On December 15, 2025, the Walter Cronkite Awards for Excellence in Political Journalism, hosted by USC Annenberg, honored two of the most recognizable—and divisive—figures in American media: Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow. The ceremony, held annually to recognize significant contributions to political journalism, found itself at the center of a heated debate about the state of the press, its credibility, and the blurry line between news and entertainment.
According to Deadline, the event’s organizers sought to send a clear message about the enduring value of a free press. Martin Kaplan, founding director of the Norman Lear Center and a professor at USC Annenberg, declared, “The message sent by honoring these winners is that the press isn’t ‘the enemy of the people.’ It’s the firewall between the public and disinformation, abuse of power and corruption.” Those are strong words, especially in an era where faith in journalism seems to be at a historic low. Kaplan’s statement was meant as a rallying cry, but for many observers, the honorees themselves sparked more questions than answers.
Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host known for her sharp commentary and unapologetically progressive stance, was recognized at a time when her journalistic record remains a lightning rod for critics. Her most infamous moment, as reported in the Washington Examiner, came in 2017. Maddow teased a major scoop on then-President Donald Trump’s tax returns, promising bombshell revelations after a series of suspenseful commercial breaks. When the documents were finally revealed, they contained nothing new or especially interesting. The moment was widely mocked—even by Stephen Colbert, a fellow late-night host and prominent critic of Trump. The incident became emblematic of what some see as Maddow’s tendency toward theatricality over substance.
But the controversy didn’t end there. Less than a week before receiving her Cronkite honor, Maddow appeared on Colbert’s show and revived a long-debunked conspiracy theory: that Trump is a Russian asset. “You know, Russia is a podunk country,” Maddow said. “They’ve got a kleptocratic, sclerotic government run by a guy who’s never going to leave until he dies. The idea that we work for [Putin], that we work for them, is so humiliating and is such an abject failure on the part of Trump in terms of his weakness.” She continued, “I don’t know what Putin has on him, but he works for Putin, and it’s an embarrassment to this country.”
Such statements, according to Washington Examiner, have been thoroughly investigated by federal authorities and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, with no substantive evidence ever found. Yet Maddow’s unwavering loyalty to the narrative has drawn both fierce loyalty and harsh criticism. Her detractors argue that she has become less a journalist and more a crusader, clinging to debunked stories with the fervor of a zealot. To them, her receipt of the Cronkite Award is less a celebration of journalistic excellence than a symbol of ideological conformity within the media establishment.
Jon Stewart, meanwhile, was given the inaugural Cronkite Award for comedic news and commentary—a new category reflecting the changing nature of news consumption in the digital age. Stewart, who rose to fame as the host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, is often credited (or blamed, depending on whom you ask) for blurring the lines between satire and serious reporting. During the George W. Bush and Obama years, his program became a go-to source of information for millions of younger Americans. Stewart’s style was unmistakably partisan, often skewering Republican and conservative guests while drawing cheers from a largely liberal audience. Still, he brought a self-awareness to his role that distinguished him from others in the field.
Yet Stewart’s legacy is complicated. As the Washington Examiner points out, his show’s influence may have contributed to the erosion of trust in traditional news sources. Megan McCardle, writing for Bloomberg News in 2014, bluntly advised, “Don’t ever appear on the ‘Daily Show.’” Stewart’s interviews, she argued, were often unfair and factually sloppy, prioritizing laughs over substance. Despite these criticisms, Stewart’s desk from The Daily Show was once displayed at the now-closed Newseum—a testament to his cultural impact, if not his journalistic rigor.
For many in the media industry, Stewart remains a hero. His first retirement announcement was treated with the kind of reverence usually reserved for rock stars. Now, years later, after countless debates about the dangers of Americans getting their news from entertainers—think Joe Rogan—the industry has chosen to honor Stewart with an award named after one of the most respected newsmen of the twentieth century. The irony isn’t lost on critics who argue that this valorization of comedians as news sources has contributed to the very crisis of credibility the awards purport to address.
The selection of Maddow and Stewart for such prestigious honors has drawn sharp rebuke from those who believe the press is already facing a credibility crisis. The Washington Examiner notes that real journalists, those who have spent years investigating scandals and breaking actual news, often receive far less recognition than entertainers-turned-news-anchors. The industry, critics say, is more interested in rewarding those who reinforce the “correct” political values than those who adhere to the highest standards of journalism.
It’s a tough pill to swallow for those who still believe in the ideal of a free and fair press. The timing of the awards, coming amid ongoing debates about media bias and the rise of misinformation, only adds fuel to the fire. Some see the honors as a desperate attempt by the industry to retain relevance and authority in a rapidly changing landscape. Others view them as evidence of an insular culture more concerned with self-congratulation than self-reflection.
Martin Kaplan’s defense of the awards—that the press is a “firewall between the public and disinformation, abuse of power and corruption”—rings true for many. But for others, the choice of recipients like Stewart and Maddow suggests that the firewall may be more porous than the industry cares to admit. The debate over what constitutes real journalism, and who gets to define it, is far from settled.
As the dust settles from this year’s Walter Cronkite Awards, one thing is clear: the conversation about the future of news, the role of entertainment in journalism, and the standards by which we honor those who shape public discourse is only getting started.