Slashdot Mirror
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...
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Maybe he can replace Brian Williams.
It is still okay to dream, isn't it?
#JonStewart2016.....
He should get Conan O'brian to take his spot. Then 8 months later, take it right back.
I doubt anyone could replace him. Maybe CK Lewis?
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.
Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn? Jon Stewart made a huge difference.
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.
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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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?
Wasn't it story of Riki Oh?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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").
The show will be called "Paul Bunyan and Me".
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Maybe Stewart is going to enter the singularity and become a permanent part of the IoT
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
wasnt he gone for some time 2 years back ? something is wrong.
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I heard he was leaving because he was caught telling the truth...
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.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
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...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
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.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
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.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
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!
They finally realized their mistake in replacing Craig with John Stewert, and are bringing Craig Kilborn back! Now we will have 5 questions again!
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"
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!
Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn?
Craig who?
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
If that were true more than 3 people on this earth would give a shit about Bill Maher.
Why is slashdot talking about celebrities who have nothing to do with tech?
Ethics in journalism
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hear Brian Williams is available...
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
So... you are saying that all of your friends watch fox news?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn?
Craig who?
Exactly.
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.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
...to the great relief of conservative pundits and politicians.
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
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.
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
This is news for nerds. Nerds tend to be free thinkers. Jon Stewart's show serves that crowd.
Jon Stewart, he da man!
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.
I stole this Sig
@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'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
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.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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'.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
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.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
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.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
This doesn't mean that Jon Stewart hasn't been the best newsman around, BTW.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I personally would love to see Brian Williams as the talking head there. He is a natural comedian and it shows.
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?
(this is not a
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.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
6 months? Actually, Craig Kilborn hosted the show for two and a half years.
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.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Indeed. And anyone considering performers on either to be "newsmen" are, IMHO, seriously misguided.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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".
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
To clarify - some of my friends and some of my acquaintances appear to watch Fox news at last sometimes.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Tina Fey is 10x better at the news-host schtick than Poehler. What's she up to these days?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
"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
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Hah - in *my* day we used Raw HTML, parsed in binary!
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
It's the meta-news.