Who is helping Jon Stewart write A Daily Show?

I have this vision that poor Jon is up late at night, all alone, trying to think of something funny to say about George Bush.

It seems he’s doing a decent job, but it’s also clear that there are parts of the show that are missing the collaborative talents of his writers. So, who is helping him? They’ve made some jokes about the correspondents not being a part of the show now (although they have appeared). Are these people also contributing? Are there scab writers?

Meanwhile, Stewart made a comment in the first return episode about wanting to cut a side deal with his writers, who refused. Does anybody have any information on this?

Somebody has to be doing his graphics, too. I figured the other Daily Show producers were helping him out on both fronts. Other than that… I’m only guessing, but the show runs a little more than 20 minutes. He’s a news junkie and shaped the tone of the show, so I imagine he doesn’t really need that much help to do A Daily Show.

And the interviews are getting longer. Plus John Oliver says he isn’t allowed to strike.

The graphics people on strike, too?

I would assume his show is being written by NAMBLA.

Is that true about John Oliver (that his work visa requires him to work, or else he gets deported)? I was trying to figure out if it was a joke.

He’s not allowed to stop working, but he *is *allowed to attend the picket lines (the freedom of speech clause)–which he does.

Does Samantha Bee have a similar issue? I noticed her on tonight and know she hails from Canada.

Not only that but I imagine that John Oliver is required to attend or at least send a surrogate as I believe many are doing.
Let’s just think about things for a minute here. As long as they write nothing down then they are fine.

The correspondent pieces are pretty easy, right? They can just go and do an interview, be inquisitive and the editing process can easily make everything funny.

Someone is helping him put together the clips. So what if they say before the show… Okay we’ll run clip A, B, C, and D in this order with time for you to comment in between. I imagine that he comes up with some kind of funny comment, maybe with some help from some funny people (maybe even writers!). As long as they don’t physically write I guess they’re fine. I think I could remember enough jokes like that if I were such a funny guy.

Notice that he certainly doesn’t have that pitch-perfect wit like he used to. That was the writing obviously. But he does say some funny stuff. It’s hard to say exactly what is going on, but I think he does have a good bit of help.

Maybe they could have direction cue cards? Just some people with cards saying “Bush and Interviewer like Woody Allen” Maybe they go through and plan some bit without actually writing anything.

I would imagine that it would be a lot more difficult for the producer or whoever it is that cues up the clips (after all the studio has to see them, they can’t be done in post) to do his job.

Anyone know better than me?

ETA: Samantha Bee probably has a different situation being married to an American

I think a visa does forbid striking. His bit about that was hysterical.

I wasn’t even aware of that much. Just that she is apparently on the show during the strike and that she comes from the Great White North.

I think any roles that were done by non-WGA staff before the strike can still be done by the same guys. Like the guys who dig up the video clips are clearly not writers, so that isn’t affected at all. And the graphics guys.

Jason Jones is her husband. They appeared together at one point.

Sam looked awfully puffy in that bit. They have a two-year-old daughter, Piper Bee-Jones. I was wondering whether she might be pregnant again. Admittedly, she’s a near 40-year-old mother and even tv stars often start showing their age by then, but she sure looked different than she had before the strike.

Anybody want to chime in on that bizarre chopped interview with Jonah Goldberg on Wednesday? The one that was chopped down from 18 minutes to 6 and stopped making sense halfway through? Goldberg didn’t seem to bother to try to make a coherent argument that the progressive movement launched both modern liberalism and fascism, and my understanding of history says that he can’t under any circumstance except by lying, redefining terms, and rewriting the past. Nor can you get away without mentioning some connection between fascism and the right, which he never hinted at with so much as a syllable. I haven’t read the book yet, though. Certainly the right wing blogs are giving it their full support.

Jonah Goldberg seemed like the kind of guy that an acquaintance drags you over to meet, saying, “You’ll really like each other! You’re both really smart!” He then spends an hour telling you his Theories and even when you agree with him, he acts as if you’re disagreeing and begins arguing with you; he must beat you down; you must agree with him. As you escape out the back door (after claiming you were going to get another beer), you reflect that your acquaintance is an idiot and Jonah is why you only date non-Jewish guys.

That sounds about right. I might change the last bit to “why you only date non-obsessive, opposite of egomaniacal guys”.

I would believe this as the timing with them has been pretty bad.

Have they done any field pieces since the strike? I haven’t seen any. I figure the writers probably find the topics and do the background research, even if the pieces themselves are mostly improvised.

Why can’t they write? Do they just want to show solidarity with the writers and not be seen as scabs? If so, why don’t they also go on strike? If not, is it a legal or contractual issue instead?

It seemed that Stewart and Goldberg couldn’t even agree on the definitions of “liberalism” and “fascism”, and from that point there was absolutely no common ground for discussion. It was a trainwreck, agreed.

Yeah… Jon seemed to be thinking, “I can’t believe you wrote a book about the changing definitions of words.” It seemed like someone today calling the Democrats the party of slavery.

I got the impression that Jon was trying to engage the guy and point out where his (Goldberg’s) conclusions - and ire - was focused on silly definitional distinctions. Goldberg couldn’t - or wouldn’t - pull back a level and work through that.

Goldberg came across like Nigel Tufnel after Reiner/DiBergi asks him why the numbers on the dial can’t just be spread out a little more and still just go to 10, and Tufnel pauses, then shakes it off and still insists “but this one goes to 11.”

It almost felt like a spoof spot - all it needed was Rob Corddry doing the interview…