Jon Stewart and Question-marked captions ("Cavutos")

Over at TVnewser they've posted about the use of question-marked captions (or as the Jon Stewart show has termed them, "Cavutos") to slant news coverage (see here). They believe that the captions about about Chavez in the past week are proof positive of FoxNews' Conservatively-biased reporting. I expect rabid criticism of FoxNews given the Left's paranoia on the subject (case in point, Clinton from the Chris Matthews interview), but most people who criticize it have never watched it and I think TVnewser is preying on that fact in it's Chavez object lesson.

A couple things are remarkable to me about this line of argument: First, it presumes that criticizing Chavez is a Conservative thing; be it for his possible insanity, his Communist/Socialist views, his imperialistic/tyrannical ambitions or his over-the-top rhetoric about America, I think plain old Patriotism should motivate someone to criticize him (heck, even prominent Dems have bitten their knuckles and uttered tepid disapproval of Chavez' comments before the UN this week).

Secondly, anyone who watches any of the cable news networks will see that the captions/"bottom thirds" are used to encapsulate the assertions of the person speaking or the question posed by the talking heads appearing at that time. So, when Ann Coulter is a guest (as are even the craziest Libs) they might say, "Ted Kennedy belongs in prison?" or "Bill Clinton a serial rapist?"

Lastly, Jon Stewart is certainly "edgy." But I'm not using the term as most people use it today. I've never watched more than a few minutes of Stewart at a time, and I'll admit he (mostly his writers) are clever. But watching the extended clip that was linked from TVnewser reminded me of why I don't like his "stuff." Stewart's schtick is uncomfortable to me--sure, because me and mine are the butt of so much of his humor. But it's also uncomfortable because there's a little too much spite and anger simmering under the surface. Stewart may use unserious humor to attack his ideological foes, but make no mistake about it: he is dead serious about attacking them. But what's humorous about something or someone who breeds such anger in Stewart? I know folks said this (incorrectly) about Rush Limbaugh, but I'm not sure what will happen to Stewart when his bogeyman Bush is off the front pages.