What enrages Stewart about journalism today is the complete abandonment of investigative journalism. Due to sheer laziness, a TV news show will present “both sides” of an issue, giving equal time, and pass this off as a public service, being “fair and balanced”. As noted in the TDS clip I referenced above, it is a disservice to say “good points on both sides” when one of the sides is a lie-spewing moron, and a few moments of fact checking would prove it.
I loved the recent bit lambasting the occurences of Godwin’s Law in real life. (You’re demeaning Hitler!)
Their political stuff is great, but I also love the science stuff. The pop-culture stuff is the worst of the three, but still funny. (About on par with SNL weekend update, IMO.)
I do not watch the interviews. My tape is only set to record the first 28 minutes of the show, just in case I want to ogle a hot chick, but generally I skip it.
What the hell happened to Steve Carrell? I know he did the office, but even before that, I was confused when he got demoted to doing nothing but Produce Pete. I loved Even Stev/phen, and miss it. When he came back and did the non-Produce Pete field report as a lost journalist in Iraq, that was possibly the unfunniest seqment ever on the show.
Whomever said they couldn’t stay up late enough, it’s always rebroadcast at 7:00pm during the networks’ first-run season, and 8:00pm in the summer. (It recently switched back to 8:00pm.)
Reminds me of the Ed Helms “blogger” segment, which had me in stitches.
I don’t know how often you watch, but when Bob Dole or John McCain are on, Stewart pretty much fellates them, metaphorically speaking. So it’s not a liberal bias thing, if that’s what you’re implying.
Stewart just very rarely goes after someone face-to-face when he perceives them as being important.
He was also very kind to Colin Powell the other night.
Rriiiiggghhhttt…I just don’t see. Well, I’m glad we cleared that up.
-XT
“Not gay, Jon, aristocratic.”
Indeed. Didja see last night’s segment where he shows people commenting on the evils of the USA PATRIOT Act? Three people in a row – all tied to organizations traditionally associated with left-wing politics – all mentioned Guantanamo Bay.
Stewart quite rightly pointed out that the PATRIOT Act had nothing whatsoever to do with Guantanamo Bay.
Be careful with that. On a few occasions recently, they’ve put the interview in the middle segment of the show, and then had another political or pop-culture segment at the end.
That’s certainly true. He’s happy enough to call bullshit on anyone who he believes deserves it. As tracer says, he correctly pointed out the difference between Guantanamo and the Patriot Act on last night’s show.
I was going to stop in and pretty much agree with the OP… until I got to your post, and you mentioned that segment. It really is funny. Ed Helms and Lewis Black (especially LB) are also very funny. I’ve always thought Lewis Black would be a great host for the Oscars.
“Gladiator? Gladiator? You people actually think Gladiator is the best film of the year? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?”
I know I’d watch.
No, he’s getting closer and closer to being a shill for one side, if he’s not there already.
The Daily Show is great most of the time; when it falls flat for me are the days when they don’t have much and they desperately attempt to fill it with yet another, “Stupid Republicans-brand generic” skit. This typically involves taking 5 second out of context soundbites from various people that are potentially years apart, and giving the, “They so stuppeeeed,” stare into the camera.
I mean, I love it when he hammers them because they actually did something stupid. I think it’s pathetic when they decide, “Nothing going on today, Rumsfeld saying anything about Iraq = Comedy Gold!”
So how loud do you laugh when Bill O’Reiley does the same stunt? 
There’s a reason I don’t watch Bill O’Reiley.
If he’d stop saying things about Iraq that come across as having no connection to reality - or his previous statements about Iraq - they’d probably stop doing it.
My thing about TDS is that Jon Stewart believes, like a handful of people in the press and online, that there is such a thing as objective truth out there. He recognizes that there is a lot of noise generated out there by what are essentially propoganda machines (everyone from speech writers to think tanks to political parties to special interest groups) and all of them distort this objective truth. And most of media, because they are lazy, lap it up.
Pointing this out is where he takes the most glee. Granted, he tends to do this more with the right, but let’s be honest, the right has an exquisitely tuned information apparatus, that stands behind most large policy decisions in today’s government, and are left uncriticized by a largely fawning press. There are other guys out there doing this same reality-based analysis, on the left and the right (I’ll point to http://www.dailyhowler.com for Bob Somerby on the left and Brendan Nyhan at http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/ and Andrew Sullivan at http://www.andrewsullivan.com or shit even John Derbyshire on the right). Contrasting actual figures (often provided by nonpartisan organizations) with direct contradictions by politicians is what Jon Stewart lives for. This was well demonstrated by his skewering of some Texas congressman who came out and tried to pump out the line about Kerry and Edwards being “the first and the third most liberal members of the Senate” which is based on an admitted flawed polling and therefore an objectively dishonest statistic. And this is what he thinks Crossfire should be doing, not timed rapid fire recitation of the top 30 bullet points on the latest party memo (which is what it usually is).
It is one thing to have a party affiliation. It is a whole other thing to have principles. I think Jon Stewart has principles; he seems to treat others that he believes have priniciples in good faith. It seems to be only the ones that spew the garbage of blindered partisanship, untethered from reality, that invite his scorn. And that’s why I like him.
I’m here mainly to echo the sentiments of the Dopers above supporting the show.
Ditto.
The end product of the research done by the writers of the show is more useful to me than the simple rehashing of the AP/Reuters newswires performed by our nightly news anchors.
I’m apparently in the minority here, but I enjoy Stewart’s interviews. He does fall back on the self-deprecating humor a bit too often, but I usually enjoy it. For example, Russell Crowe was recently on the show and during Jon’s introduction he noted that Crowe’s appearance marked the widest gap in virility between himself and a guest to date. 
Rather than saying that he goes limp when interviewing the VIPs of the GOP, I see it more as him paying the individual the proper amount of respect due their position. He does his part to steer such guests away from the talking points without being disrespectful, and for the most part he’s very well-prepared for the subject matter of his questions.
I’d more or less agree with this sentiment. After watching TDS faithfully ever since Jon started hosting, I’ve come to the conclusion that he brings people on that he wants to talk to. Celebrity interviews are possibly the most boring, because most times they’re just there to plug a movie. The authors he brings on are also there to plug a book, but the interviews give the appearance that Jon wants to plug the book; he read it, enjoyed it, and wanted to bring the author on. And then, obviously, there’s the political figures and pundits who come on that Jon is genuinely interested in having a conversation with, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.
Since he wants these people on his show, naturally he’s not going to try and skewer them too much or otherwise be disrespectful. I get the sense that he honestly enjoys talking to his interviewees and that he can usually engage them on the same intellectual plane if he wants to. That makes his interviews more real than anything done on Leno, Letterman, or dare I say Conan, and thus thoroughly more enjoyable.
I think you might be right, especially regarding the authors. How great is a job that after you read a book you liked, you can bring ni the author to chat?
I do catch the occasional interview; I generally only watch the authors. One that I found fascinating was the guy who made the connection between high abortion rates (fewer unwanted children) and low crime rates. I found that fascinating. (I am 100% unable to debate the issue…I didn’t read the book, only heard the four minute interview.)
I love the show. Watch it every night. I find it hilarious. Sure, Stewart is a lefty ass-kisser, but then, who in the media isn’t? If I was going to limit my TV watching to only those who agree with me, I could throw out my set.
That said… It’s always easier to laugh at the other side than to laugh at yourself. I imagine quite a few of you who think he’s the funniest guy ever would change your opinion overnight if he started bringing on Democrats and hacking them to pieces, and doing mock news stories that make Democrats look stupid, and then brought on Republicans and kissed up to them.