The Daily Show

Any of you see the episode w/ former NFL running back Robert Smith as the "guest"? Smith was promoting a book he (possibly co-)wrote about the dangers of hero worship, and JS was softballing him questions straight from the one-sheet as if he didn't read the book (or, as it seemed to me, had no interest in having Smith as a guest). Smith seemingly wanted to get in depth about the book's subject matter, but sounded just a bit pedantic when reiterating his thesis (which is the stock response re: "athletes shouldn't be heroes" Barkley's been offering since Smith was in Tuff Skins & headgear). After a few blah questions, Smith tried to call out JS on his not having read the book, which I think JS fessed up to. And the interview became VERY contentious - Smith acted like he got Stewart on something, and Stewart was just bemused as if it wasn't worth the effort to even engage in this cat & his self-important ponderous horsesense - it turned into an awkward posturing bout, wherein Stewart just played out the string until it was time for commercial. The "D" word wasn't said, but it was probably on the tongue.

It almost seemed as though politicians (& folks tangentially involved in politics) used The Daily Show as a pulpit prior to the election because they were afraid / in awe of its supposed power, which Stewart at once both plausibly denied - in interview after interview where he'd offer the "this is a COMEDY show" line - and gleefully exploited (re: giving low & mid-level BS artists the business when they'd come on the show toeing the company line).

Now that the election's gone, it seems as though some of the show's supposed cred (which was probably overvalued prior to November) has been lost in a sort of "stock correction", and folks w/ political capital are happy to accomodate. The results of the election seemed to solidify & reinfornce the "it's just satire" stance of the show to its detriment - regardless of the stance of the folks invovled with the show (whether they felt they were exacting change or just making w/ the hyuck-hyucks), seeing Bush & the Republicans win the popular vote (& win on other fronts, like the gay-marriage / gay-union issue) had to have been humbling. The first few post-election shows (reporting on the results & the direct aftermath) seemed a lot more resigned and fatigued than the biting, scathing stuff that was offered in previous months.

In other words, the cat's out of the bag, declawed and neutered, and everyone that was afraid of it is ever-so-glad to make it purr and preen as they see fit.

i guess that's neither here nor there but it gets my goat see

These days I get the sense that Stewart thinks these types of interviews are beneath him and the show, and as a result takes a contemptous and disinterested attitude towards the interviewees. Which would be okay if his interviews with the big fish weren't so disappointing, I guess.

I don't want to say he's cowed by or in awe of these high-profile guests, but it seems the show's so intent on not presenting a bias (which is there, I think, despite what they claim) that stuff that should be called is left uncalled. (This has happened, to some degree, when he's had neo-conny folk on, though I don't mind it so much - he lets them have their say, primarily free of any slant or bias, allowing them to dig their own grave, & even shushes the crowd when the start groaning.) (Of course, he also shushes the crowd when they whoop it up for anyone w/ a pro-liberal stance.)

It's like he's protesting the SHOUT SHOUT antics of Crossfire by going to the opposite end of the press-show spectrum and just offering his show as a bully pulpit for bigwigs to offer their positions. Which, actually, I don't mind so much sometimes, as it actually allows me a chance to hear opinions & ideologies different from mine free from the "this is bad! protest NOW!" filter I usually learn about these things through.

really, i'd rather stewart not leave the interview process to 5 minute soundbite propaganda. making ppl expand on argue for & defend their opinions (NOTE this does not mean "SHOUT SHOUT" and never did before murdoch etc got their grubby hands in the biz) instead of just voicing them free of strife into the void is what political (and political satire obv equals political regardless of what stewarts gonna say) interviews are for. they also mean hgiher ratings.

Stewart has never been this dull or one-dimensional, or to use your words, dumb and boring, and no one here is asking him to be.

Stewart actually made showbiz celeb interviews watchable by his lack of respect for the template ... if the guest is in on it too (Paul Rudd), better still.

So you prefer a "hey we're all friends here" approach, where alarming lies go unremarked? Where has anyone suggested that Stewart "preach" by the way!!? I feel like you guys are talking to someone else, not on this thread. Is this why the American news media are such sycophantic brown-nosers, because tough questions are considered preaching or lecturing or god forbid "having an agenda"? I don't want Stewart to preach, and I don't think he'd be very good at preaching. He's a fool, and he has a special license to reveal the folly of his masters. He should use it.

Besides lampooning O'Reilly, the king of the cable TV opinion shows, he's sending up people such as Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough and Anderson Cooper, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050503/ap_en_tv/tv_comedy_colbert

Roll on September.

I like Colbert's shtick in SMALL doses, and more in the taped stuff than the studio. He's on TDS too much already. Four half-hours a week? Not for me.

OMG, I thought I was going to need CPR.

tonight's guest is U.S. Senator Rick "The frothy mix of shit & lube that's sometimes the product of anal sex." Santorum!

the characters have the rounded look of lowercase arial.

Gay marriage and government.

Stewart kept asking why the government should get involved in marriage. While personal relationships are private and they really aren't anyone's business, marriages are a LEGAL INSTITUTION and to wonder what business the government has in legal institutions is to wonder why the government even exists at all.

"Can you legislate ideals?": This question is so dumb it almost doesn't even deserve mentioning. How does Stewart think civilized societies even function if nobody is restricted from doing anything they want? Does Stewart think the government should fund schools on sex education that will teach kids how to go about with their sexuality? Would he have a problem with a government school program that endorsed and encouraged homosexuality? Does he have a problem with legislating ideals he agrees with like that? The double standard is quite large. Only when his own ox is gored (in this case the government not putting homosexuality on a bar with heterosexuality legally) does he take offense at "legislating morality".

Homosexuality and raising children: "Wouldn't it be better if two wonderfully educated homosexuals raised a kid than if a kid is raised in a broken heterosexual home filled with drug addiction and violence?"

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000593.php

"How can we say our culture was better fifty years ago when we treated black Americans horribly?!"

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000664.php

Stewart is much smoother and plays the verbal sleight-of-hand better than Santorum but his arguments and logic won't hold up upon closer examination.

WTF? how the fuck is this to be "endorsed?"

but conservative-libertarians-having-a-problem-with-Jon-Stewart shocker, etc.