The Daily Show is lame. Lame, lame, lame.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Did I mention that it's lame? I've tried really hard, but I must say that I don't find Jon Stewart funny at all. I don't know why. It's not the politics, I think that Leno and Letterman are funny when they take shots at the politicians. I'm sure that the topics could be funny, but not the way they address them. The correspondents could be funny, but they come off like the dweebs on Weekend Update on SNL. It's like the Onion, and I don't like that either. The Onion is far too obnoxious for me.

Robin loves the show. She watches it (and the equally unfunny Colbert Report) every night. I can't stand them. For me it's like watching Law and Order, over and over and over again. It's just grating.

Given the well-known enjoyment that most people on the SDMB get from the Daily Show I know I'm in for it as soon as I hit submit, but I don't care. I can't stand the show, I turn it off every chance I get, and it's because of this that I am seriously contemplating locking out Comedy Central for all eternity.

P.S. Bring back Kilborn. Today.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I like Stewart, but I don't particularly like the field reporters or the reports they file unless it's about some hapless fool with a weird vocation. Since I'm not into politics, I usually skip the interview if it's with some political pundit or author (unless it's a major political figure like Dole, Gore, or some such).

I'd rather have white hot knitting needles jammed in my eyes than watch Stephen Colbert.

Kilborn is where he belongs - in obscurity. Smarm can only take you so far (see also, Dennis Miller).

[II Gyan II]

Was this meant for the pit?

Stewart can make some funny jokes, but his basic delivery of humor is not well-polished. In fact, few times when I had thought he made a good subtle joke, he spoilt it by going on and becoming explicit. Even Conan is somewhat guilty of the same.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

No, it wasn't meant for the Pit. I figured that since I'm taking on a sacred cow around here I'd cover myself by putting it here. :)

[Evil Captor]

No, it wasn't meant for the Pit. I figured that since I'm taking on a sacred cow around here I'd cover myself by putting it here. :)

I think TDS is hilarious, though less so with Colbert gone. Still, no amount of your saying it is lame will make me thing it is lame. And no amount of me sayng it is funny will make you think it is funny. So we shall have to agree to disagree.

[Marley23]

You bas- oh. Cafe Society.

I think of the show as essential viewing, and I catch it almost every night. As far as Jon's delivery goes, here's the way I see it: he was sharper in his earlier years on the show, when he was more like a newscaster and TDS was more of a parody of news shows. These days, it's less polished, and the show has ceased to be a parody newscast. Now it's a sendup of American media and political culture. That was Jon's vision, as far as I can tell. It's made his delivery less sharp, and he's settled into what he does. But those changes are also what's made TDS such an influential show, and even if mugs for the camera a lot more, it's part of why the show has lasted. I doubt those observations add up to anything, but there you have it.

And I think their current batch of correspondents is weak. Colbert was the best (and I watch him almost every night as well), and Helms and Corddry have both stepped up some - but they're not on as frequently, and some of the others are duds. They've had other duds, but it seems like there's been a bunch of turnover lately with Colbert gone and Samantha Bee doing the baby thing.

[Larry Mudd]

I think that Leno and Letterman are funny...Sorry, I don't think there's any hope for your sense of humour.

;)

[Scupper]

It's like the Onion, and I don't like that either. The Onion is far too obnoxious for me.

So sad. I feel for you. It's like my utter inability to appreciate Lost.

[Gladstone]

"According to Jim" has been on, continuously, since 2001. This proves, once again, that it takes all kinds.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

"According to Jim" has been on, continuously, since 2001. This proves, once again, that it takes all kinds.

...and Full House was on for EIGHT YEARS!

[initech]

To each his own, I guess. But to me the Daily Show is the finest satire anywhere, and the most consistently funny, intelligent and informative show on television. The only show I enjoy more is the Colbert Report.

[Cerowyn]

At the risk of contradicting the OP on his own opinion*, I think it really is Jon Stewart's politics that makes the OP not like The Daily Show. It's hard to imagine a more popular lightning rod for the anti-right wing element in the U.S. right now, so Stewart is pretty much the Anti-Airman Doors. ;)

* Because, after all, someone should really know their own opinion better than me, right? Usually, I'm loathe to do that, but I think I'm right in this one case.

[Rodgers01]

It's long been a guilty secret of mine that I don't particularly like the Daily Show under Jon Stewart. People feel so passionately about it that I hate to bring it up. Once in conversation I mentioned it to a female friend, and the temperature instantly dropped 50 degrees -- turns out she was a die-hard fan.

My biggest problem is with Stewart himself. He's constantly mugging to the cameras, and I get the impression that his success has gone to his head. He seems to want to be taken seriously until someone challenges him, and then he instantly retreats behind the "it's all just a fake show" routine. He's not particularly good as a comedian, and he seems to specialize in that type of incessant irony and sarcasm that I find more wearying than funny. I usually watch the Oscars, but when I read that he's going to be hosting this year, I'm not so sure anymore.

The correspondents on the show are by far the best part for me, though I don't watch it regularly enough to be able to list any particular favorites.

The Colbert Report, on the other hand, I find hilarious. Admittedly I've only been watching for a couple weeks and I'm afraid the formula will wear thin, but for now I love it, and find it far funnier than The Daily Show. Colbert is a far better comedian -- and satirizer -- than Stewart in my book.


The Onion is funny, Leno is not, and Letterman was at least when I used to watch him in the early 90s.

[Digital Stimulus]

** rubs eyes **

** mugs for the camera **

Whaaaaah?

[TJdude825]

Let's see, you don't like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or the Onion. You do like Letterman and Leno. Are you from some kind of parallel universe messageboard that's like the sick and twisted Satanic analogue of SDMB?

Seriously, though. You're entitled to your opinions, just don't expect me to understand them.

[TJdude825]

Oh! And Law and Order? I thought everyone in the world liked Law and Order. Live and learn...

[Ellis Dee]

Most of the time it's so-so, and the rest of the time is an even split between unbelievably funny and painfully awful. IMO, the unbelievably funny stuff is so good that it merits me keeping the show on my must see list, despite there being plenty of duds to wade through.

So it's not crazy talk you're spewing here. And I'm speaking as a huge fan of the show.

Also, 90% of the time, there is no point to watching anything past the first commercial break.

[Argent Towers]

Let's see, you don't like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, or the Onion. You do like Letterman and Leno. Are you from some kind of parallel universe messageboard that's like the sick and twisted Satanic analogue of SDMB?

Seriously, though. You're entitled to your opinions, just don't expect me to understand them.

There's definitely a divide between the hip, sarcastic, and liberal-minded humor (Onion, Stewart, Colbert) and the more mainstream, less political late nite shows like Leno, Letterman, and to some extent Conan O'Brien. Some people prefer the former, and others are really put off by the smugness and sarcasm of it.

[BlackKnight]

Just out of curiosity, Airman - have you read "America: The Book", and if so what did you think about it?

(In case you don't know, "America: The Book" is the book created by the Daily Show people in the form of a parody of a civics textbook.)

[Liberal]

It's a pretty lame show.

[flodnak]

This proves, once again, that it takes all kinds.Flashback time: It's autumn 1986, I'm a senior in high school, and the girl who sits beside me in homeroom is on the yearbook committee. She tells me, excitedly, that they've chosen the theme for this year's yearbook: "It Takes All Kinds". "What do you think?" she asks.

"It doesn't take all kinds," I protest, "we just have all kinds!"

It wasn't the first time I was accused of having an attitude problem.

Anyway. Completely off-topic. I've never seen a full episode of The Daily Show, but I generally like the clips they put on their website. And I thought "America: The Book" was very very funny, and I recommend reading it shortly after reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for maximum effect.

[neutron star]

At the risk of contradicting the OP on his own opinion*, I think it really is Jon Stewart's politics that makes the OP not like The Daily Show. It's hard to imagine a more popular lightning rod for the anti-right wing element in the U.S. right now, so Stewart is pretty much the Anti-Airman Doors. ;)

Actually, I'm more inclined to take Airman at his word on this one. Conservative though he may be, I think that he's been proving more and more over the last couple of years that he can keep an open mind on even the most divisive hot-button issues. He's also not afraid to admit when he's wrong.

These are traits that one can't help but respect, and I could name more than a few of us liberals on the SDMB who don't even come close to living up to them.

I think that Argent Towers is the closest to the mark on this one:
There's definitely a divide between the hip, sarcastic, and liberal-minded humor (Onion, Stewart, Colbert) and the more mainstream, less political late nite shows like Leno, Letterman, and to some extent Conan O'Brien. Some people prefer the former, and others are really put off by the smugness and sarcasm of it.

Peronally, I'm a big fan of TDS, but I'll readily admit that not every episode is pure gold. Then again, how could they be? When you do 160 shows a year, there's bound to be a lot of crap in there.

I'll echo the recommendations of others for Airman to check out "America: The Book." It is, hands down, the funniest thing I've ever read, and I found its style of humor to be significantly less acerbic than TDS.

[ddgryphon]

I'll wade in -- I like TDS, but don't think of it as essential viewing. I find it pretty hit or miss. I think Stewart himself does a pretty good balancing act of cute and sarcastic. I once heard someone make the statement to the effect that, "TDS is the only news show I really enjoy watching." part of me hopes that was in the sarcastic vein of TDS, part of me worries that it isn't.


It isn't lame (SNL for the last 20 years or so, that's lame, Full House-that's lame), it is pretty good, funny, and obviously a good time for th people making it.


Oh, and I'd like to point out to Cerowyn that the opposite is true as well: Those on the left find it generally funnier than those on the right. You probably like TDS BECAUSE of the politics. Let's face it, embarassing as it was, Dennis Miller's show had its moments--few though they were--and was reviled by those on the left because of the politics involved. Of course, it was lame, quite unlike TDS, which is mostly good to sometimes great.

[Gladstone]

She tells me, excitedly, that they've chosen the theme for this year's yearbook: "It Takes All Kinds". "What do you think?" she asks.


Did they already use the theme "What are ya gonna do?" (preferably along with a stick figure shrugging)?


It's not the politics, I think that Leno and Letterman are funny when they take shots at the politicians. I'm sure that the topics could be funny, but not the way they address them.

I'm just curious as to why the topics are not funny because of the way Jon or the correspondents address them. Is it because of the smugness and sarcasm that Argent Towers referred to?

[Johnny Angel]

I find the show pretty consistently hillarious. I show clips of it to my rhetoric class because the bits on the show are often pretty good little educational films about media criticism, promoting through fake news segments an understanding of the nature and use of talking points, spin doctoring, sloganeering, stonewalling, ect. They frequently show clips of politicians saying one thing ("It's pretty much a slam dunk") and later denying it ("I never said that").

I don't think that Jon Stewart is copping out when he says, "We're just a fake news show," although he knows damned well how influential he is. I believe that mantra is an attempt to avoid taking himself too seriously. If he did, I think the show would suffer for it. They get away with their biting political satire because they'll also spend five minutes riffing off of a congressman's use of the word 'taint.'

[Liberal]

I don't think that Jon Stewart is copping out when he says, "We're just a fake news show," although he knows damned well how influential he is. I believe that mantra is an attempt to avoid taking himself too seriously.But how can that be? If he didn't take himself seriously, why would he feel it necessary to make such a disclaimer. On the other hand, if indeed he knows how influential he is (as you say he does), then how can he ingenuously pretend that he isn't with a mere pithy phrase? It would be like Ingrid Newkirk demuring, "We're just a conservation organization."

[Snickers]

I really like the opening section of the show, Jon's "monologue," as it were. These are usually consistantly funny. The reporters, less so - I find these to be hit or miss, with more falling in the miss category. And the interviews really depend on who's being interviewed - some of these can be misses as well. So, when I watch, I pay close attention to the monologue, tune out the reporter's sections unless they're good, wait for the interview, then tune it out it it's not going anywhere.

I will admit that I haven't been as loyal about watching it as I was in its first few seasons. And I'll also cop to not being especially surprised that Airman doesn't like it.

[Podkayne]

The phenomenon of the influential comedy news show isn't unique to the Daily. On the Media (http://www.onthemedia.org/otm021006.html) did a story on "Eretz Nehederet" or "A Wonderful Country," a current-events satire program in Israel. Brooke Gladstone kept pressuring the writers to agree that they went beyond entertainment to influencing the events of the day, especially in their treatment of political candidates. Mostly they just laughed it off until one grudgingly admited, "With power comes responsiblity—"

Laughing, one of his colleagues immediately interrupted with, "Are you Spiderman, now?"

[WordMan]

To each his own. I love it. When it's working, it is poignant and funny. When it isn't working, I can look forward to tomorrow's ep.

I sometimes feel like it is the one lone voice of sanity out there - looking at the crap that gets shovelled in our direction - from conversvatives, from liberals and from the media - and pointing out how we are being spun. Or how clueless each of these groups can be...

[WordMan]

from conversvatives

And maybe even from conservatives, too... :smack:

[What Exit?]

TDS is one of the few shows I really look forward to and enjoy.
I was very disappointed that last night was another rerun.
I can't explain it to you, it is a matter of choice.
I am not saying you watch the crap on network TV, but I can't stand 98% on the network schedules. Lame, stupid, rehashed sitcoms, Dramas that all seem the same and "Reality Shows" are the worst.

As far as Kilborn goes, please tell me that was just a joke. The man is not funny. He is a better actor than Jon* but he is not funny.
* Of course Jon likes to point out he is a terrible actor and he is correct.

Jim

[bup]

I find it hilarious, but maybe because I need it to be. As a bleeding heart liberal in 2006 America, it's the only thing that I have to live for.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I'm just curious as to why the topics are not funny because of the way Jon or the correspondents address them. Is it because of the smugness and sarcasm that Argent Towers referred to?

That's probably it.

Another thing is how they take quotes that are already too stupid for words and edit them to make them stupider. It's like taking a trainwreck and editing more damage into it and then pointing and laughing at the idiot while patting themselves on the back for their genius.

It's not for me. I don't like trainwrecks to begin with.

[Chefguy]

The "correspondents" have become more tedious. I think they're still searching for a solution to the double whammy of Colbert and Carell leaving. And then there is the gut-splitting gems like the riff on Cheney shooting his hunting partner that make it worthwhile to watch.

[Troy McClure SF]

Another thing is how they take quotes that are already too stupid for words and edit them to make them stupider. It's like taking a trainwreck and editing more damage into it and then pointing and laughing at the idiot while patting themselves on the back for their genius.

I'll get behind this- the do edit too much. Especially on the correspondant interviews. It's so heavily edited as to be distracting, and as a result, I assume that so much is out of context and cut up, and that the interviewee isn't nearly as stupid/insane as they're made out to be.

I'll admit to being a before-the-first-commercial-break viewer. Though I'm sticking around a bit longer to get to Colbert. And Lewis Black, when he's on.

[Marley23]

But how can that be? If he didn't take himself seriously, why would he feel it necessary to make such a disclaimer. On the other hand, if indeed he knows how influential he is (as you say he does), then how can he ingenuously pretend that he isn't with a mere pithy phrase? It would be like Ingrid Newkirk demuring, "We're just a conservation organization."
I think he's attempting to remind his audience of what the show is, not just himself. I don't know why you find it puzzling that he says it. You've heard of 'effort,' I'm sure - not taking yourself seriously requires effort for most people, and most people don't get the kind of media plaudits he does.

[lissener]

I'll get behind this- the do edit too much. Especially on the correspondant interviews. It's so heavily edited as to be distracting, and as a result, I assume that so much is out of context and cut up, and that the interviewee isn't nearly as stupid/insane as they're made out to be.YOu should watch these more carefully. You'd be surprised to see how little editing really goes on. Sure, there's some, but watch the edits: some of the most outrageous moments in those interviews happen without cuts. They are, by and large, NOT a product of editing, to the extent that you seem to think they are.

[lissener]

But how can that be? If he didn't take himself seriously, why would he feel it necessary to make such a disclaimer. On the other hand, if indeed he knows how influential he is (as you say he does), then how can he ingenuously pretend that he isn't with a mere pithy phrase? It would be like Ingrid Newkirk demuring, "We're just a conservation organization."Because therein lies the delicious irony: it IS a fake news show, and it IS influential.

Just because it's topsyturvy doesn't mean it's not true. The fact that a fake news show has real influence is the ultimate proof that all of Stewart's ridicule is valid.

[RickJay]

...and Full House was on for EIGHT YEARS!
"Full House" was a children's show, so at least it had an excuse.

[Annie]

The phenomenon of the influential comedy news show isn't unique to the Daily. On the Media (http://www.onthemedia.org/otm021006.html) did a story on "Eretz Nehederet" or "A Wonderful Country," a current-events satire program in Israel. Brooke Gladstone kept pressuring the writers to agree that they went beyond entertainment to influencing the events of the day, especially in their treatment of political candidates. Mostly they just laughed it off until one grudgingly admited, "With power comes responsiblity—"

Laughing, one of his colleagues immediately interrupted with, "Are you Spiderman, now?"

This Hour has 22 Minutes (http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/) (click the 'Hafferty' link on the preceding for a good idea)being the Canadian contribution to this genre. You just haven't seen news satire until you've seen a hairy-pitted matron dressed as Xena crashing a media scrum threatening to smite the Prime Minister with a broadsword, I tellya :D

[Malodorous]

Another thing is how they take quotes that are already too stupid for words and edit them to make them stupider. It's like taking a trainwreck and editing more damage into it and then pointing and laughing at the idiot while patting themselves on the back for their genius.

This was much worse under Kilborn. I actually liked him as host (sure his schtick got old, but it was funny for a while), but couldn't watch the correspondant bits where they'd go out and find some wacked-out religious quack and make fun of them. It just seemed diliberetly cruel, like making fun of the crazy bag lady that lives under the overpass.

They still do some of this, but now they usually find someone that at least sort of has their stuff togeather (or at least should have thier stuff togeather) like city officals, congress critters and what not. Even if it is "unfairly" edited (which I don't think is the case) it has much less the feeling of shooting ducks in a barrel that the old bits had.

[Larry Borgia]

To each his own I guess. I think TDS and Colbert are two of the very very few consistently funny shows on TV. They're the main reason I still have cable.

[gigi]

"According to Jim" has been on, continuously, since 2001. This proves, once again, that it takes all kinds.Heh. I just heard a co-worker talking about how it is the only show she makes sure to watch each week, and how she cried with laughter watching it. :confused:

[Troy McClure SF]

YOu should watch these more carefully. You'd be surprised to see how little editing really goes on. Sure, there's some, but watch the edits: some of the most outrageous moments in those interviews happen without cuts. They are, by and large, NOT a product of editing, to the extent that you seem to think they are.
While I don't doubt it, it can also be very clear that there is editing going on to create a punchline where there is none.

Specifically: Correspondant says something like "So you're saying it's a bad thing to put babies on spikes?" Cut to interviewee looking blankly at correspondant as if to say "WTF?" Everyone laughs. But if you look closely at the shot of the interviewee, you'll probably be able to see the correspondant's mouth moving, meaning that the interviewee was not been struck speechless by the outrageousness of the reporter, but was in fact just listening politely.

[Ensign Edison]

I disagree generally, but I admire your testicular fortitude in posting this, and I also think the jokes on the Daily Show fall flat far more often than most people would like to believe. It's just that, for most of us, the ones that don't are so funny they block out the rest.

I actually think the Colbert Report is now tighter and sharper in some ways. But I still love Jon, and as for Craig? On my list of things for him to do, host another talk show appears not at all.

[Marley23]

I'm another viewer who likes the first few minutes of the show best. The correspondents are more likely to lampoon weird people or resort to really childish stuff, although sometimes they do that really well. Jon's part of the show is funny even when the jokes aren't great.
This was much worse under Kilborn. I actually liked him as host (sure his schtick got old, but it was funny for a while), but couldn't watch the correspondant bits where they'd go out and find some wacked-out religious quack and make fun of them. It just seemed diliberetly cruel, like making fun of the crazy bag lady that lives under the overpass.
Kilborn was more like a newsman; he's got a deep reserve of smugness. It was funny sometimes, but yeah- it was a really snide piece of television. (Of course, Kilborn came over from SportsCenter, which is also pretty arch.) I wonder how the show's correspondents felt about what they were doing. When I spoke to Stephen Colbert last year, he said those bits were "like shooting fish in a barrel" and that the Kilborn-era reports were "mean."

If anything, I'd say the show was much more smug back then. These days, Daily Show targets know what they're in for. As far as their attitude goes- you know, the targets they're taking on are pretty damn deserving.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I just had to chime in and say that I love TDS and I love the Onion. Not every article or feature, and not all the time. But I consider both to be the epitome of pointed observational humor.

And I know that having these opinions says more about me than it says about the inherent worth of TDS and Onion.

"There's no arguing about taste" ---an ancient type of some sort.

"Don't be silly. Taste is the only thing worth arguing about" ---Robert Anson Heinlein, et. al.

[Khadaji]

The only parts I like are the ones with Jon Stewart. I find the rest to be lame. I think Jon is often funny and I enjoy his interviews. Even with people with whom he has a strong disagreement in their politics, he seems to be always respectful.

I don't enjoy the show enough to watch regularly, however.

[Thirty-Nine]

This is the best job I can do of summarising why I can't stand the show:

1. Taking things out of context never makes me laugh - I'm still painfully aware of the big picture. The endless George Bush misquotes that circle the internet are a prime example. None of them have even made me smile. Many jokes in the show fall into the same category.
2. The way he mugs and twists his voice drives me insane. It reminds me of people who pick up on something somebody says, repeat it in a funny voice and get others laughing at it. I have always loathed these people. I don't know what effect he's aiming for, but it's hard to focus on his words when I'm constantly reminded of every jerk I've ever known.
3. IMO, if you're mocking something you should show why whatever you're mocking is ridiculous. I felt a lot of things on the show cut straight to the mocking part.
4. I think really good satire should have very few things that can be satirised (IMO, this is what makes, or used to make, the Simpsons so good). The Daily Show has way too many things you can pick at.

[Larry Mudd]

I'll get behind this- the do edit too much. Especially on the correspondant interviews. It's so heavily edited as to be distracting, and as a result, I assume that so much is out of context and cut up, and that the interviewee isn't nearly as stupid/insane as they're made out to be.That's really sort of meta-humour, though. All single camera interviews (ie; most interviews you'll see on actual news programs) are so heavily edited as to be distracting.

They totally lampoon that -- especially the "noddies," reaction shots of the interviewer listening to the interviewee, nodding sagely, laughing at a joke, looking concerned, or sympathetic, or whatever. When you realize that these shots are done after the interview, usually after the interviewee has actually left, the artifice of it itself becomes comical.

It's funny on the six o'clock news, but it's funnier when TDS does it in such a blatant way. Like so much of The Daily Show, it's making fun of the conventions of television news as much as it is the individual subjects.

[Argent Towers]

This is the best job I can do of summarising why I can't stand the show:

2. The way he mugs and twists his voice drives me insane. It reminds me of people who pick up on something somebody says, repeat it in a funny voice and get others laughing at it. I have always loathed these people. I don't know what effect he's aiming for, but it's hard to focus on his words when I'm constantly reminded of every jerk I've ever known.


This is the thing I dislike most about the show. I knew SO many people in high school who based their humor on this kind of attitude (the sly, smug, sarcastic delivery) - doing things like pausing for a moment, narrowing the eyes, and saying "riiiiiiiiiiight."

[Rodgers01]

This is the best job I can do of summarising why I can't stand the show:

1. Taking things out of context never makes me laugh - I'm still painfully aware of the big picture. The endless George Bush misquotes that circle the internet are a prime example. None of them have even made me smile. Many jokes in the show fall into the same category.
2. The way he mugs and twists his voice drives me insane. It reminds me of people who pick up on something somebody says, repeat it in a funny voice and get others laughing at it. I have always loathed these people. I don't know what effect he's aiming for, but it's hard to focus on his words when I'm constantly reminded of every jerk I've ever known.
3. IMO, if you're mocking something you should show why whatever you're mocking is ridiculous. I felt a lot of things on the show cut straight to the mocking part.
4. I think really good satire should have very few things that can be satirised (IMO, this is what makes, or used to make, the Simpsons so good). The Daily Show has way too many things you can pick at.

Well put. I'll second all that, especially points 1 and 2.

[HPL]

I enjoy the Daily Show, though since Colbert left, I've gotten to the point where if I miss the Daily Show, I'm not terribly upset. The first 10 minutes is usally the best and then it goes downhill from there(I rarely pay attention to the interview).

The Colbert Report I always look forward to.

[marymargaret]

I love this hsow and think Stewart is a comedic genius.

[lissener]

While I don't doubt it, it can also be very clear that there is editing going on to create a punchline where there is none.

Specifically: Correspondant says something like "So you're saying it's a bad thing to put babies on spikes?" Cut to interviewee looking blankly at correspondant as if to say "WTF?" Everyone laughs. But if you look closely at the shot of the interviewee, you'll probably be able to see the correspondant's mouth moving, meaning that the interviewee was not been struck speechless by the outrageousness of the reporter, but was in fact just listening politely.
Well see, I knew that’s what you were thinking of. (Frankly I’m a tad insulted that you’d think I’d have posted the above if I was that easily fooled, and that you had to explain the concept to me. ) And I assumed the same thing going in too; if there’s a cut, it’s to disguise the non sequitur; the cut is PROOF that it’s a non sequitur. But since I’ve been paying attention, I’ve seen enough non-edited examples of the ACTUAL reaction to an ACTUAL outrageous question, that I’m probably closer to giving each cut the benefit of the doubt than assuming it's dishonest.

The trick you describe is old hat. It’s what you expect to be happening in such an interview, played for laughs. But I’m telling you that if you watch some of those interviews without that presumption, you’ll find that some of those questions-reactions are indisputably actual.

[Voyager]

The Cheney shooting incident is a good case of what makes TDS better than the others. There were obvious jokes all over the place, but they did three things that were great.
First. Stewart meta-commenting on how wonderful this was for comedians - "Thank you Jesus."
Second, whoever was supposedly in Washington just repeating that "the Vice President shot someone in the face."
Third, and best, Corddry making the analogy to Iraq and the War on Terror. That was awesome.

I agree the correspondents aren't as good as they were, both from the best moving on, and also because too many people are in on the gag. The success rate isn't as high as it used to be.

[singular1]

You almost made me sad. Very, very sad.
See' I'm one of those weak people that hears something critisizing something I adore, and I begin to doubt my taste. So I watch something I used to blithely delight in with a sharper eye, looking for the flaws I had not seen before. I have been let down in this manner before.
So with great trepidation I watched TDS more intensly, watching for something that would ruin it for me.
Didn't happen. Still love it. Jon is my idol, and brings rare glee into my life four nights a week. I still keep many episodes on the DVR for weeks to rewatch and enjoy.
But I do pride myself on at least giving your opinion a try, in spite of my outrage. To each his own.

[What Exit?]

You almost made me sad. Very, very sad.
See' I'm one of those weak people that hears something critisizing something I adore, and I begin to doubt my taste. So I watch something I used to blithely delight in with a sharper eye, looking for the flaws I had not seen before. I have been let down in this manner before.
So with great trepidation I watched TDS more intensly, watching for something that would ruin it for me.
Didn't happen. Still love it. Jon is my idol, and brings rare glee into my life four nights a week. I still keep many episodes on the DVR for weeks to rewatch and enjoy.
But I do pride myself on at least giving your opinion a try, in spite of my outrage. To each his own.

We just got our DVR from Comcast Monday. I figured out how to program it and I programed TDS & Colbert to record every night. I could grow to really like DVR.

Jim

[singular1]

We just got our DVR from Comcast Monday. I figured out how to program it and I programed TDS & Colbert to record every night. I could grow to really like DVR.

Jim

Oh, lucky Jim! You will grow to love that DVR and want one in real life. You will not be able to stand life without rerunning and pausing live events.

[Mal Adroit]

And I think their current batch of correspondents is weak.

I'd agree with the exception of Demetrius Martin. That kid's got teh funny.


And Colbert was not the best. Steve Carrell was the best. ;)

[bup]

I like Dan Bakkedahl (one of the new correspondents).

[Larry Mudd]

I like Bakkedahl, Bee, and both Corddrys.

(That "Brother vs. Brother" routine last night was summer-camp skit painful, though.)

I agree with folks who've said that some bits often fall really flat -- but when it clicks, it's gold. Harvey and I warm ourselves in these golden moments.

[Moe]

I like Dan Bakkedahl (one of the new correspondents).

I like him too... a lot. I think he's got real potential to become one of the great ones. It would be difficult for anyone to come right in and make an impression while trying to fill the shoes of Colbert/Carrell (I'd imagine it'd be just as difficult for Colbert/Carrell in this situation).

But when Dan Bakkedahl did the segment with the superman impersonator:
(paraphrased)
Dan: I once fought myself in a parking lot too
SM: What happened?
Dan: I lost.
SM: Well, at least one half of you won.
Dan: (with the perfect facial expression and comic timing) I don't think anyone won that day.

It's that kind of improvisational talent that separates the ones who have it from those who don't.

Frankly, I haven't seen "it" in Samatha Bee's husband (forgot his name).

Nate Cordry comes off with an unlikeable arrogance IMHO, probably because he looks so young.

I still consider both TDS and TCR essential TV.

[bup]

But when Dan Bakkedahl did the segment with the superman impersonator:
(paraphrased)
Dan: I once fought myself in a parking lot too
SM: What happened?
Dan: I lost.
SM: Well, at least one half of you won.
Dan: (with the perfect facial expression and comic timing) I don't think anyone won that day.
Yeah, that's always the first thing I think of when I think of him - that exact exchange.

His bum-vertising segment was also great.

[Marley23]

Frankly, I haven't seen "it" in Samatha Bee's husband (forgot his name).
Is that Jason Jones? They seem to like him for the Washington stuff, he's got that kind of quality about him. (Somebody else said that he did a little acting, including an appearance in one of the Left Behind movies!) But Bakkedahl seems like the funniest of the new crop.

Demitri Martin's segments put me to sleep, I have to say. I think I see him the way some of the posters to this thread see Jon Stewart. Everything about Trendspotting - content, style, delivery - seems really lazy, and as a result he comes across (to me) as a guy who's enamored of himself.

[Larry Mudd]

Demitri Martin's segments put me to sleep, I have to say.Me too, but I just assumed it's because I'm not in that demographic. I get that he's a total caricature of the sort of young person that exists largely in the venal imaginations of marketing executives, but it's still hard for me to watch or find humour in.

Maybe it's infectious apathy.

[What Exit?]

Demitri Martin's segment on My Space was funny last week.
I haven't seen any others that I remember.

Jim

[BrainGlutton]

But how can that be? If he didn't take himself seriously, why would he feel it necessary to make such a disclaimer. On the other hand, if indeed he knows how influential he is (as you say he does), then how can he ingenuously pretend that he isn't with a mere pithy phrase? It would be like Ingrid Newkirk demuring, "We're just a conservation organization."

What would be disingenuous about that?