But the story has been virtually ignored by cable TV and mainstream broadcast outlets. Last night, Jon Stewart had some fun comparing that dearth with all the play given a certain climate news event two years ago.

This is–I’m not saying–look, I love the voices that I hear on MSNBC. And there’s a difference between–here’s what’s unfair about what I do. This is really what’s a great–here’s a great thing that I think is unfair.

You’re one person with one great voice and sincere–but I’m a climate scientist. I study weather patterns and climate. You’re talking about the weather. Maybe these networks are not meant to be viewed in aggregate, but there is an aggregate. There is an effect.

What Stewart is saying here (I listened to the interview) is that the partisan storylines and hyperbolic tone on Cable TV news shows is self-reinforcing and ends up forming the main lens through which policy and political issues are viewed by the public. Everything gets reduced to a battle between the extremes.

Donner thinks that Stewart has made ” a perfect analogy” for the climate blogosphere, and asks:

Are the climate blogs dealing with the “weather”? Or with the climate?

It’s an excellent question. What do you think?

There’s no honor in what I do, but I try to do it as honorably as I can.

I’m with Nick Baumann, who writes that the interview was

lengthy, contentious, and thought-provoking, but (as is always the case with Maddow’s interviews) remarkably civil.

For me, much of what Stewart said is relevant to the larger public discourse on political and policy issues (especially the climate debate), not just the hyperbolic talkfest on cable television, which Stewart adroitly skewers on a nightly basis.

So I thought I’d share some notable soundbites that I took away from the Stewart-Maddow interview.

Here’s Stewart on the dynamic of political partisanship being artificially “amplified” by the likes of Fox News and MSNBC:

“What I do believe is that both sides [right wing/left wing] have their way of shutting down debate and the news networks have allowed these two sides to become the fight in the country.”

Stewart on political tribalism:

“We have a tendency to grant amnesty to people that we agree with and to overly demonize people we don’t. I do the same thing. I think everybody does…I’m saying, let’s just stop defending teammates, your guy.”

Stewart on the news industry as it is practiced in two parallel worlds:

“Here’s a great exercise: look at the top story on cable news and the top story in newspapers.”

Rachel Maddow: “I think there’s a difference between having a point of view and being partisan.”

Maddow: “I think we both [referring to her and Stewart] have a commitment to tell the truth…”

Stewart: “…as we see it.”

In the interview, Stewart’s sense of decency and fairness repeatedly shined through–at one point he talked about how he sought to separate people’s intentions from their arguments/actions. The discourse gets poisoned all too often, he argued, when people try to divine the “intentions” of their opponents. There’s some really interesting back and forth on this relating to George W. Bush.

If you have time this weekend, watch the whole (uncut) interview. As Nick Baumann says,

There’s a lot in there to think about.

This Jon Stewart interview with Superfreaks co-author Steven Levitt will surely make Joe Romm et al reach for their Rolaids. Stewart doesn’t merely play it down the middle–he defends Levitt.

Roger Pielke Jr. highlights the one quote that will no doubt earn Stewart daggers from environmentalists.

But for me, what Stewart said in reference to the book’s controversy was more in tune with my own perspective on this and all other environmental issues:

Why does it have to be so dogmatic?