Jon Stewart Leaving 'The Daily Show'

slimjim8094 writes: According to the NY Times, Jon Stewart is leaving "The Daily Show." This was announced during the taping of this evening's show. He will "remain at the helm of 'The Daily Show' until later this year," but no word on exactly when the change will take place, or what the replacement (host or show) will be. Presumably the current and past correspondents would be the first choice for a new host. His program will be sorely missed by at least this viewer. Maybe Comedy Central can get John Oliver out of his HBO show...

Comments

Who will take credit first?

[damn_registrars]

I expect in the morning the conservative talking heads on radio and TV will trip over each other to be the first to take credit for Stewart's departure. Considering how much he - the admitted source of fake news - has made them look like buffoons routinely over the years, they likely won't mourn him much.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them will. John Liebowich and his acolytes have created a myth and legend out of a punk. His audience is more informed than morons, but still less informed than those who actually pay attention and inform themselves. That he has had an impact in such an incestuous ecosphere is only impressive to itself. It's like being a winner in your own look-alike contest.

tl;dr

Bring back Craig Kilbourn.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[AvitarX]

I miss the Craig Kilbourn Daily Show, but it isn't something that could be done once the name was out. Sort of like Sasha Baron Cohen lost his power once people were on to him.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, bitter much? You make it too obvious when you misspell his birth name right at the start of your rant.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[cold fjord]

Who will take credit first? I expect in the morning the conservative talking heads on radio and TV will trip over each other to be the first to take credit for Stewart's departure.

Who will take "credit"? Try "none of them." The very idea is absurd. Who is it that you think had a running campaign to try to get Stewart removed ... from another network .... from a highly rated show? I can't imagine what would fill your head with such a bizzare idea.

Considering how much he - the admitted source of fake news - has made them look like buffoons routinely over the years, they likely won't mourn him much.

Stewar made pretty much everybody look like a buffoon at some point, including Democrats and President Obama. (I'm sure you have no recollection of his treatment of the entire Democratic party of South Carolina after the Alvin Green debacle - Alvin Greene Wins South Carolina Primary) The problem with Stewart is he isn't all that even handed.

Re: Who will take credit first?

[SomewhatRandom]

Craig? Is that you?

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Props, man, you got a +5 based on a combination of butthurt, projection, and wishful thinking.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. First off, auto-correct can be a bitch. Second off, it's difficult to care that I spelled his name incorrectly. My point remains.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right you are, his departure will be celebrated at Fox - but everyone else should mourn one of the final remaining sources of actual news disappearing from the mediascape. First Colbert, now Stewart, might as well not turn on the TV anymore ;)

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point that you are a opinionated dumbass who cannot even be expected to know the names of the people you are ranting about?

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Crazy Taco]

Considering how much he - the admitted source of fake news

The big problem with him, or at least with his show, is that many in my generation (millenials) don't seem to understand that he is peddling fake news for entertainment value. Way to many people cite "The Daily Show" as their primary source of news. Democracy requires an informed electorate, and it's a huge problem when many voters are not paying attention and are instead turning to fantasy as their source of news in the world.

Really the problem is more the citizenry than Stewart, but someone less talented than him wouldn't have caused such a big impact.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even handed? It's a fucking comedy show! Satire! A fake fucking news show!

Even handed? WTF?

Re:Who will take credit first?

[sudon't]

It can't be easy to be "even-handed" with today's Republican Party. Believe me, I'm no supporter of The Democratic Party, but the Republican's have pulled much of the lunatic fringe under their "big tent." There's no comedy without stupidity, and the Republicans seem to excel in that.
As for the news being fake? It's all too real. The Daily Show is more informative than any other cable news show. This is not just my opinion, it's been studied, although it certainly is obvious. Only ideologues can, (and certainly will), argue with that.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[helix2301]

I would like to see him go to HBO I think that would be great.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Methadras]

I'm a conservative and I liked Jon Stewart. I always thought he was funny, but then again, I've always been a comedian follower so for me this isn't new. But your idea that somehow conservative talking heads on radio/tv are somehow going to take credit for him leaving seems odd. Why would you think that? Most of them don't even really talk about his show because to them, for this very reason, it is fake news. Now, I've heard many of segments featured on a lot of these shows, but they were done for the sake of entertainment, not actual mockery of Jon Stewart or the content since he's been fairly poignant on his satire and mockery regardless of the topic or subject. But what's more telling is that you seem to revel in the idea that there should be people out there, and a specific type of people, conservatives, should be made buffoons of. Is there a reason for that? Does being a conservative somehow illicit, in your mind, that I and others who think like I do, should be characterized as buffoons?

Re:Who will take credit first?

[damn_registrars]

I was subjected to Rush Limbaugh yesterday morning for a while. Rush was verbally masturbating over Stewart's announcement on the radio for a good 10 minutes. He might not have gone so far as to take credit but he certainly took pleasure.

Re:Who will take credit first?

[Methadras]

That still doesn't go to the heart of my question. I'm sure Limbaugh liked seeing Stewart quit because it was one less person that would mock conservatives. But again, answer the more salient question if you can.

A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he can replace Brian Williams.

It is still okay to dream, isn't it?

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Brain Williams will replace him.

Re:A new gig for him

[freeze128]

I heard that he met an alien who gave him some sort of ring, and that he is going to be working with the Justice League....

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many of the people that have given up on voting would turn out if Jon Stewart ran in 2016?

Re:A new gig for him

[StikyPad]

That would actually be a genuinely good choice. B dubs is always good for a laugh when he's on the show.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid...
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid...

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Ran for what? Senator? Hey, it worked for Jessie Ventura....

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how many people who take voting seriously will give up.

Re:A new gig for him

[StikyPad]

Eh, I think people are too quick to judge. I don't know anyone who doesn't misremember things, especially under stress. It's when it's "I don't remember anything about that," that it becomes suspicious. Memories and fantasies (or thoughts about memories -- "what if it had happened this way?") easily become intertwined, to the point where eyewitness testimony is really the *least* reliable piece of evidence. And it's not because people are trying to lie; it's because they're not good at remembering the truth.

Watch the "Remember This!" episode of Brain Games if you can. Commentary here.

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

he can't, right? isn't he canadian (by birth)? US presidents must be natural-born citizens. personally i'd say an amendment to just have been a citizen for 35 years (so 35 year-old natural-born citizen, or 65 year-old that became a citizen at 30) would be good enough.

Re:A new gig for him

[vakuona]

It also happened with Hillary Clinton - remember her being in Bosnia under sniper fire?

Re:A new gig for him

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

No, he is not Canadian. According to Wikipedia and one of the articles referenced as a source in the Wikipedia article, he was born in New York City.

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreso Al Franken.

Re:A new gig for him

[sysrammer]

One never forgets when munitions come their way.

Re:A new gig for him

[StikyPad]

He didn't forget, but it's possible he misremembered. I concede it's also possible he knowingly embellished the truth. The former is definitely not a big deal, but neither is the latter, really. At the end of the day, if he knowingly lied, it was a tall tale that didn't really affect the substance of anything. This is getting blown way out of proportion IMO.

Lie about WMDs in Iraq? Well, at least we got Saddam. Let's all laugh like a penguin.
Lie about which vehicle took fire? OMG GTFO!

Re:A new gig for him

[david_thornley]

Ventura ran for governor, after a fairly successful stint as a suburban mayor. (I knew the city manager of a neighboring city, who said that Ventura made sure he got good advice and listened to it.)

Re:A new gig for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Brain Williams will replace him.

I was thinking that. Brian also has excellent comedic skills, and I know it's just a coincidence, but...

    NBC announces that Brian Williams is suspended for six months...
    Jon Stewart announces the same day that he will be stepping down from his show in six months.

Makes you think.

Re:A new gig for him

[The-Ixian]

Obviously, sir, you have the wisdom of age.

Re:A new gig for him

[The-Ixian]

I kind of think that the problem with politicians is that they are constantly looking to "spin" every situation.
 
I heard gunfire from my hotel room, I have been told that there are snipers all over this area... I could legitimately say we were under fire... right?

Re:A new gig for him

[dywolf]

Human memory is one of the most unreliable things in the world.

Re:A new gig for him

[dywolf]

I actually had just been catching up on lawcomic.net a couple weeks ago, which prompted to read some other articles about eyewitnesses, memory, and the stark contrast between their public perception ("the gold standard" in court) and actual accuracy. id never really thought about it before.

Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

It was probably the creative team beihind which is making all the jokes and getting all the info gathering. Jon Stewart was the head making the repartee. Now granted the techniques was good and the delivery excellent, but are you not overstating a bit much his influence ? Somebody doing a good delivery is what is required. That is much easier to find than the creative idea behind the show. Not to disparage what he did, but the daily show could certainly continue uninterrupted with a good voice delivery actor. Who knows maybe a woman finally...

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Well JS had 17 years to create the show... Kilborn had his "5 questions" segment with the scanners graphic + a few minutes of opening banter, a regular interview, and I think that was pretty much it.

Re:Questionable

[AvitarX]

Wasn't it story of Riki Oh?

Re:Questionable

[AvitarX]

He's credited as executive producer, and according to Drew Carey (he said don't sleep with them for a part on a TV show, they don't have that power), that essentially is an honorific given to the more valuable writers. I think he does a lot more than just read the prompts.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I've seen others try to helm the show (and he gives John Oliver a lot of credit), but Jon Stewart really does the show for me. There have been others who try to do it too, but he cracks me up like no one else. The delivery, the way he skewers, the mocu-headlines. There isn't anything else. The first guy who did the show left after 6 months. Stewart took over, and ratings skyrocketed. It wasn't even supposed to skewer the news at first, but it worked so well when they did it, they just kept going. He is the only bit of truth in American political news. He is the Benjamin Franklin or Mark Twain of our era. (Remember it was Twain who coined the phrase: "pro is to con as progress is to congress").

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and how often he makes references to being in meetings where they were working on material for the show. He's pretty heavily involved in the behind the scenes work and I'm hoping more than anything else that by moving on he just means he'll be stepping down from hosting the show but will stay on as EP. Probably not though :/

Re:Questionable

[laird]

Um, no. Jon isn't just a guy hired to read stuff to the camera, it's his show, he runs the staff that produces the show, and he's responsible for selecting everything that goes on the air. He even writes a fair amount of the material. The bit on camera is just the icing on the cake.

Re:Questionable

[StatureOfLiberty]

Yes,

I'm going to have my gut busting laugh surgically removed and sell it on E-Bay. I'm really going to miss John Stewart. John Oliver did do a great job though. I hope someone can take the helm and keep it going. But, Stewart is a hard act to follow.

Best wishes John Stewart!

Re:Questionable

[dj245]

Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn? Jon Stewart made a huge difference.

No I don't. Mostly because I was 14 at the time and my mom wouldn't let me stay up that late.

Jon Stewart has been a trusted newsman for 16 years. Nobody stays that long as a mainstream news anchor anymore. Mainstream news mixes truth, halftruths, and opinions and presents them all in the same manner. Jon Stewart switches to a different tone (or faces a different camera) when he is presenting jokes or opinions. That's why he is so trusted by young people. I don't have to agree with everything he says, and for a long time, many of his views I don't agree with. But he has the decency to give me hints when he is stating facts vs jokes vs opinions.

Re:Questionable

[monkeyzoo]

It was probably the creative team beihind which is making all the jokes and getting all the info gathering. Jon Stewart was the head making the repartee.

Could be true for the canned material segments, and I've often wondered how much of it came from him directly versus his creative staff. I imagine it is a good collaboration.

But if you look at the live interviews he performs, and especially those with "hostile" guests, you are left with no doubt that this man is gifted with the most incredibly fast-thinking, quick-witted, and humourous mind! I pity the fool who goes up to match wits with him, even when I don't agree with him. His ability to destroy his opponents' arguments with humour and a smile are incredible. Watch his repartee with Bill O'Reilly!

Re:Questionable

[Macrat]

Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn?

Craig who?

Re:Questionable

[monkeyzoo]

Riki Oh?

But yes, John Stewart is the heart and soul of The Daily Show. First, he refers often to the writers' meetings they have about the material, so it's obvious he's not just a prompt reader but someone involved in the writing. Second, his delivery is absolutely unbeatable, and the way he switches between the prepared script and off-the-cuff, let-your-guard-down silliness speaks to his standup background skills. And finally, the way he performs during the live interviews is the part that irrefutably convinces me he is the most quick-witted, fast-thinking man on earth. Even when I think he is wrong in his position, I can't remember seeing a guest who was able to outmaneuver him in a debate to seem credible.

I'm afraid a new host won't be able to recreate the magic. Look at Stephen Colbert for proof. His spinoff is a great success and extremely funny, but IMHO, it doesn't come close to matching the comedy of The Daily Show with John.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

>Jon Stewart has been a trusted newsman for 16 years.

This is a perfect example of disastrous state of media overall, past and present. John Stewart is not, never has been, and never will be a newsman, journalist, or similar. He is a comic who reads the news and offers comedic commentary and political satire. That his show is on Comedy Central should be a hint. He has given interviews on the matter which declare the same. While he identifies himself as a comedian and satirist when convenient (he once noted that his show follows puppets making crank phone calls,) he certain does little to dissuade the perception that he is, as you say, a newsman.

You are correct about mainstream news. The problem is when outlets present their opinions and commentary as news, rather than giving objective information from which you can draw your own conclusion. Some outlets do outright identify commentary as such, but others cloak it in a layer of dramatic legitimacy. This means the informed among us must be able to identify and discern information from opinion.

I suggest you and others acquaint yourself with non-US media and alternate sources of information besides the mainstream media. Once you get above or around the dramatizations and emotionality you can more easily and quickly apply critical thinking skills to draw your own informed conclusions.

Re:Questionable

[uncqual]

JS a newsman? That's funnier than JS on his funniest night -- you're quite a comedian, perhaps you should apply for Jon's job.

Even when Jon Stewart is telling the truth, he cherry picks facts that support both his worldview and that he can spin a gag around. And, for a political comedy show, that's completely appropriate. The problem is, too many people seem to think the Daily Show is a news show just as too many people think any 'fact' Rush Limbaugh states should be considered to be anything but fiction until carefully investigated.

The Daily Show is a comedy show built around a few selected memes that are floating around that day or week. Jon delivers them well and is funny if you can stomach the complete lack of balance and the lack of "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

I stopped watching him because I eventually got too annoyed by his complete misrepresentation (or, perhaps a misunderstanding on his part of the role of law, the role of judicial vs. legislative branches, and the US Constitution) of simple things like SCOTUS decisions of the day which I had already read within an hour or two of release.

The thing I miss the most about no longer investing time in watching the Daily Show is that I no longer instantly recognize the source of the balderdash I hear from friends and acquaintances the next day. It was fun already having formed a devastating counter argument and dismantling their arguments without a second thought. Sadly, sometimes these people live in such an echo chamber that I actually have to help them support parts of their own positions when Jon accidentally stumbled on a good point or two but didn't have the argument to support the point.

Re:Questionable

[funwithBSD]

I hear Brian Williams is available...

Re:Questionable

[Dragonslicer]

I hear Brian Williams is available...

I read a piece this morning that suggested Jon Stewart and Brian Williams switch jobs. Oddly enough, Brian Williams could actually do reasonably well anchoring The Daily Show. He's a better comedian than what people typically see from him.

Re:Questionable

[prelelat]

Jon Stewart made that show, but it's established. The formula has been set and it's a good one. John Oliver showed that a good man behind that chair can carry it on. Jon does do some of the leg work on the show and I hear he still does but he is by no means needed to carry it on anymore. Which probably makes it easier for him to step back from it, enjoy his new freedom and seek new ventures, or even hang out with his family.

Re: Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

#YoungTurks

Re:Questionable

[guyniraxn]

Interesting. I've been watching since the Craig Kilborn days and really enjoyed what Jon Stewart has done with the show but I think he lost his magic a few years ago. I'm excited to see what might be next for The Daily Show.

While Jon has been great, in recent years he's relied on the same self-deprecating and hammy schtick more and more. In contrast, Colbert has been far more clever and quick-witted, packing in more info while Stewart labors a subject with rants that deprive the show of more than one or two news items.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

M'kay... and what 'other' news source would be more grounded in reality? Maybe Fox News?

Oh, that's right... Fox News fell back to the statement that they are 'opinion' so that they could not be sued for misrepresentation of the facts

The truth is that we have gone from the days of Walter Cronkite when any news anchor was expected to give us the straight dope, into a world of spin an shifting factoids

I remember reading my local (conservative) newspaper (end to end on a daily basis) as a kid a realizing that I had to filter out the right-wing bias that the local publisher would insert (they were owned by the Quayle family)

The gen Y's, X's and Millenials have lived so long in a spin induced world that they have learned from the Daily Show how to decipher bullshit mountain and as a result, the show has taught them better critical thinking skills and made them better news consumers than anybody who lets their senses get twisted by buying into bullshit mountain

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

So... you are saying that all of your friends watch fox news?

Re:Questionable

[T.E.D.]

Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn?

Craig who?

Exactly.

Re:Questionable

[Grey Geezer]

Nonsense. The guest interviews were certainly not scripted. His quick wit, knowledge of current events, historical expertise, and the courteous manner in which he made his disagreements (with his guests) are not easily replaced. So much more than "delivery" must be considered when selecting his replacement.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother should have smothered you too.

Stupid fuckers like you are going to be the death of this nation.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

And yet you have all of the integrity to post as AC

I love it when conservative newsfeeds send droves of their minions to boards outside of the 'echo chamber' of bullshit mountain

It makes your right wingers look like the dorks you are in full view of a wide audience, please keep it up

Re:Questionable

[Crazy Taco]

Jon Stewart switches to a different tone (or faces a different camera) when he is presenting jokes or opinions. That's why he is so trusted by young people.

The gen Y's, X's and Millenials have lived so long in a spin induced world that they have learned from the Daily Show how to decipher bullshit mountain and as a result, the show has taught them better critical thinking skills and made them better news consumers than anybody who lets their senses get twisted by buying into bullshit mountain

Wow, just wow. So you are basically admitting that you've given up trying to think critically about things and instead decipher what's true based on what kind of tone people use? So all anyone has to do to get you to believe something is make the right face at you? I'm a millenial, and there are WAY to many people in our generation that think like you and think a comedy show is a primary news source (you probably think that about the onion too... or maybe not because a print paper can't make the proper facial expression at you). But fortunately not all of us have been dumbed down that much.

M'kay... and what 'other' news source would be more grounded in reality? Maybe Fox News? Oh, that's right... Fox News fell back to the statement that they are 'opinion' so that they could not be sued for misrepresentation of the facts

Actually, yes, Fox News would be a considerably better source than a comedy show. They don't just make up facts out of thin air (in that respect they are also significantly better than NBC and Brian Williams). And for the record, they've never said they are an "opinion" network. I don't know where you pulled that made up fact from (probably the Daily Show). Fox News is a news channel that also carries opinion shows like O'Reilly and Hannity. But those are clearly labeled as opinion and you should know that going in. Their actual news shows with Chris Wallace, Bret Bair, Greta, etc, are all real news shows and have never been labeled as opinion.

Mainstream news mixes truth, halftruths, and opinions and presents them all in the same manner.

No, they don't all do that. Just because John Stewart does it for laughs on a clearly labeled comedy show, or just because Brian Williams does it because he apparently has ego problems, doesn't mean everyone else must therefore be lying.

I remember reading my local (conservative) newspaper (end to end on a daily basis) as a kid a realizing that I had to filter out the right-wing bias that the local publisher would insert (they were owned by the Quayle family)

Given your obvious lack of judgement and lack of independently trying to verify facts, one would have to question whether you weren't just filtering out all the things that didn't agree with your preconceived notions.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how quickly people turn to Fox News as a counter-argument for anything regarding the news. Just the same as how people quickly turn to Bush as a counter-argument for anything. Might as well just go ahead and bring up Nazis or Hitler so as to bring a swift end to an otherwise frustrating conversation filled with straw men, diversion, projection, and various distracting innuendos.

The reality is the media are in a complete state of shit. Period. They all suck, it just depends upon the extent of bullshit or bias.

Re:Questionable

[Crazy Taco]

It makes your right wingers look like the dorks you are in full view of a wide audience, please keep it up

And you assume he's right wing because? You don't have to be right wing (I hope) in order to question the judgement of using a comedy show as a primary news source.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

Did you read my original post from which they decided that I should have been smothered?

I suggested that the Daily Show encourages people to apply critical thinking and dig through the onslaught of information in order to develop their own opinions and to avoid the spin of propaganda

At this point in time the largest purveyor of spin and propaganda is fox news, the right wing machine and their offering of bullshit mountain, calling him out (primarily due to their aggressive tone) as a right winger was pretty simple and I would say spot on

Re:Questionable

[fahrbot-bot]

Replace "The Daily Show" with "Fox News", "Jon Stewart" with "[any anchor on Fox News]", and "funny" with "scary/sad" and your points are all still relevant - just sayin'.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the AC you're talking about, but I have posted for the past few years as AC. I can tell you I've been here since around 2000, which only matters because I just can't be bothered to log-in anymore. I didn't actually get an account until much later (I'm only about 200,000 below you) just because for a short period I thought I might participate in the moderation and meta-moderation system. I just don't care to be considered part of a "community" with friends and blah blah blah. I've posted a few times in this article, too.

In any case, the frothing flock-to-post zombies exist on both sides in serious numbers. Neither right-wingers nor left-wingers hold the monopoly on those. Frankly, I can't stand either of them (or the third-partiers and Ron Pauldroids) because they just come in, spray shit all over the place, and leave.

Anyway, nice to meet you, Gary (email not shown publicly,) my name is Alan (email not shown publicly).

Re:Questionable

[sysrammer]

I feel that the most effective gags were the ones where they actually showed video of talking heads. Just last night they had various commentators expressing their admiration for Jordan's king. One or more actually said that they wished Obama was more like him (a muslim king!? Really?). I imagine they could have been taken out of context, but sometimes the statement is the context.

Re:Questionable

[Straif]

The guest interviews are edited to hell and back. The 5 minutes of air time usually results from 60+ minutes of actual interview time.

Re:Questionable

[sysrammer]

I agree. I like Brian when he's off the cuff, or doing other stuff other than news; I find him funny, and often "smart" funny. When he does news, he talks in that slow...clear...Mr. Rodgers voice which bores the hell out of me.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Jon Stewart has been a trusted newsman for 16 years

And therein lies the problem. He's not a newsman and he should never have been trusted. Idiots THINK he's a newsman and therefore trust him. Ever seen him when that his integrity has been probed, ever? "I'm just a comedian!!! HUHR HUHR I'm making people LAUGH!!! Who cares if I'm fudging a bit here or there!?" -- his eternal fallback whenever anyone calls him to the carpet and he's out of one-liners or get-a-loada-this-guy smirks to throw at the camera.

John Stewart Liebowitz never brought truth or clarity to news reporting. He just substituted lies he didn't like with lies that he did like, minus the accountability.

Re:Questionable

[david_thornley]

This doesn't mean that Jon Stewart hasn't been the best newsman around, BTW.

Re:Questionable

[The-Ixian]

I am with you both monkeyzoo and guyniraxn.
 
I think Jon's skill as an interviewer is unparalleled. His wit and charm always impress me. It is always apparent to me that he puts a great amount of thought and energy into the show.
 
However, the dick jokes really start to wear on me after a while. Seriously, try to find a single episode in the last 3 years that does NOT have a dick joke.... I doubt there are any.

Re:Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is the media are in a complete state of shit. Period. They all suck, it just depends upon the extent of bullshit or bias.

So you are complaining about people being close-minded and proceed to show your own close-mindedness. Nice.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

Thanks Alan,
I remember the late 90's when I thought that /. was the actual url (simpler times when I thought that www./.com could be a url, eh?) and then created a username only to abandon it for the simple joy of AC trolling. I decided to make this account when I stepped up from trolling to beating the asshats around and about the head and shoulders with valid opinions backed up with googlicious factoids

I went back to AC posting when beta was foisted upon us and just recently started using my ID again. So, I feel pretty confident calling out some AC that wants to fling poo, and I certainly welcome AC's or anybody to engage in actual discussion... but if you want just fling poo then you had better zip up the ol' flame proof suit and get ready for some fun :)

Re: Questionable

[AvitarX]

The daily show head smashing scene, I assume the ggp thought it was the linked scene in scanners, I'm 99% sure it came from the story of ricky oh, a different movie.

Re:Questionable

[seinman]

6 months? Actually, Craig Kilborn hosted the show for two and a half years.

Re:Questionable

[uncqual]

Where did I say all? And where did I say friends?

Some of my acquaintances seem to watch Fox news and believe it is balanced and accurate, some seem to watch The Daily Show and believe it is balanced and accurate, some listen to NPR/watch PBS news shows and believe they are balanced and accurate.

Re:Questionable

[uncqual]

Indeed. And anyone considering performers on either to be "newsmen" are, IMHO, seriously misguided.

Re:Questionable

[uncqual]

Obviously I didn't see last night's talking heads examples.

However, too often in the past when I went back and found the complete interview or presentation from which Jon Stewart had extracted his talking heads segments, his editing had taken something way out of context to match his meme of the day. Sometimes, of course, they were funny, but the presentation certainly wasn't the work of a "newsman".

Re:Questionable

[uncqual]

To clarify - some of my friends and some of my acquaintances appear to watch Fox news at last sometimes.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

wow, just wow... or should I say 'whoosh'

I'll just assume that you have actually seen the Daily Show, or maybe any American stand up comedy from the last fifty years

The heart of the matter is that media outlets have used the position of Authority to convince the view to believe what they are telling them

In the long distant past you could see Walker Cronkite furrow his brow and tell you, "that's the way it is", and most people trusted the media enough to believe it. Of course it had some weight to it because there used to be some widely accepted journalistic standards that the media was held to

decades have passed and a small group of really well off people own most of the media outlets. There has been a decided tendency for the owners of companies to 'twist' the facts to their advantage, and sadly enough acceptance of the practice

Some media outlets, in particular Fox News, has taken this practice to a higher (lower?) level than their competitors (you can argue that MSNBC does the same thing, while I differ on the degree). Whether it is Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Sustren, or the rodeo clown, they all use (and abuse) a supposed position of authority to rain all kind of 'spun' crud down on the audience to convince them, nay drive them to the conclusions that the media owner wants them to hold, like don't tax the media owner, don't regulate the media owner, etc...

What comedians like George Carlin, Al Franken (and the rest of the SNL team) and John Stewart have done is dig into the heaped on propaganda of the media talking heads and drag out the chunks of lies that the media owner has buried behind tons of nationalistic hubris to expose their true intent

They walk you through it, step by step, and teach their audience to be critical, use external sources and in most all cases Question Authority

Somehow you 'spun' what I said and turned it into the exact opposite. It is the deluded Fox News watcher who accepts Hannity's position of authority, who responds to their bluster and hubris as if it made them more reliable, and who at every turn responds to the emotional button pushing and false praise that propagandists are so quick to use. I would argue that it is the Daily Show viewer who distrusts and analyzes and researches information far more deeply and honestly

I earnestly hope that you are just blowing smoke and that you do not fear cognitive dissonance to the degree that you allow yourself to intentionally misunderstand everything that you are exposed to. My kids and their friends are millennials and few of them have demonstrated the completely 'thick as a brick' approach to being challenged that you have just presented. I still believe there is hope. Shows like the Daily Show that draw an audience and get them to question authority and think for themselves are part of the solution

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

Okay, at least now we can establish that you have friends

I was responding to your claims of super-awesomeness " It was fun already having formed a devastating counter argument and dismantling their arguments without a second thought" by poking a stick at your puffery because it is really, really easy to deflate the claims of the Fox News commentary staff.

If we are talking about the Daily Show, then you are going from refuting misstatements to refuting JOKES about misstatements.

Re:Questionable

[Capt.Albatross]

However, too often in the past when I went back and found the complete interview or presentation...

You fact-check the Daily Show? I think Jon Stewart has had more of an impact on you than you care to admit.

Re:Questionable

[garyisabusyguy]

Oh, and fyi... one of the quotes that you attempted to attribute to me in support your argument
"Jon Stewart switches to a different tone (or faces a different camera) when he is presenting jokes or opinions. That's why he is so trusted by young people."

was made by a different poster, dj245

And so, your entire argument was based on an intentional misrepresentation of the facts, a lie that was so easy to expose as to be laughable

Well played sir, you demonstrate a fool to a degree that others would aspire to

Re:Questionable

[TranquilVoid]

"Trusted newsman" is going a bit far. The problem I have with political comedy is that, to be funny, it has to take an idea to the extreme, which means everything turns into a strawman argument, reinforcing the tribal polarisation of political discourse.

Re:Questionable

[monkeyzoo]

You guys have a point as well. The pace has slowed down over the years, and sometimes he goes on too long. But I still just love the "feel" of the show, the mixture of outrage and humor and improv.

I will be sad because this is the place I go to laugh about something in the news when it has me angry. And even to come up with some Socratic seeds for debate with people who disagree with me on certain issues.

Re:Questionable

[otopico]

You should learn to read more carefully.

Most of the people here talking about the 'interview' are talking about the last segment of the show where a person comes out and talks to Jon regarding something. Those are almost never edited, and as has been mentioned, when they are, they tell you to see the entire interview on the web site.

The 'guest interviews are edited to hell and back' that you keep parroting are in fact the bit segments where one of the show's corespondents go out and talk to someone. Those are so completely and obviously edited, It surprises me that you seem to think no one does.

I would argue that they are edited for comedic effect, especially when it is a guy saying that $2 an hour is a wage for interns and, in his own words, the 'mentally retarded', or a guy that has a state level job of representing a fetus in court, even though the state (my home state to be exact) doesn't provide the same level of representation for already born people, even though the Constitution suggest that everyone in a criminal case has the right to legal counsel. And oddly, the people that seem to complain the loudest are not ones that claim that TDS twisted their words into saying something they did not say, it is almost always people complaining because they didn't think TDS would air them saying that the only people willing to work for $2 an hour are interns and retarded people.

They are upset because their distractions were cut out of the bit and all that was left was a guy saying that people do no deserve to make a living by working. Unless the honestly believe that people can survive on $2 an hour?

One is the interview, the other is a bit carried out by the correspondents; not the same thing.

If you are going to disagree with someone, it would help if you were talking about the same damn thing. Doesn't mean you are wrong or right, just that you cannot talk about something with another person unless you actually talk about the same thing. Otherwise, it just makes it look like you are repeating a phrase because you have nothing substantive to offer in the conversation, or you are not aware that you are not talking about the same thing as the rest of the group.

Just saying.

Re:Questionable

[pugugly]

As a leftie liberal, someone please revert the scoring on the prior post (Currently 0: Troll);

I disagree with him/her, but that is *not* a troll post.

Thank you

Re:Questionable

[pugugly]

"Trusted newsman" is going a bit far. The problem I have with political comedy is that, to be funny, it has to take an idea to the extreme, which means everything turns into a strawman argument, reinforcing the tribal polarisation of political discourse.

Actually, while TDS certainly indulged in fallacies on occasion, the Straw Man argument, e.g. actually misrepresenting the argument someone is making, was something I thought they did a very good job of dodging over the years.

Probably less 'journalistic ethics' than that Straw men don't actually get laughs.

Pug

Jon Stewart 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

#JonStewart2016.....

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[future assassin]

A few years too late http://www.satans.xxx/wtf/colb... I can re do it for 2016 :P

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[dywolf]

Count me in.

Could even go Warren / Stewart 2016 (or Stewart / Warren, w/e).

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[nucrash]

#Stewart-Colbert 2016!

Might as well run that one up the flag pole while we are at it.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Warren seems pretty adamant about not running for president yet. I think she thinks there's a lot of good she can still do as a senator and she can run for president later.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[dywolf]

Colbert being on that ticket would confuse so many people.
"Why is this conservative running with that libtard?"

Heck, could split the GOP vote just from those who don't get the joke.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[dywolf]

I know. But I can dream.

Realistically the democratic party is still controlled by the "new democrats", aka, conservative-lite.

Probably wont see an election cycle go from Moderate Democrat (Obama/Hillary) to Liberal Democrat (Warren) without a Republican in between them.
And I figure that's one reason she's holding off, if she's even actually interested in running.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[Dragonslicer]

I've written them in twice now. When your state is so heavily in favor of a single party, it's not like your vote matters.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when it isn't, your vote still doesn't really matter. 1 vote out of [insert large number here] doesn't do much. Obviously, you can try to influence others and make more of an impact but that still doesn't change the value of your vote.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[The-Ixian]

I don't recall the last time I voted but I would definitely "get out the vote" for JS.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[shutdown -p now]

There won't be a Republican in the White House for a long time to come. Just count the "solid" states for either side based on the last couple election cycles, and see how many need to swing and which way they're more likely to swing to.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Your vote especially doesn't matter when you write in a random name, as it won't even be counted.

Check your board of elections web site to see who the valid write-in candidates are and choose one of them.

Re:Jon Stewart 2016

[dywolf]

My current state doesn't allow write-ins. In fact they'll toss out your entire ballot over it.
Heck, they don't even allow third parties, neither candidates not voters.

In order for a party to be recognized it must have received 10% or more of the popular vote in a previous election.
Now I ask ya, aint that some happy horse manure. The way the states going pretty soon the elections here will be predetermined one-party one-candidate affairs thanks to that law. though honestly it already is like that, as the Primary in the summer is already pretty much THE election, and the one in November is just for show.

How about Conan?

[Anonymous Coward]

He should get Conan O'brian to take his spot. Then 8 months later, take it right back.

Sad to see him go...

[Camel Pilot]

I doubt anyone could replace him. Maybe CK Lewis?

Re:Sad to see him go...

[Ubi_NL]

I hear Brian Williams is not doing anything much these days

Re:Sad to see him go...

[NicBenjamin]

Remember before John Stewart was John Stewart he was a mediocre actor.

So I wouldn't be surprised if one of his correspondents turns out to be pretty good at the job.

Re:Sad to see him go...

[kerrbear]

I doubt anyone could replace him. Maybe CK Lewis?

Do you mean Louis C.K.? If so, I agree!

Re:Sad to see him go...

[Talderas]

Death to Smoochy.

Re:Sad to see him go...

[LaurenCates]

I love CK as much as anybody, but his schtick is "frumpy, schlubby guy who makes funny observations about stuff".

Not sure he could do "news anchor" even in parody.

Re:Sad to see him go...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I wouldn't be surprised if one of his correspondents turns out to be pretty good at the job.

It's already happened three times with Oliver, Colbert, and Wilmore. I see people dissing Wilmore because the show is not Colbert, but it's not supposed to be. The show is designed to be like the McLaughlin Group. When Wilmore does the Stewart-style newsreading in the first five minutes, he's pretty good.

The problem is these talents have already left. Maybe they'll consider Bassem Youssef.

Re:Sad to see him go...

[lennier1]

Wilmore's show is still pretty rough after only a few episodes.
Let's see how it will turn out during its second season when they've had time to work out the kinks.

Bassem Youssef would be an awesome choice. since he's already running the same format in Egypt and his recent visit to the US version more than proved that he's up to the task. I'm just not sure if he'd accept the offer.

Wheres he going?

[rossdee]

So what is Jon Stewart going to be doing now?

And maybe they should just shut down Comedy Central. The two good shows on there were Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Re:Wheres he going?

[iluvcapra]

Comedy Central used to be the network that had Mystery Science Theater and the odd stand-up anthology. And then one day they got South Park, and it became the network with South Park.

And then Craig Killborn was an ass to his boss one too many times, and they hired Jon Stewart, and then Comedy Central became the network with The Daily Show (and later Colbert). And the occasional screening of Mean Girls and nauseating repeats of Tosh.0.

The Larry Willmore show is pretty good and manages to be original despite the general glut of news satire out there right now, but I suspect it's not enough.

Re:Wheres he going?

[_xeno_]

Well, he could always go work at Arby's.

If you watch his actual announcement (why isn't this in the story?), he says he doesn't have any specific plans yet, but he will be doing something.

Re:Wheres he going?

[Kagato]

They really screwed over the MST3K guys. Unless the shows are broadcast on TV the cast doesn't get jack squat. None of the cast gets jack squat for the DVDs and box sets.

Re:Wheres he going?

[Kagato]

Maybe Colbert will hire Stewart to be the Late Show's side kick?

Re:Wheres he going?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Larry as the "Senior Black Correspondent", but his show really is not very good. I have some hope that they will get into a groove and improve, but right now it's nothing special.

And that keeping it 100 bit has to go, or he needs to be harder on the people answering. I think I have seen 3 good responses total from that segment.

Re:Wheres he going?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally... _Death to Smoochy II_!!!!!!

Re:Wheres he going?

[The-Ixian]

www.rifftrax.com

Replacement Co-Anchors

[Anonymous Coward]

Would love to see Samantha Bee and Jason Jones become the new co-hosts of the Daily Show.
They're the most senior correspondents on the show after all.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[zawarski]

You are joking, right? Up until those two, the normal pattern of progression was (1) use the daily show to hone your talent (2) move onto better gig. The fact that are still there speaks volumes about their talent.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Anonymous Coward]

...minor correction, your use of the word "talent" should be in quotes. Double air quotes. With a waggling eyebrow and a tap on the side of the nose.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[garyisabusyguy]

I would argue that Jessica Williams has been fantastic in her interview segments and pulls them off as well as John Oliver ever did.

Her Detroit water piece was magical

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Monkey-Man2000]

You are joking? Samantha and Jason each have had the best segments in recent years with Jason going to Iran, India, and Russia. To the extent he talked with Gorbachev! They would be terrific co-anchors and both have balls of steel.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[flyingsquid]

I don't see how anyone except John Oliver could fill in for John Stewart. Oliver is funny, he's enjoyable to watch, he's political, and the key thing is, he's earnest. Jessica Williams is a name that comes up a lot, and as great as she is, she doesn't have that earnestness that Oliver does, and she doesn't seem to get fired up about issues the same way that Oliver does, or Stewart did. I'd watch a comedy show with Jessica Williams but I don't think she's quite right to head up the Daily Show. She's one of the newer members as well; that may be why Comedy Central didn't give her the Colbert slot. Samantha Bee and Jason Jones? No way in hell that will happen. Samantha's OK but Jason has a grating presence- he pretends to be a dick but when he does, he comes across as actually being a dick. He's got that small, mean laughing-at-you-not-with-you thing that kept Craig Kilbourne from ever going anywhere with the show. Comedy Central clearly feels the same way: he was passed over to fill in for Stewart, and for Colbert's slot. I don't see Larry Wilmore happening either, he seems more annoying than funny and there's just a limit to how much humor about race a largely white audience can handle.

Everybody saw what happened when Oliver took over the Daily Show. Stewart was clearly looking to do other things. Even before this he's seemed worn out and ground-down, he joked a lot about how old he felt, at times he seemed to be going through the motions to manufacture his indignance- I think that's why he bonded with O'Reilly, John Stewart had become a lot like O'Reilly, someone who was paid to go on and pretend to be upset when he'd gotten to the point that he didn't really care that much anymore. And then John Oliver came on and for the first time in years, I actually thought that Daily Show actually was a fun show to watch. And everybody clearly saw that Oliver had that rare talent where you can get him up in front of millions of people, talk about the news, and people laugh and enjoy themselves. HBO saw it and gave him a show and he's proven he's able to headline a show, hell he can even turn net neutrality into comedy.

That's what you want. You want a guy who's funny, who's enjoyable to watch, and can make something as dull as net neutrality funny, and can get fired up about the politics: he actually cares. He's proven that he's all of those things, and none of the other names have. Oliver has the HBO thing, but my guess is that Oliver's agent negotiated some kind of a loophole with HBO so that he could go back to Comedy Central if asked. And the Daily Show is Comedy Central's flagship program. There's no way that they will replace Stewart with an unproven or unknown talent; they have too much at stake to take a chance and gamble with an unknown when they've got a proven talent who can not only do the job that Stewart does, but do it better than Stewart himself. The fact that they haven't named a replacement suggests to me that the deal isn't final, but I'm guessing that Comedy Central is currently in negotiations with Oliver.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[captjc]

Why? Except possibly for money, Oliver has a great gig at HBO. Total creative control, no sponsors to piss off, no forced interview to hock some lame movie or book, and only a half-hour to fill each week.

He would be crazy to give that up to go back to the Daily Show.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[denzacar]

Or maybe it's related to the fact that two of them are married and that they got three kids while on the show?

Meaning that since Jones joined the show in 2005, Bee was on and off every two years.
And having three kids to raise can put a strain on people's marriage and/or career.
As they're still together...

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[LaurenCates]

Yeah, the whole "loophole" thing to go back to CC is just not something I'd buy.

It's HBO. CC may have its benefits, but there's a certain amount of prestige that comes with being on a premium channel and in the company of the original programming it produces. CC would be a huge step down.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[dywolf]

As Colbert said, part of their success came from Stewarts asking them to have an opinion,
instead of going for softball jokes not being afraid to skewer someone.
Part of the appeal of the show, is its willingness to throw the BS flag.
And in so doing, it engages viewers and makes them think deeper than most folks do.

From that standpoint, pretty much any of the correspondents could do it:

Samantha Bee, though her humor isn't always to my taste
Jason Jones, may be the most similar in style, if more abrasive
Jessica Williams, funny but sometimes not as biting as the others
Trevor Noah, I really like the newest member. He really seems not afraid to "go there".

But personally if I had to choose, I'd go with Aasif Mandvi.
He just as funny and qualified as the rest.

But most importantly, he's Muslim, which would provide for years of entertainment from the resulting apoplectic RWNJ's.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[dywolf]

I really like the new guy, Trevor Noah.
I'd also go with Aasif Mandvi.

I love Oliver. But I think his spot at HBO may be the best place for him, because instead of nightly digs at current events, he gets to do real long form journalism, which is truly rare these days. And he gets to combine it with the usual BS/hypocrisy-pointing out. Combing the Daily Show with long form journalism and/or investigative reporting is as useful and important, and possibly more so even, as the informational value of TDS.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[MightyMartian]

I agree that Oliver is the natural choice to replace Stewart. But I'd hate to see Oliver's HBO die. It's a brilliant show that has had some powerful (and excruciatingly funny) segments; net neutrality, FIFA, and my personal favourite, taking the piss out of Dr. Oz.

Still, if a Comedy Central wants the Daily Show to keep working, they need to other Oliver whatever it takes to get him back.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[StikyPad]

John Stewart had become a lot like O'Reilly, someone who was paid to go on and pretend to be upset when he'd gotten to the point that he didn't really care that much anymore.

While I agree that he's certainly ready to move on, I don't think he is (or was) pretending to care about the issues; I think he's just getting a little tired of the format. Do anything for long enough and it gets tedious, and the job is the same every day: read headlines, find irony, make jokes. I would bet he wouldn't have traded any of his time on the show for any other gig in the world, but for all things, there is a season.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Hodr]

If that were true more than 3 people on this earth would give a shit about Bill Maher.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[fremsley471]

Joking about how old and tired he looked, he said that people regularly meet him and say "Jon Stewart!, hey, are you OK?". Can see why he wants to leave and I don't think the Daily Show has faded that much over the decades.

Am reminded though of a show from 2008 with photos of world leaders showing how much they'd altered after their long terms in office. Then he compared W from 2000 to the present day...

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[captjc]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Just because you don't care for something doesn't mean no one else does.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[quantaman]

I think the best choice might be none of the above. I listened to Larry Wilmore on WTF and he referred to Stewart as one of the best straight men in the business, and I think that's an important perspective. Jon Stewart is basically an advocate for the audience and the correspondents are usually his foils.

Colbert's foil character was strong enough that he was able to build a show around it, but the other two correspondents who went on to host were the ones who were able to flip the tables have Jon be the foil to their reasonable outsider perspective (Oliver as the Brit and Wilmore as a minority). I don't think any of the current correspondents aside from Williams are really doing the same, and even Jessica Williams still goes into caricature when doing non-racial reporting.

Bill Mahr could probably do it but he's a bit too controversial and he's a bit to eager to run out on things like anti-vax nonsense. The best bet is either giving one of the current correspondents a straight man role and seeing if they can pull it off, or taking a somewhat known and established comedian and giving them a go.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Anonymous Coward]

Video of Samantha Bee & Jason Jones hosting the show while Stewart was sick this last October.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[The-Ixian]

Except that CC most likely has way higher viewership numbers. A lot more people have CC than HBO.
 
I can see how it could be attractive in the short term to go with a lucrative HBO contract, but you run the risk of dwindling into obscurity since you are no longer a household name.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Anonymous Coward]

You were saying...?

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Anonymous Coward]

One name I heard as an interesting possibility: Amy Poehler

Her Parks & Rec gig is coming to an end. She's got the comedy chops and was on the SNL Weekend Update desk for several years. I think she is super talented and highly watchable.

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[Lost Race]

Tina Fey is 10x better at the news-host schtick than Poehler. What's she up to these days?

Re:Replacement Co-Anchors

[anyGould]

Why? Except possibly for money, Oliver has a great gig at HBO. Total creative control, no sponsors to piss off, no forced interview to hock some lame movie or book, and only a half-hour to fill each week.

He would be crazy to give that up to go back to the Daily Show.

Not enough mod points in the world for this

Oliver on HBO has it made. Weekly vs. Daily means he has time to really dig into an issue. He can spend ten minutes ripping a particular topic to shreds and that doesn't mess with advertiser time. And having no sponsors or ads to deal with means that he can go for the jugular Each And Every Time.

Going back to CC would mean less time to prep, more oversight, and more restrictions. Unless that came with a *really* big briefcase of money (and really, are we counting on Comedy Central to outbid HBO?), Oliver ain't going nowhere.

Jon's plans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for him to run for office in 2016. Who knows which office though.

Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn? Jon Stewart made a huge difference.

Sad Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully whomever they get to replace him will do as good a job of humorizing and skewering this crazy world we live in. Thanks for the laughs Jon!

Perspective

[iluvcapra]

It's pretty clear that Stewart has had a profound effect upon how people born after 1980 get their news. He's probably the US's most relevant and well known cultural critic and satirist. Some people bring up Twain but I'm not sure he's there (yet) -- Rosewater demonstrated that Stewart's got something more to say but he's not ready to go into Mysterious Stranger territory.

On the other hand he's flatly more historically relevant, and has made a more indelible impression than H. L. Menken. Time and other outlets have compared him to Walter Cronkite with zero fucking irony, and it's a fair cop.

Re:Perspective

[jellomizer]

The Daily Show, being a comedy broadcast, is allowed to get away with statements that other "respectable" "news" "organizations" cannot. There is no need to twist the facts as to not insult someone, as they are a comedy show they are expected to insult someone.

While there is a political bias in the Daily Show, at least they don't cover it up like Fox News and MSNBC.

That said, the news in general is too full of politics... There is stuff that is happening, important stuff, that can be covered that isn't in the realm of politics, nor do they need to put a political twist on it.

Re:Perspective

[KermodeBear]

It's pretty clear that Stewart has had a profound effect upon how people born after 1980 get their news.

Terrifying, isn't it? And those people vote, too.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

At least Maddow's show, along with most the others, is unabashedly presented as an opinion show that talks about news.
Whereas everything on fox is an opinion show that pretends to just be about the news. Even their actual "just news" segments editorialize constantly.

Take a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being dead neutral.
MSNBC is roughly a 7 on average (Joe Scar is essentially a 3-6 depending on topic, Maddow a 7, and so on).
In comparison, Fox is a 0.

Or as someone once said, the difference between The Daily Show and Fox news is that TDS admits to being a fake news show.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

Yes, the idea that well informed young voters who care about issues and are aware of the .....shenanigans... of the Right should be terrifying to the Right.

Which is why they keep trying to make it harder for them to vote.

Cause Lord knows, they can't win on the issues.

Re:Perspective

[MooseTick]

Let me guess. You were "born after 1980"

Re:Perspective

[ScentCone]

Which is why they keep trying to make it harder for them to vote.

Oh, please. You mean "harder for them to vote twice" - like, once from their college dorm address, and once from the home address.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains a lot of your inane and ignorant posts/rants.

Seriously, anyone who even watches MSNBC has serious issues with reality.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains a lot of your inane and ignorant posts/rants.

Seriously, anyone who even watches MSNBC has serious issues with reality.

Seriously, I watch it occasionally just for fun... If you just assume they are not telling you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it can be as entertaining as John Stewart's show, in a "this is totally sad" sort of way and it gives you the liberal perspective in an "over the top" way so you can easily recognize it on CNN, where they sometimes try to mask the bias...

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason you are marked as my foe....

There is a well known trend in life, that age and wisdom gained from experience tend to make you more conservative as you get older. Where it is true that most kids today have been raised and trained by the liberally biased system, it is also true that many tend to slide to the right, politically and socially as they grow into adults with families.

But the biggest problem your side faces is the obvious failures of liberal policy to actually make things better for everybody. When "taking from the rich" starts to impact the middle class and the national debt starts to stack up and make it impossible to live on what you make anymore, you can bet these "liberal progressive ideas" will be voted out like yesterday's news. It may take a few decades, but eventually they will see what they've done.

I just pray that it happens soon enough that the damage done by liberal policy will be fixable without another bloody revolution.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

And Fox doesn't ? I present to you the News media scorecards:
http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Right now, you can look at the NBC/MSNBC file and see how that network’s pundits and on-air talent stand. For instance, 46 percent of the claims made by NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

At FOX and Fox News Channel, that same number is 60 percent.
At CNN, it’s 18 percent.

You may wish to reconsider who actually is having a harder time with reality. (Though my theory is CNN's number is so good because they have people like Don Lemon who essentially only say things so bad they aren't even wrong....like the black holes and aliens comments about the missing airliner). After all, MSNBC doesn't have 5 different websites able to generate an entire day's content just off correcting the things they got wrong that day.

So anyway.
Our only problem with reality, is sometimes its depressing.
But at least we still live in it, unlike the majority Fox and its viewership.
(and actually I don't watch MSNBC (dont have cable) so your entire point is a misfire)

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

MSNBC doesnt really cover it up.
It's pretty well known it's a channel meant to pander to the left because the conservative who owns it knows there a market there.
But even so, its really more a moderate channel. a Truly liberal channel wouldn't have Joe Scarbourough and wouldn't hold out Eisenhower as the prime example of where its political sensibilities lie.

Fox: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 11
Mostly True 11
Half True 18
Mostly False 20
False 31
Pants on Fire 9

TOTAL:
Sample size: 127 claims
True - 33.25%
False - 66.75% ... Across the entire network, a full 2/3's of what they say is untrue.

NBC/MSNBC: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 10
Mostly True 24
Half True 22
Mostly False 22
False 18
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 122 claims
True - 44.5%
False - 55.5% ... The NBC's have fallen too.

CNN: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
True 18
Mostly True 39
Half True 21
Mostly False 7
False 11
Pants on Fire 4

TOTAL:
Sample size: 56 claims
True - 59.5%
False - 40.5%
Sample size is only half the others though.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

Like most fraud claims that's pretty much a completely made up thing.
So there is that.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Even ignoring Politifact's well documented bias, there is a huge difference in content. 80% of MSNBC programming is 'opinion' or 'talk show'. This means it doesn't get evaluated for 'truthiness'. This is why Politifact doesn't comment on Al Sharpton's racist rants, or MSNBC anchors suggesting the torture of Sarah Palin.
Fox has the highest news content, so it has more content for Politifact to 'evaluate'.

Re:Perspective

[sycodon]

I'm amazed that people deny there is any fraud when the system is deliberately designed to make fraud undetectable.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

FLASH!

Leftwing "fact check" site supports Left Wing "facts".

News at Eleven.

Re:Perspective

[sycodon]

Your argument is built on a sand foundation

Re: Perspective

[iluvcapra]

Just speaking for myself, I was born in 1979.

Re: Perspective

[iluvcapra]

It's important to point out, that there's nothing necessarily wrong with bias, the real issue should be with inaccuracy. It's not enough to say that this or that news report is biased, you actually have to show how it is wrong.

It was quite common for people to obtain all of their news from biased, or at least "politically informed" viewpoints, news sources, etc. throughout the 19th century and into the middle of the 20th century, and the results were not an utter calamity. people used to be responsible for reading news from several different sources, much like they are now on the Internet, and then forming their own opinions from the consensus, or at least their appreciation of the consensus.

The fetish for "balance "in journalism only started in the 1950s, afternoon national television networks in the United States started airing news broadcast, and the government and activists feared that three national news networks simply didn't give enough opportunities for people to hear a multitude of opinions. Thus, the early journalists who worked in television attempted to create a certain "tone" or ideological conceit that was apparently neutral.

Of course, "balanced" journalism is just as ideologically-biased as anything else, it's simply biased towards the belief that there are two sides to every issue and these two sides are of equal merit. And since the deeper a complex issue is covered, the more likely the reporter's perspective is likely to show through, a "balanced" journalist is likely just not going to delve too deeply into issues. Because, in the end, appearing fair is more important than telling the truth.

in my opinion, a reporter isn't worth his salt unless he has some kind of deep-seated values and beliefs, and the problem with a lot of cable journalism is they simply deny this from the outset, and this leads to bland, uninformative infotainment. Which is why we have TDS.

Re:Perspective

[garyisabusyguy]

People lose brain mass and synaptic flexibility as they age, it makes them easy targets for propagandists who pander to their biases while getting them fired up to vote against their own priorities

Think about all of the aged teapartiers looking like dumbasses with their 'keep yer gubmint hands offa my medicare' signs, having apparently forgotten that medicare itself was part of the social safety net created by liberals and that conservatives repeatedly attempt to destroy medicare (and social security) through privatization

The gop makes effective use of seniors and their tendency to vote en masse, unfortunately the mental state of the aged makes that a bad thing, any revolution will probably resemble the little war prophesied in Logan's Run

Re:Perspective

[iluvcapra]

In other words ya got nothing...

Re:Perspective

[orgelspieler]

Not just after 1980. I was born in 1979, and the only news show I watch is TDS.

Re: Perspective

[jellomizer]

Bias will always happen. However they need to realize that and try to balance their Bias with actual facts, and try to discredit their bais.
Things that normally Piss me off on the news...
1. Percentages: The average doesn't give me any sort of picture. 55% support policy x, doesn't mean much, if that 45% that is against it is really against it and that 55% is lukewarm to it, really matters.

2. Power Words: They use a word that makes you stop thinking and just take it as truth. WMD in Iraq is a "Slam Dunk". As well wording it around to make your bias. Pro-Choice becomes Pro-Abortion or Anti-Life, Pro-Life becomes Anti-Choice or Anti-Abortion.

3. Unbalanced debates: Today we have 4 Star General X, and Y who we pulled out of the big protest.

4. No retract section: A proper news organization should have a section where they retract news that they may have messed up on. Even the best journalist will get bad facts.

Re:Perspective

[david_thornley]

You do realize that that sort of vote fraud is easy to uncover, don't you? And that there are people who try to uncover vote fraud? And there are serious penalties for it? And that we don't hear of that sort of cheating often?

Why don't you come up with plenty of examples of this allegedly common fraud?

Re:Perspective

[david_thornley]

From 1980 on, we see Reagan and Bush running massive deficits, which Clinton brings under control. Then we had the incredibly free-spending Bush years, followed by a really bad crash. Obama hasn't been great, but he is bringing the deficit down.

And you say running up debt is a liberal thing?

Re:Perspective

[DocSavage64109]

You found an article written by Peter Roff to show bias in another organization? I'm sure Peter Roff's article is completely fact based and unbiased.

Re:Perspective

[DocSavage64109]

Your link doesn't show conclusive evidence other than the word "probably" used several times: "...probably has more to do with how the statements were picked...probably has more to do with spinning stories..."

Re:Perspective

[ScentCone]

Why don't you come up with plenty of examples of this allegedly common fraud?

No, I think the shoe is on the other foot, here.

There are plenty of examples, year in and year out, of people being caught (and even arrested and convicted) of doing things like stuffing voter registration roles with fake names. In some jurisdictions, dead voters are surprisingly active. There's no trouble at all coming up with examples of fraud, but there's lots of trouble coming up with examples of "young people being disenfranchised," unless you mean things like "making it difficult for them to vote absentee from their home district and also from their college town."

Who is being disenfranchised when they're not allowed to do both? What's the objection? People bother trying to combat those tactics because there are examples of activist groups deliberately recruiting college students to participate in exactly such double-voting and vote-trading schemes.

Re:Perspective

[j-beda]

Why don't you come up with plenty of examples of this allegedly common fraud?

No, I think the shoe is on the other foot, here.

There are plenty of examples, year in and year out, of people being caught (and even arrested and convicted) of doing things like stuffing voter registration roles with fake names. In some jurisdictions, dead voters are surprisingly active. There's no trouble at all coming up with examples of fraud, but there's lots of trouble coming up with examples of "young people being disenfranchised," unless you mean things like "making it difficult for them to vote absentee from their home district and also from their college town."

Who is being disenfranchised when they're not allowed to do both? What's the objection? People bother trying to combat those tactics because there are examples of activist groups deliberately recruiting college students to participate in exactly such double-voting and vote-trading schemes.

I don't know, 31 incidents from 2000 through 2014 doesn't sound like "plenty of examples, year in and year out"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And, the voter ID laws being passed do not actually address the types of voter fraud that occasionally takes place.

The above article references 3000 voters being turned away in four states due to the tighter voter id laws enacted there. What fraction of those were fraudlent in the sense that they would not have been legal if proper ID was present?

Are the costs of disenfranchising voters a small price to pay in order to not actually stop any fraud?

So, taking the shoe off the other foot - do you now have some evidence to present of this allegedely common fraud?

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

Oh please.

That study has been debunked so many times. You should try reading that "study". Even calling it a "study" is being extremely generous, and disservice to actual studies. That study was nothing but garbage and that article is from a writer for the National Review, hardly an unbiased individual or unsurprising person to be saying "they must be biased, they told us we were wrong". The methodology of the study was literally to see who was rated False more often, and then proclaim that that is obviously "bias", the implied assumption being that both lie equally. That assumption is in no way a given.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

And thus do you prove your own ignorance and denial of reality.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

News flash: you cant vote absentee from your home district and in person at school.

In order to vote in the school's area you have to register.
When you register, your state cancels your old registration, precisely so that you cant vote in two places, student or not.
It's incredibly easy to do because a) computers, and b) the overwhelming majority of people go to school in their home state.
Even for out of state students would have difficulty with this trick, because states talk to each other.
And a fair share of states don't all out of state individuals (student or not) to vote locally.
Unless of course the individual has or is becoming a local resident....in which the individual gives up his right to vote in his old state/district.

So again: you got nothing. You don't know what youre talking about. It's a made up issue.

Re:Perspective

[dywolf]

People become conservative as a trend as they age not because their views change but because the goalposts of society move.
The definitions of the words even indicate that the state of "conservativism" or "progressivism" is a dynamic field that changes over time.

Liberally biased system?
Another revolution to kick out the liberals?

Son, you do know that in 1776 it was the Liberals who fought a revolution right, while Conservatives wore red coats.
As for the middle class....um both major global depressions were caused unchecked uncontrolled capitalism adhereing to conservative ideals. The single greatest period of human prosperity, the period that actually created a thriving middle class for the first time in human history, was a result of liberal economic policies. Capitalism on its own does not create and sustain a middle class. It creates an underclass and a rich class. You fail at even basic history.

Re:Perspective

[ScentCone]

When you register, your state cancels your old registration, precisely so that you cant vote in two places, student or not.

The groups that recruit students to do this specifically look for students who go to school out of state. It's not exactly mysterious. And no, there's no voter roll reciprocity between states, and that's exactly the angle they look to exploit.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet studies show that people that watch the daily show for their news are more informed than people that watch any other news source.

Re:Perspective

[pugugly]

Frankly in my experience Politifact is annoyingly biased in their ratings, against liberals.

You may or may not agree with their articles - I usually *do* agree with the written article. But they will *happily* rate a liberal 'false' because their review shows that 'Yes it's true, but they left this or that context out, didn't mention this exception, yadda yadda' and then do backflips rating a conservative 'halftrue' when the article clearly shows it's not true at all, but 'if you consider that maybe they meant this esoteric way they might have meant it . . .'

I think it's because if they didn't grade on a curve, no conservative would ever read any of these fact-check sites, but my God is it annoying to watch liberals get bounced down one or two stars for minor mistakes, then watch them hem and haw and rate something half-true because there's is some esoteric 13th century use of a word that a conservative *might* have meant.

Our liberal media bias in action!

Pug

Re:Perspective

[pugugly]

Horrible policies like listening to scientists, letting people control their own bodies, keeping the government out of the bedroom, and providing better healthcare to more people for less money.

What horrors will they visit upon us next!

Pug

Leave Oliver Alone!

[Rick in China]

John Oliver has a wonderful gig and his show is fantastic, OP, what makes you possibly consider that as a 'solution' to Stewart's unfortunate departure?

Re:Leave Oliver Alone!

[AvitarX]

John Oliver's show is so amazing because (at least the first few I saw, when I had HBO) it is essentially him talking the entire time. It's amazing to me that it's still compelling. No bits, barely any clips, just him, talking.

Re:Leave Oliver Alone!

[zawarski]

I used to think Oliver was lame. Now I know Stewart just kept a muzzle on him. Oliver is my new Personal Jesus.

Re:Leave Oliver Alone!

[Monkey-Man2000]

FYI, most of his shows are in full on youtube.

Re:Leave Oliver Alone!

[Rick in China]

When the writing is as good as it is - and Oliver is really allowed the freedom to shine in his delivery, that's all that is needed. I've really liked ALL of the key focus segments of his shows, and they're always up on Youtube if you don't have HBO and want to watch it "legitimately". He also makes web-exclusive bits on his channel...strongly suggest subscribing to his channel if you're a fan.

Re:Leave Oliver Alone!

[dywolf]

The Daily Shows bits with the correspondents are great cause they point out the BS in our own world, and especially our own country.
But being a nightly show production time is more limited, as well as air time.

That's why Last Week Tonight is so great.
They get to the same thing, but because they are weekly and an hour long, it's no longer a bit, but actually in the realm of actual long form investigative journalism. This is good, we actually benefit by having both shows. We get a taste of things with the TDS bits, and LWT is then like an entrée that gets deep into one thing every week. This way we get even more informed than better, creating even more people to terrify Faux.

Ding Dong the witch is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Tho John was 1000% better than Colbert I'll say that much. Best of luck to him.

Re:Ding Dong the witch is dead

[LaurenCates]

Agree to disagree here. I liked Colbert a thousand times more than I liked Stewart. I thought Colbert was consistently more polished and better on his feet.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

buthurt much?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah :|

Can read about this on every other website. Can not read about cool tech stuff there though.

Slashdot is the new "Hello" magazine

[mustafap]

I look forward to more articles on Kim Kardashian, lipstick, weight loss, hair replacement.

Go the new Slashdot!

Re: Slashdot is the new "Hello" magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, every bloody article we get something like this pretentious rubbish.

Slashdot is not nor has it ever been exclusively a technology news site. "News for nerds" includes politics nerds too (as well as many other types for that matter). Love him or hate him, Jon Stewart has political hegemon these last 16 years. His departure is significant and will be a sad moment in television history. It is news that matters.

I, for one, salute him and wish him well in all his future endeavours. He will be missed by many and the 2016 race will not be the same without him at the helm of the show.

Re: Slashdot is the new "Hello" magazine

[pugugly]

Hah - in *my* day we used Raw HTML, parsed in binary!

Joh Stewart and Brian Williams going on tour

[aristotle-dude]

The show will be called "Paul Bunyan and Me".

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[garyisabusyguy]

Maybe Stewart is going to enter the singularity and become a permanent part of the IoT

Stewart.

[fyngyrz]

I think the answer can be found in the interviews. He's responsible, well informed, and brilliant.

Sure, there are writers and they prepare the bits, but I, for one, think Stewart is the heart and soul of it.

We'll see what happens after he's gone -- that'll tell us a lot, too.

Re:Stewart.

[Straif]

The interviews are one more heavily edited than the corespondents pieces so I wouldn't trust them for either accuracy or as a proper representation of Stewart's brilliance. The "5 minute" interview often takes over an hour and is then edited down to get the best couple of questions.

It's like shooting a shell full of birdshot into a hen house; sure you'll probably end up with some chicken for supper but it's not in any way an accurate representation of your hunting ability.

 

Re:Stewart.

[T.E.D.]

The interviews are one more heavily edited than the corespondents pieces so I wouldn't trust them for either accuracy

Clearly you don't watch much (or perhaps don't pay attention?) Whenever they have to edit content from the interviews, they tell the audience and make the full interview available online (URL posted on the broadcast). The edit breaks are *really* obvious too.

If anything, the interview segment at the end is the most trustworthy interview segment you will find on television.

Re:Stewart.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the answer can be found in the interviews. He's responsible, well informed, and brilliant.
Sure, there are writers and they prepare the bits, but I, for one, think Stewart is the heart and soul of it.

Agreed.

With all due respect for the hugely entertaining John Oliver, one only needs to look at a few of the interviews John Oliver did when he was stepping in for Jon Stewart on the Daily Show to see how much better Jon Stewart handles interviews.

The way Jon S. asks follow-up questions and latches on to something being said (either by a well-thought question or something funny) stands in stark contrast to the way John O. mostly follows scripted questions.

This is probably also the reason why John Oliver's show on HBO did away with interviews altogether.

again ?

[Torvac]

wasnt he gone for some time 2 years back ? something is wrong.

Re:again ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, getting tired of doing the same thing over and over again? That kinda sucks if you are creative.

Re:again ?

[NoKaOi]

He was gone then because he was making a movie.

An old fashioned jester.

[TapeCutter]

Somebody doing a good delivery is what is required. That is much easier to find than the creative idea behind the show.

Yes he is acting, but he's certainly not your average "news reader" reading everything from the autocue, it is HIS act, we have similar act here in Oz, but Stewart is the original and still the best. Aside from the ad-lib involved in his act, I'm pretty sure he would have full veto power over the script and who in the "creative pool" should be hired and fired. IMO he's the smartest and funniest act to come out of the US in a very long time, a true "jester" in the original medieval sense of the word. If people who can pull that off are a dime a dozen where you live, I want to move there.

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[StikyPad]

If people who could pull that off were a dime a dozen here, The Daily Show wouldn't exist. ;)

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[dywolf]

Who is the local act there in Oz?
I've become more interested in these foreign shows that do TDS bit with their local regional issues.
It's a great way to get people to acknowledge, address, and even just think differently about their issues, and thus get a better understanding of them.

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Somebody doing a good delivery is what is required. That is much easier to find than the creative idea behind the show.

Yes he is acting, but he's certainly not your average "news reader" reading everything from the autocue, it is HIS act, we have similar act here in Oz, but Stewart is the original and still the best.

Hey, don't sell yourself short, mate.

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mad as Hell on the ABC?

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaun Micallef's Mad As Hell

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[Anonymous Coward]

A guy called Shaun Micallefe, the show's name is Mad as Hell.

Possibly a bit more surreal than your Stewarts and Colberts

Re:An old fashioned jester.

[TranquilVoid]

we have similar act here in Oz

I assume you're talking about Micallef, but I think there's a difference. Mad As Hell shows no obvious political leaning, it's more deconstructionist/Python humour than political satire, it just happens to use political news as its basis.

A closer show would be the now defunct The Roast.

compare Jon Stewart to Brian Williams

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

I heard he was leaving because he was caught telling the truth...

Oh no!

[nospam007]

Is he running for President?

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only hope... Can you imagine John and Hillary on the debate stage together during the primaries? Then can you imagine how much of a chance he'd have in the general? Now THAT I'd like to see...

Yes please

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we as a society all grovel at Jon Stewart's asshole some more? Because Comedy-fucking-Central and their smarmy shows are my life man. You all sound like that female tool in that Dish commercial -- "We love Jon Stewart. We LOVE Jon Stewart!!!" O-M-Grrrrrrrr orgasm!

No.

[denzacar]

Oliver is fine doing his own "Stewart wannabe" show.
There he can be as opinionated and as biased as he wants, his fans will think he's funny and even insightful.
But you can forget him replacing Stewart on the Daily Show.

Cause while Stewart will coast into false equivalences and non sequiturs and even ad hominems for comedic effect - he still always works from a sound and reasoned out perspective, which makes him insightful.
And that practice is what makes people actually turn to that show for their news.
Which might seem kinda insane, but then again...
If you want someone to point out flaws in the logic you're being fed AND explain why it is so in simple, easy to understand terms... who else is there?

Oliver on the other hand is blind to his own flaws.
He does an entire segment on pandering and how it is bad - and then keeps doing exactly that in his other segments.
He doesn't think through or research his segments as thoroughly nor as dispassionately as it is needed, and he loves to preach.
Which makes him a pale copy of Stewart and half a step away from becoming a left/liberal/SJW/whatever version of O'Reilly.

Granted, there is audience for that, but that is not the Daily Show audience.
Put him on as Stewart's replacement and he'll kill it.
Off.

Re:No.

[dcw3]

I'm glad I read your response before posting my own version of basically the same. While Stewart can play to both sides of the political spectrum (even though he clearly leans toward the left...and please don't start down that BS road of none of American politics being left...it's left from an American viewpoint), Oliver completely abandoned even the moderate right. Stewart often has guests with opposing viewpoints, and I don't recall Oliver doing that once during his fill in period. That's great for those of you who want to have a left wing circle jerk. I, on the other hand, would prefer someone who lets us laugh at all the idiocy in politics, not just one side.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol you clowns.

Re:No.

[The-Ixian]

yeah, they could get the DJ 3000 to replace JS....
 
"Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again.... what a bunch of clowns..."

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

13 August 2013: John Oliver interviews Rand Paul. I don't know if you'd consider him "a left-wing circle jerk"...

For the rest of his term - well, check the record for yourself. I don't think you can credibly argue that his guests were significantly more left-leaning than the show's usual roster.

The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[sjbe]

It's pretty clear that Stewart has had a profound effect upon how people born after 1980 get their news

I agree and while I'm older than that I'm very much a fan of his work. I think he and his team provide a breath of clarity and sanity to the news media. The only thing that annoys me about Stewart is his continued insistence that he is somehow not delivering news and isn't at least in part in that industry. I think that is false and frankly somewhat disingenuous of him. He knows or should know that lots of people listen to what he has to say precisely because it is news - just delivered more cleverly than most. While he isn't doing live reporting of events, he is very much providing editorial analysis of the news very much like that at CNN, Fox, MSNBC and even newspapers. In fact he goes further by providing commentary about the news making process itself which happens far too seldom. News organizations tend not to be very self reflective and when they are they tend to be overly self congratulatory. Stewart and his team have done a masterful job of pointing out when news organizations (especially Fox News) are spouting bullshit.

I wish Mr. Stewart well in whatever he does in the future. I think the world has been made a better place by his efforts.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[Anonymous Coward]

While he isn't doing live reporting of events, he is very much providing editorial analysis of the news very much like that at CNN, Fox, MSNBC and even newspapers.

Well, news flash (heh) - That's not news, and in fact conflating it with news is one of the very things that he harps on.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[StikyPad]

To be fair, it's not really a primary news source, since they don't do much of their own research, excepting correspondents who tackle actual stories for a piece. What they do is consume other news media, and then comment on the biggest or funniest stories. That's not to say one can't glean enough from watching the show to be conversational on a variety of topics, but it's much closer to an editorial than journalism.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[Anonymous Coward]

Editorials aren't news, or at least they shouldn't be considered news. That's why they are distinctly called editorials and not news. Unfortunately, our current mainstream news has completely blurred the distinction for the almighty.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[penguinoid]

The only thing that annoys me about Stewart is his continued insistence that he is somehow not delivering news and isn't at least in part in that industry. I think that is false and frankly somewhat disingenuous of him. He knows or should know that lots of people listen to what he has to say precisely because it is news - just delivered more cleverly than most.

And every time he calls his show a "fake news show" it is a good kick in the nuts to the supposedly "real" news shows. It's not even as though he has an unreasonably high standard for journalists -- it's just that every mainstream "news" outlet has become nothing more than an entertainment show with an emphasis on current events... much like the Daily Show, only less funny.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[DutchUncle]

Stewart is *not* delivering news; he is delivering commentary on the news, and commentary on other people's reporting of the news (particularly when people contradict themselves). To provide background for that commentary, he must mention the original news or original reporting. The fact that people don't even bother listening to the original news because they're content with whatever Stewart and his staff have edited from the day's firehose of information does not make Stewart a news source, and his insistence on that is what makes his editorial slant acceptable.

Re:The only thing I dislike about Stewart

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he normally makes the statement as a reference to the poor state of "real news shows". The Daily Show is primarily an entertainment show that draws material from current events. It has become a lot more about news in recent years due to Jon Stewart, though.

Craig Kilborn

[jfdavis668]

They finally realized their mistake in replacing Craig with John Stewert, and are bringing Craig Kilborn back! Now we will have 5 questions again!

Re:Craig Kilborn

[Kagato]

Kilborn did 5 questions when he hosted the Late Late show. I used to think Kilborn was playing this self absorbed D-Bag host (think of it as a pre-Colbert), but after seeing the longer format interviews on the Late Late show (not to meant ion the blow up with Liz Windstead), I'm not sure if it was an act.

I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Since he was generally referred to as that hip, edgy, young comic that appeals to college kids. That's was a problem when he was 40 but now he's in his 50's. (Getting old sucks btw) I'm wondering how his demographics are now. I wouldn't be surprised if to the college crowd he's now "The guy my parents like"

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[TFlan91]

Nope, still, and always was, that guy college kids watch.

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[StikyPad]

Only within the past few months, really:

Q1 2013: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/...

Q1 2015: http://variety.com/2015/tv/fea...

I was wondering how much longer Stewart would stick around after Colbert's departure though. It's not the same without Colbert as the follow-on, and I haven't bothered to watch the replacement.

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[dywolf]

Give it a try. The Nightly Show has a different format, more along Bill Maher's type. He monologues for only about 5 minutes, then goes right to a panel discussion. Each show is built around a single topic though, instead of touching on all current events. It's decent, I like it

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[T.E.D.]

My son (a college Sophomore) still audibly bitches when Stewart goes on vacation.

For the record, back during the Regan + Bush Administrations when I was in College, I had a similar devotion to Carson and Letterman. Neither of them were exactly spring chickens at the time.

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[T.E.D.]

The Nightly Show "keeping it 100" bit is IMHO precisely what any show with a public figure on it desperately needs: some way to induce people to cut the safe prechewed canned crap and say what they really feel, and hold them to ridicule *to their face* if they refuse. I've completely quit listening to most politicians, because you know exactly what they are going to say already. Why bother, if I can write their statement for them already?

As an example, its probably fair to say the host Larry Wilmore is naturally inclined to be a fan of NJ Senator Corey Booker. So cut to episode 2, when he threw an entire handful of teabags in Corey Booker's face and said "weak tea" for giving a politician-style answer. It was one of best experiences of my (nearly 50 year) TV viewing history. It was like something I'd been missing my whole life and didn't know it had just been handed to me.

Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did

[pugugly]

I'm enjoying 'The Nightly Show' - his format does kind of the John Oliver thing of getting a *bit* deeper into a topic than TDS or the Colbert Report could do in their format. It works well for Larry Larry Larry - {G}.

Pug

Same Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

NBC News and The Daily Show.

How do you tell them apart?

NBC News isn't as funny.

Irrelevant

[sycodon]

Craig Ferguson is much funnier than either Job or Stephen.

There's nothing really funny about people who make shit up, make fun of people based on their made up shit, and then try to suggest they are so much smarter than everyone else.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Aighearach]

Why is slashdot talking about celebrities who have nothing to do with tech?

Ethics in journalism

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

aww, running out of hate material?

[Anonymous Coward]

gonna be hard to keep blaming everything on non DNC sources when Hillary is in office, and the DNC is in primary control of Congress again. So rather than be anything but a DNC shill, he's gonna cut and run.

His interviews will be missed

[Kwyj1b0]

What I liked most about his show were his interviews. Yes, as a satire show he often showed absurdities in the political process, but the segment that made it special for me was his interviews.

While he did bring on celebrities from the media (film starts, bands), he brought on a lot of serious/reputed guests and gave them a chance to speak. I can honestly say I actually learned something from his show. While Colbert had interviews too, it seemed to me Colbert always tried hard to work jokes in to the interview instead of having a more serious conversation.

John Oliver also has a issue of the week in his show - serious issues peppered with light humor, but still informative. If he got guests on his show, it would be a great alternative to Jon Stewart's show.

Re:His interviews will be missed

[DutchUncle]

The interviews show the true range of Stewart's abilities. He can talk to silly stars or serious people, and everyone in between, each at their own level, and give each an opportunity to shine. And clearly he's read up on each guest's work and background, even when he self-deprecatingly pleads ignorance.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Jon Stewart is leaving...

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

...to the great relief of conservative pundits and politicians.

Re:Fascinating. I have the complete opposite opini

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sincerely feel that David Letterman is any better than Jon Stewart, when the two of them do the same damn thing, except Jon Stewart mixes in real news, while Letterman only lets his political leanings show every few shows instead of every other show, then I'm sure your opinion really matters. Comedy is subjective, but that doesn't mean any of these three people are less popular, or any less useful in their own niches.

It's still news

[sjbe]

To be fair, it's not really a primary news source, since they don't do much of their own research, excepting correspondents who tackle actual stories for a piece.

Doesn't matter that it isn't primary source material. They still are reporting on issues of the day to people who potentially have not heard about what they are saying. It's still news even if it contains opinions.

That's not to say one can't glean enough from watching the show to be conversational on a variety of topics, but it's much closer to an editorial than journalism.

Of course it is editorializing. But that still is a subset of journalism.

Re:It's still news

[StikyPad]

Of course it is editorializing. But that still is a subset of journalism.

Sorry, I meant reporting. Editorializing is not reporting, and I would argue that conflating the two, often deliberately, is one of the biggest problems with modern journalism.

Here's Stewart's own explanation, though:

http://theweek.com/articles/44...

The Daily Show IS a news show (among other things)

[sjbe]

Well, news flash (heh) - That's not news, and in fact conflating it with news is one of the very things that he harps on.

The hell it isn't. You think a broadcast pointing out that another news organization (Fox News usually) is twisting the facts isn't news? They report on all sorts of events of the day. Get a clue. The Daily Show IS a news show. The fact that it is on Comedy Central is irrelevant. The fact that they do a lot of satire is irrelevant. The fact that they make fun of the conventions of news shows is irrelevant. The simple fact is that at the end of the day they report on topics and present facts, often with an editorial viewpoint. They report on real facts and generally provide a serious (albeit funny) take on world events including how those events are reported.

I respect Mr. Stewart tremendously but I think any claim that The Daily Show isn't also a news show is completely false.

Rush Limbaugh, 21st level troll

[TiggertheMad]

The problem is, too many people seem to think the Daily Show is a news show just as too many people think any 'fact' Rush Limbaugh states should be considered to be anything but fiction until carefully investigated.

Funny how that is. it's almost like Rush has established himself as such a ridiculous troll with all the stupid shit that he says, that nobody even bothers to listen to him anymore, aside from his sad clique of followers. At this point in his career, he might come up with a plan that would insure perpetual world peace, but nobody would bother to listen to him be cause of his track record.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Larryish]

This is news for nerds. Nerds tend to be free thinkers. Jon Stewart's show serves that crowd.

Jon Stewart, he da man!

the admitted source of fake news

[lippydude]

@damn_registrars: "Considering how much he - the admitted source of fake news -"

I thought he told the truth through the medium of comedy. Does anyone serious consider Faux News as 'fair and balanced'?

Re:the admitted source of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem I had with the show is that they often did the same thing 'Faux News' did, just with the opposite leaning. I orignally loved them for "telling the truth", until I saw more and more segments misrepresenting things I actually knew more about or was close to myself.

I was actually pretty crushed when I realized they were just the other side of the same coin, and quit watching completely*. If they want to be better than Fox, they need to actually BE better.

*Also I tended to shout, "FUCK YOU JOHN MCCAIN" when they talked about him. I was getting so sick of Republican crap that I hated even seeing comedy bits mocking them.

Re:the admitted source of fake news

[lippydude]

Anonymous: "Problem I had with the show is that they often did the same thing 'Faux News' did, just with the opposite leaning."

Calling out hypocrisy, bullshit and blatant lies doesn't necessarily make you a liberal :)

Jon Stewart vs. Fox News: 10 brutal takedowns that have us missing him already

Re:the admitted source of fake news

[sysrammer]

Funny link. (warning, ads, of course).

sr

“The facts have a well-known liberal bias” Rob Corddry

Commie to a news station near you

[Anonymous Coward]

This like means that another commie is coming to a news station near you.

He's not dead yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just leaving the Daily Show. It's extraordinarily unlikely that he'll just disappear from the national debate scene. Whatever he does next, I expect that he will continue to make Fox News uncomfortable. In my personal fantasy scenario, he runs for office and becomes #45 :-)

I can hope.

[AntEater]

I'm hoping that this is happening so that we can have a Stewart and Colbert ticket for president in 2016. It would be nice to have someone I could feel good about voting for.

Brain Williams is perfect fit, eh?

[__aanbvm4272]

I personally would love to see Brian Williams as the talking head there. He is a natural comedian and it shows.

Craig Ferguson?

[stereoroid]

Drew Carey's Mr. Wick recently left his Late Late show, where he replaced a certain Mr. Kilborn, so he's available. Could work ... unless you think there are already too many Brits on US TV?

Re:The Daily Show IS a news show (among other thin

[Areyoukiddingme]

I respect Mr. Stewart tremendously but I think any claim that The Daily Show isn't also a news show is completely false.

Completely false, but necessary for collecting all of those Emmys.

Illuminati puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to see for most people but Jon Stewart and Colbert are illuminati puppets doing their bit for the New World Order. They sold out long ago. A

Re:Fascinating. I have the complete opposite opini

[monkeyzoo]

To each his own. Respect. My dad, who I tried to turn on to TDS, ended up liking Colbert better.

Ironically, I give Colbert some debits for the same reason you cite: "too much of the same thing," namely, his always being in his character and never serious.

John, for all his self-deprecating, really does run a serious show with a political message. I would say that message is orthogonal to the Republican-Democrat split and more accurately a critique of the corruption and disarray in our system of government. Yes, he does take conservatives to task more often than liberals, but he does take plenty of swings at both equally, and if you look at his audience demographic (under 60, generously!), that is probably reflective of their general proportion as well.

Won't Miss Him. No, I'm Not GOP

[forbin_meet_hal]

Despite a few flashes of brilliance, all that he did was peddle smugness and laugh lines to fellow Manhattan liberals. While it's true that he often caught the mainstream media sleeping, he kept jumping back and forth between "Take me seriously!" and "My show is on after a show about prank-calling puppets!" whenever it suited him. Of course, i can't express this opinion without someone reflexively yelling "FOX NEWS!! BRIETBART! KOCH BROTHERS!!" In a way, Stewart is at least partially responsible for the fact that "persuasion" and "argument" is today simply defined as "successful soundings into the right echo chambers."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Daily Show IS a news show (among other thin

[samwichse]

It's the meta-news.