I enjoy Jon Stewart as much as the next guy, but suggesting, as today's New York Times does--and in a manner that leaves no doubt about its view--that the Daily Show anchor may be "the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow" because he spoke up for the 9/11 bill is just silly. Even the most wild-eyed lefty would have to pause before equating today's obstructionist Republicans with Joe McCarthy. And as commendable as it was for Stewart to speak up on behalf of the 9/11 bill, most commentators exaggerate how dire the bill's prospects were (Chuck Schumer would have demagogued it to passage with or without the Daily Show, I'd have bet money on it) in order to write yet another round of stories sanctifying Jon Stewart.

P.S. How cheap is it that the Times phrases the first two sentences of their story as questions? It's almost as if the paper was desperate to create the impression that Many Serious People were furiously debating the Murrow Question at salons and dinner parties everywhere--but couldn't quite bring themselves to make it a declarative because it isn't true.