Yeah. That's something I heard discussed the other day. How, even though the media can be incredibly conservative, the Republicans will never be able to match comedians making fun of them. If people see that most of what comedians, Daily Show included, although making fun of something, most of it is true...
I love the Daily Show. The episode on the day of Michael Jackson's acquital is one of the funniest half hours I've ever seen. I've always thought of Jon Stewart as an equal opportunity comedian. True, he focuses the brunt of his bile on the Republicans, but he can be just as devestating when he turns his gaze on the Dems. I'd be surprised if he tones his attacks on the White House down after Hillary's elected in 2008. Believe it or not, my own opinion is that liberal humorists don't even come close to the conservatives. Please, someone, point out a liberal columnist who packs the punch of Mark Steyn or James Lileks (who actually claims to be a centrist leaning right on war issues).
Jon Stewart has never struck me as partisan. Did anyone see Thursday night's show with Howard Dean? It was one of the funniest in recent memory.
Maybe he is perfectly equal, the Reps are just screwing up more than Dems? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hillary....no comment. See, but you are going to see that side of it because those are the columnists that you are in tune with. A liberal can just as easily argue the other side of that argument, because that's what they think. You are only saying that because you agree with them and probably talk about them with people who agree with you and them. JLocke
I actually watch the Daily Show for the interviews. On the mainstream news channels, you get talking heads yelling at each other and the interviewer interrupting the person being interviewed every time they say a sentence they don't like. Stewart actually lets his guests talk. I saw one episode the other day where he literally didn't even make a joke until the very end. Usually whenever he has political figures on, he simply lets them talk. It's way more valuable than anything you ever get to see on the "real" news. He seems to have an equal number of people on from both the left and the right as well.
The show just seems to be mostly anti-establishment in general. When Clinton was in office, the bulk of the humor was about him. For one, it's just easier - after all, the administration in power is obviously going to be a bigger target, they've gotta' put themselves out there a lot more. When it comes down to it, though the show undeniably has a bit of a liberal slant, but then that's just because the cast seems to be a bunch of reasonable human beings. They don't feel the need to demonize gays, they don't like being lied to for war, and they are critical of the games of politics and mass media in general - these are definitely some healthy characteristics.
Agreed. I think it's a combination of factors that lead to Stewart's skill as an interviewer. First and foremost, he's way smarter than most major media news types, and everybody knows it, including his interviewees. Second, he's not trying to protect his own reputation as a "serious reporter" so he's free to ask questions other people feel they have to skirt around, and his intelligence comes into play here: he asks tough questions, but couches them in a way that makes them funny and disarms the interviewee. Third, I think he's a little amazed that some of these people, the major political players, are coming onto his little cable comedy show and really opening up about their politics, and that sense of amazement keeps him a little humble. And fourthly, getting back to his intelligence again, he knows when to shut up and let someone tell a story, while he's mentally building a comedic take on what they're saying. His jokes are being written on the fly, and he knows that a big laugh at the end of the interview is worth twice as much as a bunch of little half-funny interruptions.
I think entertainment types generally lean to the liberal perspective, so it doesn't surprise me that the cast might follow this trend. They do a good job of not demonizing the generic bogeymen of either of the main political persuasions to too great a degree, always taking care to indicate that their presentations are satire. And they're always funny to me, even when I disagree with the thrust of the jokes.
Seriously, folks. I know you guys have must have favourite humour writers on the Left. I honestly have no idea who they are, outside of the big comedian bookwriters like Carlin and Franken. Can anyone point me to a weekly columnist who is considered funny by lefties? I hate to bring Coulter into this, but is their a Coulter of the Left you could point me to?
I often only watch Jon Stewart's segments, including the interviews. And Lewis Black of course. The other comedians just aren't as funny. Jon Stewart is a genius. Actually, I guess he really does have a high IQ. Parade magazine today listed 50 people who they considered to be among the most intelligent of the past few generations and asked people to vote. Jon Stewart was right in there with Stephen Hawking, Pablo Picasso, Jane Goodall, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
I agree. Because Stewart's show isn't a "real" news show, he can ask tough questions because he doesn't have to worry about coming across too harshly or anything, since he's not a "real" reporter. Likewise, his guests can be more open about their views because they're not on a "real" news show, so they don't have to strictly adhere to a party line like they would on other shows. So the Daily Show, despite not being a "real" news show, is ironically the best one out there. It's really what the "real" news shows should be like. Try to watch an interview on FOX or something. The instant the person starts to say something that doesn't agree with the viewpoint that the network is trying to force upon the viewers, they get interrupted. If the person interviewing you doesn't agree with you, you can't get a sentence out. I've seen segments of Stewart's show where the guests will just talk for five, six minutes on end, no interruptions. He won't even make a joke or anything. It's far more valuable than anything you'd ever see on any of the "real" news shows.
Right. He may interrupt to clarify something, but he always lets the guest talk, regardless of if he agrees with them. Even if he doesn't agree with them (i.e. Bernard Goldberg just recently), he still lets them get their point across, and provides a VALID counter-argument which he clearly states is his own opinion, as opposed to these other news show where they'll interrupt, change the subject, or even flat-out tell you that you're wrong with no facts to back it that assertion with.
Now that we've all sang the praises of the daily show, and I admit I've been watching it since that other guy was host, did any of you see this interview regarding the Bush policy in the middle east? So here we have Jon admitting Bush was right, and a democratic operative hoping for failure in the middle east as well as rooting for North Korea and Iran. P.S. Welcome back Sciforums! Without the constant exposure to liberal orthodoxy I get on this site, I've been drifting further and further to the right.
Senator Rick Santorum to be on the daily show next week. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Boy this should be good! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Daily Show is hilarious. Jon Stewart does occasionally take sides with the Republicans, but all he really does is find bullshit that politicians and famous people spew. We love him here in Canada. I haven't been able to frequently stay up late to watch him though, I though it was reruns in the summer... I guess not. Anyway, he asks the tough questions in a blunt manner when he interviews people. I liked the episode where he compares England's presidential race to the USA's. The English Prime Minister was being asked tough questions about his platform while George Bush was at one of those "town hall" sessions where liberals were basically banned.
To think Bush can take credit for a small step towards democracy in Lebanon is ridiculous. I wish it were true, but it's not. The Syrian secret police are as strong as ever there. There's civil war in Iraq. The Taliban haven't been destroyed. Osama is free. This is a war of intelligence, not a conventional war, and Rove committed treason in destroying a major CIA operation on terrorism. Our main enemy is within, and it's not the liberals.
I can't tell from your post: is the ridiculous thing giving credit to Bush, or the idea that Lebanon has moved toward democracy? Your first sentence leans toward the former, the rest of the paragraph toward the latter. I'm sorry, but a Google news search for "Rove Treason" doesn't bring up anything but satire and left-wing blogs, followed by news items that quote assorted people alluding to the possibility that treason was committed, which doesn't mean anything. None of it mentions "major CIA operation{s} on terrorism", and to be honest this is the first time I've heard Plame's work thus described. Please provide more details.
