip out to a different channel at any moment. Plus the bandwidth was insanely expensive. Now all that is gone. I think that will be a revolution in political discourse.

Interviewer: Has TV, a certain kind of TV, corrupted the country?'Bonolis: Yes. The difference is when there is a lack of irony, when I don't say that I am showing a circus and mocking our everyday life. This applies more to information than to variety shows. It is very dangerous when information disguises itself as entertainment.

People of a television culture need “plain language” both aurally and visually, and will even go so far as to require it in some circumstances by law. The Gettysburg Address would probably have been largely incomprehensible to a 1985 audience.

I think television has betrayed the meaning of democratic speech, adding visual chaos to the confusion of voices. What role does silence have in all this noise?

The media are using a national treasure--that's what the public airwaves are. And they have a responsibility to bring out the full diversity of opinion or lose their licenses.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience."

We want patriotic radio, TV, patriotic experts, patriotic clubs. We want the media that expresses national interests.