Slashdot Mirror
Daily Show Production Team Nets Creative Freedom
gremlins writes "Jon Stewart, who recently celebrated his sixth anniversary with "The Daily Show" and was a rumored possible replacement to Dan Rathers, has signed a deal which allows his production team, Busboy Productions, to develop televison projects on their own. The deal also allows Busboy Productions to flirt with other networks when looking for a home for the projects. Comedy Central still gets the right of first refusal for any projects created."
The Daily Show is often more insightful about the news than the mainstream media. You would probably be better served watching a half hour of the Daily Show than CNN/Fox News, etc.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
And of course there's this brilliant tidbit where he blasts CNN's crossfire for being theater instead of actual news. The best part is when conservative crossfire host Tucker Carlson tries to ask Jon Stewart why he gave Kerry softball questions when he was on the Daily Show, Stewart responded (paraphrased from memory) "What I didn't realize, and maybe this explains alot, is that CNN takes its queues on integrity from Comedy Central. The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank phone calls."
Jon Stewart is brilliant, and since the Daily Show has the satirical factor embedded in it, it allows him more freedom than most other media outlets. And ironically in many cases he does a better job at explaining the news. For example, Daily Show viewers tend to be more informed than viewers of many other programs.
actually it's better if he's transparent about his political beliefs, that way you know that it's his opinion about things. if it was just hidden, but the stories chosen still with certain bias, you wouldn't figure it out so easily.
and all that doesn't really matter.. it's not like the anchor could go against his employer(and the team behind the news, after all the anchor just reads them..).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Have you only watched the Daily Show during the last four years? Stewart has basically been cleverly mocking the hypocrisy of the country's political leaders since the show started. It's been a Republican administration for the past 4 years (and a fully-dominated Republican Senate/House for the past 2 years), so that's where most of his focus goes.
During the Clinton years there was definitely a slew of anti-Clinton, anti-Lewinski, anti-Gore jokes, etc. But when you have a president like Bush who gives comedians enough material without even trying (along with an administration with policies just dripping with potential for satire), you cannot expect them not to pounce on it.
For example, I remember back during the Clinton years they basically showed a bunch of clips tacked together of Clinton saying "I did not have relations with that woman ... I did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky", etc, showing his hypocrisy. Guess what? It was funny then, and his take on the Bush administration is funny now.
And finally, as Stewart said on Crossfire - he didn't realize that CNN takes it's queues on integrity from Comedy Central. It's COMEDY CENTRAL, a COMEDY channel, not a NEWS channel.
But why is it on Slashdot?
For the same reason that Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Star Trek gets covered here... it's what geeks watch.
Crossfire was far from informative or even somewhat useful. Two sides shouting at each other without any rhyme or reason is not debate. Politics maybe, but not debate. Crossfire was part of what's wrong with political discussion in this country. A circus freakshow. The Daily Show is a freakshow, but it doesn't pretend to be "serious news" like Crossfire did.
ChuckyG
The daily show isn't offensive it's irrevrant. There's a difference. and it's in this irrevrance that jon gained his following -- by exposing the ridiculous and disengenious crossfire style arguments.
meep
I think it works best when he's got a writing crew to keep him 'honest' when it comes to covering all sides of an issue. He's not quite so 'fair and balanced' solo. That is to say, he doesn't let his personal sympathies get in the way of a good joke.
I form opinions issue by issue, rather than subsuming my opinion to one particular groupthink tribal mass or another. Finding the absurdity in any situation where it appears appeals greatly to me, and good satire works when it's honest, telling the truth with humor. For the most part TDS is honest and smart satire, whether it's targeting Bush (I mean, I don't love or hate the man, but it's objectively honest that he can barely string two words together in public speaking.. ) or anyone else.
Besides, he'll have rightists on as guests often enough, and he's pretty fair. He won't usually go for the easy jabs, as a recent interview with Mike Mills demonstrated.. His interviews tend to be more thought-provoking, given that he'll engage his guests in some serious questioning, and I'd call it 2/3rds BookNotes with only 10% of the dryness.
I consider TDS mandatory viewing, and I only wish there were more of it.
I don't think Stewart would be a smart replacement for a network anchor like Rather though, I think he needs a guest to discuss things with, I think he'd do better as a George Stephanopoulous replacement.
This guy's a little slow
No, The Daily Show is not a freakshow. It's really a satire of all the other freakshows, and rather insightful in that role.
FOX news, saying the US will be attacked if Kerry is elected, is a freakshow.
Daily Show, reporting that the planet will explode if Kerry is elected, is biting wit, not a freakshow.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
"...although I do agree that his show is comedy, for him to play it off as if he doesn't have an impact on how people think about politics was an artful dodge on his part."
He's never claimed to be anything but comedy. He delivers deadpan frequently, but he directly makes fun of news. The reason why there is irony here is that he, a self-proclaimed (and acknowledged) comedian goes on a supposedly serious news show, blasts them for their practices, and when they try to attack him for journalistic integrity they are left with nothing specifically because he isn't a journalist, but they have confused him for one. They can't make any logical retort at that point because his comedy is more accurate news than their journalism is.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I concede in advance that I don't have an extensive knowledge of this topic, but I'll throw my two cents in here anyway. Rest assured, paramedics are standing by with the jaws of life to unjam my foot from my mouth.
I believe the entire point is that TDS *doesn't* want to be treated seriously by its audience. As an earlier post pointed out, they even said as much in on of their disclaimers. You can say what you want about ulterior motives, but the fact of the matter is they are a comedy show, view themselves as a comedy show, and have never done or said anything to contradict that position.
People get confused when they see Jon attacking the "real" media, because they don't realize that Jon isn't speaking to them as a journalist. He's speaking to them as a concerned citizen. Something along the lines of, "Look, I run a comedy show, and people still think it's better than your real news. That shouldn't be happening." I think it's time for an illustration.
Let's say for a moment that a popular TV doctor from "E.R." breaks his leg, and goes to the real emergency room, where he is mistreated by the staff, neglected by the doctors, overcharged for the services, and denied appropriate medical treatment. As a celebrity, he has access to the public and decides to hold a conference, blasting the facility for its poor performance.
The hospital issues a press release, pointing out numerous instances in the show "E.R." where his character failed in his duties, or where much worse events transpired. They end by saying that if the show can't get it right, he has no right to complain about the real thing.
Can you see the absurdity of this? The only reasonable response is, "I didn't know hospitals took their cues on ethics from cable television." Meanwhile people like myself, who have little or no regard for "E.R." rail away at detractors by echoing the same arguments used in the press release.
The point is that The Daily Show is not a news show. Jon isn't speaking as a journalist, attacking his colleagues. He's speaking as a concerned citizen, attacking the people charged with providing him accurate, unbiased information, and failing to do their job. His capacity as a news anchor for TDS serves only to grant him access to the public. To accuse Jon Stewart of hypocrisy in failing his own journalistic responsibilities is every bit as absurd as charging a TV actor with failing in his duties as a medical professional.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Jon admits to a bias and refuses to correct it... but he wants to still correct all sorts of faults he detects in the mainstream media.
:-)
This was exactly my point. Let me rephrase. Do you have a bias? Are you a liberal, conservative, libertarian? Librarian? Unless you're absolutely apolitical, you have some sort of affinity for a particular political party. Now, to use your argument:
"You have an admitted bias, and you refuse to correct it. But you still assume to attack Jon Stewart for having an admitted bias. When your hypocrisy was pointed out, you say, in effect, 'I'm not a journalist!' To which I say, 'EXACTLY!'"
Jon Stewart isn't a journalist. He plays one on TV. Your second argument, "So taking his advice about media bias is taking the advice of an arrogant joker." seems to indicate that you don't believe comedians can complain about how crappy the news has gotten. If that's what you really believe, well... I'm afraid we're probably never going to come to an agreement.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.