I disagree that Stewart was wrong what he said. CNN was and is harmful, is part of politicians' strategies, is full of partisan hacks, and fail miserably at their role in the public discourse. That was as true then as it is now.

The issue is Stewart was and is the master of telling half-truths. His show while not necessarily part of a politicians' strategy was part of a larger social strategy intended to redefine what sort of politicians would be electable in the future and the sorts of policies they'd be able to support.

He'd get someone on with "bad" views and ridicule them to put the association in peoples' minds that those views are ridiculous because the people with those views are ridiculous. Or he'd get people on with "good" views and make them seem personable and relatable and put the association in peoples' minds that those views are reasonable. By doing this he could shape the political discourse while claiming he's above petty politics: he's just illustrating the absurdity as he wants people to see it.

He even gives the game away during the interview: "the only way it'd be harder [to make fun of a Kerry Administration] is if his administration was less absurd than this one, so in that case if it's less absurd than yeah it'd be harder". The implication being that if he doesn't report on something it's because it isn't "absurd". Which is just as dishonest a way of framing an argument as anything he criticizes politicians and CNN for and is something that CNN does too, but he doesn't mention that.