Jon Stewart Leaving 'The Daily Show' 277
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...
Who will take credit first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who will take credit first? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cc.com]) The problem with Stewart is he isn't all that even handed.
Re: (Score:3)
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 certa
Questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn? Jon Stewart made a huge difference.
Re:Questionable (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't mean that Jon Stewart hasn't been the best newsman around, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you remember the daily show back when it was run by Craig Kilborn?
Craig who?
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
An old fashioned jester. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
If people who could pull that off were a dime a dozen here, The Daily Show wouldn't exist. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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:Questionable (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 oppo
Re:Questionable (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Stewart. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I hear Brian Williams is available...
Re: (Score:2)
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: Who will take credit first? (Score:4, Funny)
Craig? Is that you?
A new gig for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he can replace Brian Williams.
It is still okay to dream, isn't it?
Re:A new gig for him (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe Brain Williams will replace him.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [cc.com]
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid... [cc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Jon Stewart 2016 (Score:5, Interesting)
#JonStewart2016.....
Re: (Score:2)
A few years too late http://www.satans.xxx/wtf/colb... [satans.xxx] I can re do it for 2016 :P
Re: (Score:2)
Count me in.
Could even go Warren / Stewart 2016 (or Stewart / Warren, w/e).
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
#Stewart-Colbert 2016!
Might as well run that one up the flag pole while we are at it.
Re:Jon Stewart 2016 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
How about Conan? (Score:5, Funny)
He should get Conan O'brian to take his spot. Then 8 months later, take it right back.
Sad to see him go... (Score:2)
I doubt anyone could replace him. Maybe CK Lewis?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hear Brian Williams is not doing anything much these days
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Death to Smoochy.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt anyone could replace him. Maybe CK Lewis?
Do you mean Louis C.K.? If so, I agree!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wheres he going? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 despit
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, he could always go [twitter.com] work at Arby's [twitter.com].
If you watch his actual announcement [youtube.com] (why isn't this in the story?), he says he doesn't have any specific plans yet, but he will be doing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Colbert will hire Stewart to be the Late Show's side kick?
Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
And Fox doesn't ? I present to you the News media scorecards:
http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com]
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 thi
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is built on a sand foundation [usnews.com]
The only thing I dislike about Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
The Daily Show IS a news show (among other things) (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Terrifying, isn't it? And those people vote, too.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Like most fraud claims that's pretty much a completely made up thing.
So there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed that people deny there is any fraud when the system is deliberately designed to make fraud undetectable.
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [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 di
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. You were "born after 1980"
Re: Perspective (Score:2)
Just speaking for myself, I was born in 1979.
Leave Oliver Alone! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Joh Stewart and Brian Williams going on tour (Score:2)
again ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He was gone then because he was making a movie.
compare Jon Stewart to Brian Williams (Score:3, Funny)
I heard he was leaving because he was caught telling the truth...
Craig Kilborn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, still, and always was, that guy college kids watch.
Re:I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Only within the past few months, really:
Q1 2013: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/... [thefutoncritic.com]
Q1 2015: http://variety.com/2015/tv/fea... [variety.com]
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: (Score:2)
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
His interviews will be missed (Score:2)
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 inter
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Replacement Co-Anchors (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If that were true more than 3 people on this earth would give a shit about Bill Maher.
No. (Score:3)
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.
Whic
Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 an
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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:Why is this on slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe Stewart is going to enter the singularity and become a permanent part of the IoT
Re: (Score:2)
Why is slashdot talking about celebrities who have nothing to do with tech?
Ethics in journalism
Re:Why is this on slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is news for nerds. Nerds tend to be free thinkers. Jon Stewart's show serves that crowd.
Jon Stewart, he da man!
Re: (Score:2)
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.