Manufactured Conflict

So the 'thrilling' feud between "Daily Show" host, Jon Stewart and "Mad Money's" Jim Cramer has come to an end. Both TV Celebrities shook hands and forged an agreement to return to their respective programming goals. For Cramer, that is asking tougher questions and more investigative tactics with regards to reporting and for Stewart: "making funny faces and fart noises".
Regardless of who you supported, plenty of interesting points were made. The question to what extent CNBC are responsible for their role in ensuring corporate governance and the audience to which it caters was the biggest area of inquiry. Stewart's biggest qualm was the fact that CNBC's overall reporting seemed to cater to different areas and the fact that they are unable to concile these views into a more thorough reporting style. CNBC (and Cramer) shot back that what would a comedian who presents a 'news' show on Comedy Central have with regards to true reporting and that he is guilty of the same thing, presenting serious issues with a flippant view.
What much of the media outlet did not present was that the 'feud' was strictly manufactured. Stewart never personally attacked Jim Cramer in his initial report about CNBC. He was attacking the network in general for what he saw was indirect manipulation of the market by ameliorating fears and hiding misgivings with a number of the big banks and corportations. Cramer happened to respond to Stewart's report as a means to defend himself from an attack that wasn't singly aimed at him. The response internalized the conflict to Cramer and Stewart, and CNBC simply gave Cramer a pat on the back and sent him as a 'scapegoat' of sorts to divert Daily Show's fire.
Of course once this happened, the remainder of the media outlet jumped on it and added fuel to the fire by emphasizing the Cramer vs. Stewart angle, as opposed to the original intention...Stewart vs. CNBC. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Internalizing the conflict means that we are directed away from the real issue- whether today's media outlets aren't asking hard enough questions or whether corporate interests overlay clear, insightful reporting. If the conflict remained situated to its original case of inquiry, I think we would see much more investigation about the level of 'collaboration' we see between reporting media and the subjects at hand. Despite the tone of this post, I think even if we didn't hit the mark with respect to asking and answering the right questions, it is a step in the right direction.