I am not sure what you mean by that. Has anyone said that what Stewart is doing is new? I have not heard that comment from anyone. What I hear is dismay that he is the only one pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

What is relatively new is the "reporting", which is not reporting at all, done by CNBC, et al. It is a continuation of what the Sunday morning shows have been doing for years. There was a reason that the late Tim Russert was Dick Cheney's favorite host. Cheney knew, for example, that when he went on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, he could claim that, "We believe, in fact, that [Saddam] has reconstituted nuclear weapons," and Russert would not call him on the falsehood. To challenge his guest in that fashion, Russert would risk losing the big name guests, thereby losing ratings, thereby risking his huge income.

Cramer told Stewart the other day that CNBC has to fill 17 hours a day of live TV. That's ridiculous. They have known all along that what they were peddling was crap, but they made so much money doing it there was no way they could stop themselves.

I think that phenomenon might be relatively new. Perhaps someone more versed in the history of journalism and commentary can correct me on that.