Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Television Media

Daily Show Production Team Nets Creative Freedom 272

gremlins writes "Jon Stewart, who recently celebrated his sixth anniversary with "The Daily Show" and was a rumored possible replacement to Dan Rathers, has signed a deal which allows his production team, Busboy Productions, to develop televison projects on their own. The deal also allows Busboy Productions to flirt with other networks when looking for a home for the projects. Comedy Central still gets the right of first refusal for any projects created."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Daily Show Production Team Nets Creative Freedom

Comments Filter:
  • That's great (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:45PM (#11719266)
    But why is it on Slashdot?

    (No, it's not even in the politics section.)
  • Freedom? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:47PM (#11719279)
    I don't think the article says that the TDS team gets any freedom... they're just getting funding to do spin-offs.
  • by Prophetic_Truth ( 822032 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:55PM (#11719327)
    John Stewart, while very funny, definatly wears his politics on his shoulder. Stewart speaks his mind and has openly supported one political party over the other. The CBS anchor job requires a neutral position, so that the newscast is not agenda driven like Foxnews or CNN. Dan Rather was actually good at hiding his political beliefs, I doubt Stewart could be as successful.
  • by Koiu Lpoi ( 632570 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {iopluiok}> on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:57PM (#11719333)
    That's true, wasn't there some survey done not too long ago, showing Daily Show watchers more in touch with reality than others?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:58PM (#11719338)
    Dan Rather? Good at hiding his beliefs? When?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18, 2005 @09:59PM (#11719343)
    To imply that Jon Stewart is a journalist and a replacement for Dan Rather is a gross mischaracterization and sad commentary on the state of news media.

    Jon Stewart is a comedian! The Daily Show is a comedy show! He is far from objective although he is hilarious.
  • Jon Stewart rocks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:05PM (#11719371) Homepage Journal
    First and foremost, I should link to the last story [] Slashdot ran about Jon, slamming the media's coverage of the election on CNN's Crossfire.

    That out of the way, I would like to encourage people to watch The Daily Show [] even though it comes on at 11pm EST (it also reruns at 7pm EST the following evening). Even those of you who reject it outright as Left Wing BS.

    Pause for a moment and try to listen to what the man has to say in as unbiased a way as possible...thinking of him as a standup comedian might help in this regard.

    Over time, you'll realize, that he indeed makes a lot of sense. Atleast when compared to the lameass corporate-owned media which the populace considers as mainstream (and factual) news. In his own, sarcastic and comedic way, he puts forth "politically incorrect" news items, which the popular media outlets are unwilling to touch, or willing to slant to suit their ends.

    Give it a try. Thank you.

  • by jesdynf ( 42915 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:09PM (#11719399) Homepage
    Dan Rather was actually good at hiding his political beliefs, I doubt Stewart could be as successful.

    Just because it's viciously slanted is no reason not to trust him -- after all, you know how far to trust him. What's to worry about?

    Even someone pretending to be neutral has agendas you can't see, can't know, and can barely even guess at. Pressure from corporate owners? Pressure from sources for favorable reports to ensure future access to the source?

    Stewart's /fake/ news show is quite literally the only one I watch. I rely on newswires for everything else. I'd have no more reason to distrust Stewart as a real newsguy than I would any other -- less, actually.

    I hope to God that Samantha Bee falls down a well, though.
  • News for Nerds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:31PM (#11719514) Homepage Journal
    Last year an interesting story ran amok in the media about how _Daily Show_ watchers were beter informed than Fox News watchers. Geeks are better informed. The _Daily Show_, as a parody of news shows and the news, is for news geeks. We're such geeks that we can't even notice this basic fact without asking one another for clarification. Welcome to the club.
  • Rather not. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Capt_Troy ( 60831 ) <tfandango AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:37PM (#11719872) Homepage Journal
    I'd rather not see Stewart dishing out real news. He's perfect where he is. I doubt CBS would allow him to do the satire that comedy central does, and that's the strength of the Daily Show.
  • No kidding (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @12:16AM (#11720113)
    I mean that one comes as a huge "duh". On his interview on C-span Stewart joked about that how you get a green screen and one shot of Baghdad and wham, you have a reporter in the Middle East. I even recall an episode where two reporters that were supposed to be in different parts of the world started areuging and eventually went after each other, back and forth between the two boxes that were supposed to be the different camera angles, it was hilarious.

    However, I'll give the guy some credit. The Daily Show does news so well (or perhaps it's just that normal news is done so poorly) that some peopel do take them more seriously than they should. They start to think the funny is just a hook, and it's a new program.

    No, actually, it's a talkshow, just like Letterman or Leno. Starts with the monologue, goes to the feature, then the guest, then out. It's just a little shorter than the big ones. The news program is just their angle on it, their fun format. All talk shows do a topical show, it's what people want. The Daily Show jsut pretends to be a news show while they do it. That they actually do a good job covering current events is just evidence of the quality.

    So I can give people a little credit for confusing the format with the aim, but it's still pretty stupid.
  • by BorgCopyeditor ( 590345 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @12:36AM (#11720217)
    I wonder whether you think it is possible to report news critical of the Bush administration's policies without becoming "partisan." Or do you suppose that "the facts have an agenda"?
  • Interview (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @12:51AM (#11720292) Homepage
    The one Slashdot interview I'd LOVE to see would be a John Stewart one.

  • by mr100percent ( 57156 ) * on Saturday February 19, 2005 @09:52AM (#11721821) Homepage Journal
    The biggest political partison on the air? Not Bill O'Reilly? Not Michael Savage? Not Ann Coulter? Jon Stewart is not a journalist, right?

    95% of his guests were Kerry shills? Ed Gillespie? Fareed Zakaria? John Leguizamo? Samuel L. Jackson? Kevin Spacey? Jude Law? Desmond Tutu? Bill O'Reilly? Jerry Seinfeld?

  • Re:Daily Show Rocks! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by demachina ( 71715 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @07:27PM (#11725159)
    "It's not so much that they pick weak candidates, but that they run incredibly weak, hamstrung, castrated campaigns"

    Nope. The cause of a weak campaign is a weak candidate. If he is so gutless he can't run a good campaign it is 100% his fault, he is the chief executive of the campaign.

    Its kind of obvious Dean would have had guts to run a serious campaign, he probably would have been destroyed by Rove and the media, and would have lost too but at least it wouldn't have been as pathetic as Kerry. There was a delightfully complex set of forces that set out to destroy Dean just before Iowa and they were successful. I'm sure it included some Democratic fat cats, party bosses and insiders who were ticked at Dean for circumventing them, it included the media who for whatever reason decided to destroy him. It included Dean himself who stuck his foot in his mouth. I wouldn't be surprised if it included Karl Rove, he probably in fact did fear Dean because he had a backbone and an organization which no other Dem candidates did.

    "1) increase minimum wage by x amount"

    That will get you the votes of progressives who are stuck voting for the Dems anyway or throwing away their votes on Nader, and people who actually work for a minimum wage, students, illegal aliens, high school dropouts, ex-cons, etc. and believe it or not almost none of them vote. You will be sure to lose the vote of anyone who employs people who work for minimum wage, i.e. restaurants, bars etc. It is a noble goal but you wont win an election on it. Its something a liberal would do after winning an election if he could get the votes in Congress.

    "2) increase troop pay and benefits"

    Don't think that is a viable issue for a Democrat to run on. Only people that care are those in the miliary and their families. The enlisted men either vote Democratic already or are probably hawks and firmly Republican, officer corp is very Republican. I doubt its going to swing any votes and is going to cost you an arm an a leg. Jacking up veteran's benefits might win you some votes at a high price, but you might still lose them because Dems are painted as soft on the military. I imagine if you won and actually made sure soldiers actually had armor on their humvees and trucks they might vote to reelect you overwhelmingly. Just promising it in a campaign would go in one ear and out the other. Republicans have been promising it for years and still not delivered.

    "3) $150 billion for infrastructure (creates jobs and gets rid of pot holes "

    Well I'll give you that spending it on infrastructure is better than wasting it in Iraq but your not going to win a lot of votes with it. First off its socialism and the money is mostly going to disappear in to the pockets of corrupt construction companies, unionized labor, and mafia controlled concrete companies. Look at it this way, $150 billion would pay for about ten iterations of Boston's "Big Dig". When all the money was gone you would be skewered for all the fraud, waste and abuse just like the "Big Dig" was.

    "4) increase REAL domestic security, not just hassle guys named Mohammed at airports"

    Easy to say, nearly impossible to do. Terrorists and insurgents always have the advantage because they can pick the soft spots. Unless you turn the U.S. in to a totalitarian police state its unlikely you are going to ever actually increase security. Israel is a tiny place with a oppressive security presence and they still can't stop attacks, especially suicide attacks. Maybe you could win some votes but you are just going to waste the money in a different direction than the Republicans.

    "5) redo the Bush tax package, and make a cut on payroll taxes this time."

    Well that one would be popular until Medicare, Social Security and unemployment run out of money. I'd agree it is criminal to be raking in surpluses from payroll taxes while Congress and the President redirect them in to defraying the deficits from tax cuts for the rich. In theory the su

BLISS is ignorance.