At no time did the correspondents all play it straight. I was saying that they’re all doing the same thing now, and I don’t think what they’re doing is funny. I just think TDS works better when it stays closer to the tone of the news shows it’s mocking.
The real problem with lots of the correspondent bits is that if the interviewee is on to them, they have to bear the brunt of the humor, which isn’t funny. The very best bits are when the question shows where the kooks ideas lead - places where a normal reporter would never go.
Still, not even all the Colbert stuff was brilliant, and not all the old correspondents were great.
I know a lot of people loved Corddry and he essentially carried the torch in the wake of Colbert and Carrell leaving the show, but his style of delivery never really clicked for me (I really liked his younger brother Nate though, where’d he disappear to?) … I miss the old era of correspondents like Mo Rocca, Beth Littleford, and Nancy Walls. Didn’t Laura Kightlinger do a few shows many years ago too? I just never clicked with Corddry always being so sophomoric, lacking the kind of mock professionalism that I always thought made the show what it is. Colbert is one-of-a-kind in that he can maintain a straight face and be completely deadpan even when he’s turning a statement around on someone without breaking a sweat. I feel like the show loses the illusion of being mock news when they roll out the goofballs like Ed Helms, Jason Jones, or Rob Corddry to start doing crude homoerotic innuendo, fart jokes, and taking off their pants to expose their flabby white legs and hairy guts. “Oh look! A naked, hairy, fat guy … that’s funny, right? Right?” Okay, so to each his own, but that’s about the caliber of comedy I expect from those types. I think if they want to do funny and/or gay innuendo, they should bring back Frank DeCaro. He knew how to do it with flair.
TDS was lucky to have great talent early on. They haven’t jumped any sharks, they’re just trying to replace a lot of irreplaceable people that were easy to become attached to, so lately there are a lot of new faces trying to land a regular spot on the show. Comedians who have both a handle on the issues and the ability to deliver on a punchline are few and far between. The minute they start resorting to cheap jokes or stuff simply for the sake of shock value, I tend to dismiss them. As the OP points out, Stewart and Colbert possess the deadly combination of having a handle on the issues as well as superb comedic timing and flawless conversational skills. They know how to play to an audience, and can sense when a joke is falling flat. They always acknowledge it in a subtle way, whereas most of the fresh talent will just keep plugging along even when a joke is receiving a cold reception, leaving a disconnect between them and the audience. The segments that Colbert’s had on his show with David Cross and (just yesterday) Tim Meadows playing equivalent pundit alter-egos seem to fall flat for the same reason … they just lack delivery. In the words of Colbert, they “read the jokes to you”, whereas Stewart and Colbert “feel the jokes at you”. 
I’ve never loved every correspondent on the show, but I think what the OP may be getting at is that the show’s suffering from the law of diminishing returns. Turnover time on good talent is decreasing, while the amount of time invested in finding it seems to be going up.
Well, during the Colbert, Carrell, Cordrry, bee, era, to me that was a perfect lineup. Every single one of them just had the gift IMHO.
I think Dan Bakedahl has got every bit of talent that the old veterens do, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why they don’t use him more often.
Jason Jones just ain’ got it. Sorry. I know you’re Samantha’s husband and you needed her help getting you a job and such, but you just ain’t got that special spark.
Dimitry Martin is very hit or miss, but I do se potential there.
Lewis Black is all too unfunny these days considering how funny he actually was not too long ago,
I think the Middle Eastern correspondant was very funny the one or two times I saw him.
Still, I never miss a Daily Show.
Jumped the shark???
I say no way. I still love it, nay need it, nay…
crave it…
Thank you Daily Show. Please keep doing what you’ve been doing
It definitely has jumped the shark. The reporting segments are not as good since Colbert and Corddry left. Also, the main show is just much less funny. I figure that the reporters are also the general writers?
It was brilliant 1.5 year ago. Today I don’t really watch it.
I would fix it by bringing in some better comedians, and more writers overall.
I agree that the new crop of talent hasn’t yet their footing (though I have a huge crush on Samantha Bee).
Still, I think the core problem with the Daily Show these days is that it is the midterm election season, and just about every day has a large lead story on either the elections or the war. It makes for a great Stewart intro, but it doesn’t give the subsidary talent much to work with. They can’t go out and build the wacky local stories when there is so much of immediate national significance going on.
I would wait until after the elections are over to see if the new group settles in.
Another vote for Mandvi and his earnest, dead-panned sarcasm.
Yeah, Aasif Mandvi has me rolling every time he’s on (too bad it’s only been twice (?)). They should use him more often.
Guys, why don’t you drop the show an e-mail and let them know about it? They’re probably trying to get a feel for the audience’s preferences right now, and I bet they’d appreciate it. (They probably get a shit-load of e-mails telling them what they’re doing wrong. Why not let them know when they’re getting something right?)
Well one whether or not TDS has jumped the shark is Stewart himself.(Yes, I know that’s heresy here.) Basically it’s my impression much of the appeal of the show is to college kids and Jon is the “Hip Comic Host™” on the show. The problem is that Jon isn’t that young anymore and college kids can be pretty quick to turn on someone, especially if they notice “Hey wait, that guy is my dad’s age.” I mean look at how much greyer he is now Vs. a few years ago, it’s really noticible now.(I think it’ll get worse when he’s pushing 50 in a couple of years.) I guess I’m talking more about how much longer the show can go with Stewart vs. it actually jumping the shark.(But I still think either they’ll have to change the show so it appeals to its audience as it gets older or get a new younger comic as the fresh faced host and have Jon be an executive producer so they can keep the college crowd.)
If that is the case, they are missing their target audience; according to a 2004 Neilsen ratings report, the median age of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” airing is 35, while its median income is $67,000. A little older and richer than your average college-aged slacker.
Ok, so half his audience is under 35 and half is over.(I’d still like to know the distribution. IE is it a huge group around 35 or is it more spread out?) Unfortunately that still means alot of his audience is young, IE twenty somethings. I still think as Stewart ages this portion of his audience, which is a huge part of it btw, will tune out unless he does something. I still think that he’s going to have to adjust to take this into account.(IE he could groom a young comedian to replace him at 11PM and then take a new gig for an older audience at 8pm. Not sure if TDS would stay at 11 and the new show at 8 or 9 or vice versa. Personally I’d keep TDS at 11 with the same focus and the new show with the show for older people at the earlier time.)
I don’t think you understand statisitical averages. If a lot of his audience is young (twenty somethings) it means that an equal percentage is old (forty somethings). If you start catering to one group, it may be at the expense of the other, and there is no guarantee that what you gain in young viewers will offset what you lose in older viewers. I think you are overstating the power and importance of the college age viewer to TDS.
I am? It’s not an average, it’s a median. Half of his audience is under 35 and half is older, we know that for sure. Admittedly the stats don’t say what the distribution of this is but still a large portion of his market is a younger viewer(IE 18-35. Your stats suggest a decent group in the late 20’s and earlier 30’s for those income stats. However even those ages aiming for college kids would help.) While much of this isn’t actually college kids they’re still largely group the same and still from your stats a very large portion of his audience is young.(IE 50%) Admittedly my original statement was a little narrow but still his major demographic is a young one so he should be appealing to that demographic.(Watching the show he does do hip and irreverrent so from what I’ve seen yes he appeals to that demographic.) I still think he’s going to have a problem as he ages when he tries to keep that audience.(Since it because harder and harder to pull off as you get older.) I still think they can avoid the problem but I really see a train wreck in a 5-6 years if Stewart doesn’t take to heart he’s getting older and his market will change.
Maybe he could turn on a secret aging weapon that will make that portion of the audience age at the same rate as himself.
Daniel
Right, and then he could get rid of the 8pm replay and replace it with a new show that would appeal to that new “magically aged” demographic.
Okay, now I can’t tell whether you’re not getting my sarcasm, or I’m not getting yours :D.
Daniel
I’m surprised that many people dislike Jason Jones. He’s done some of my most favorite interviews. The Blajoavich/morning after pill one was great. As was the one where he interviewed the minute man guy on the Canadian border. I think he was the one that did the Florida condo rules one too.
I find The Daily Show to be consistently hilarious, with the exception of the Aasif Mandvi, who annoys me for some reason.
Well, biblegateway.com is technically a Judeo-Christian website, as it covers the Old Testament as well (and specific Christian symbols like crosses and the ichthus and preachy text of any kind are refreshingly absent), and it’s a useful researching tool, so what are you talking about?
“Bare” appears on other websites’ records of the King James version of Genesis 4:1, like here. Presumably the “typo” was in the original 1611 text and the distinction between “bare” and “bear” is a more modern convention.
I was very excited to discover last year that it was on British TV (albeit a bowdlerised, “euro-centric” version) and have been watching it for a while now, and all I can say is… it’s jumped the shark. Even, alas, Jon Stewart, who I generally think is a genius. It’s barely raised a smile recently.
Also, blinkingblinking, can I have a couple hits of what you’re on, please? First, there’s no prohibition on linking to Christian websites here. Second, if having the Bible online, rather than on paper, negates it, I wonder how you’d have fared were you alive when Gutenberg first got his shit together…