Comments on: Is Jon Stewart ready for his closeup?

Is Jon Stewart ready for his closeup?

skepticallypleased — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:39:05 -0800

and in other places, Jon Stewart is getting ready for his very big "before and after" moment. In one week he will go from hosting a sort of anti-establishment "basic cable" talk show to hosting the very establishment (of some sort at least) Oscars viewed by usually at least 40 million people. Despite what most of us me-fiers might think, Stewart is sort of unknown outside his core devotees and especially for a Oscar host -- unlike Bob Hope, Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, and even Chris Rock -- he has never been responsible for a hit movie. Moreover, his ratings (at 1.1 -- or about two and half million people a night) would place him at about the sixth most seen cable news "show" -- behind Greta, Shepard Smith, Hannity, Larry, and, of course, the factor. Now, that's a very wealthy, influential 2-3 million viewers that policy makers and advertisers love, so it's not chicken change but you can still understand what the Oscars might mean for fans of Jon. For people who believe Stewart is the only effective keeper of a liberal flame, you can only hope he will continue to impress on the bigger stage. However, some people are getting worried -- a la the NYT and the New Republic which is already claiming Stewart is losing his bite in order to please Hollywood and that he might not be so funny in the first place.

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:40:17 -0800

And, I'm sorry the New Republic article is a sign-up only. If someone can tell me how best to paste it here (or do so for me), that would be great -- it's an effective critique from an unlikely place.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:41:44 -0800

Anyone who saw the Daily Show the day after Cheney shot his buddy in the face can't possible say that he's lost his bite.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:46:07 -0800

I predict he will do as well as Letterman.

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:46:08 -0800

I saw Stewart on Oprah a few months back... he was remarkably tame. Don't expect the same level of satire that he exercises on the Daily Show - outside of his Comedy Central bubble he knows how to play ball like a good boy.

By: ChasFile

ChasFile — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:53:26 -0800

Um, so a link to the transcript of a Larry King article is the best of the web? This isn't an FPP, its an editorial. GYOBFW

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:53:46 -0800

Was the lack of capitalization on "the factor" intentional? If not, can I pretend it was?

By: my sock puppet account

my sock puppet account — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:56:17 -0800

Stewart will suck. The hosts always suck at the Oscars. It's impossible to be safe, funny, relavent, and juggle all three for four hours in front of a very, large audience both in person and on tv. If people watch the show with such low expectations that they'll be surprised if Stewart good then they'll enjoy it more. Think of it as the Episode III algorithm.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:00:49 -0800

I predict this will change absolutely nothing for Jon Stewart or anyone else. All the Oscar viewers who didn't know him before will forget about him quickly, and all the ones who did already expect him to suck because that's they way the Oscars work.

By: Drastic

Drastic — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:01:35 -0800

"...but you can still understand what the Oscars might mean for fans of Jon." Expectations of many Oscar jokes in the week or so following?

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:10:35 -0800

I'm sad he took the job. It's not possible to really be funny as host of the oscars. You make the easy jokes that Leno threw out that week, and you leave the stage for 20 minutes or more at a time. Then the night's over and you collect your check.

By: briank

briank — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:10:50 -0800

"Uma....Oprah....Oprah...Uma..." Sort of like that, but with more boyish self-deprecating charm.

By: frogan

frogan — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:15:03 -0800

Jon Stewart was a rock-solid stand-up comedian before he took the MTV show gig and The Daily Show gig. I predict he's as good as Billy Crystal, Chris Rock, Steve Martin, etc. Which is to say, the format allows him to be only merely charming, and doesn't allow him to be really, really funny in the way that he can be.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:15:35 -0800

Isn't the New Republic basically a rag for Lieberman-type Democrat Neocons? please allow me to appeal to you as someone who wants to be a fan but hasn't been able to enjoy you so far. If he doesn't enjoy the show, maybe he should just fuck off? Stewart is consistently funny, I dunno what this guys deal is.

By: pitchblende

pitchblende — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:16:51 -0800

And, I'm sorry the New Republic article is a sign-up only. That's OK. Does anyone really give a shit what the New Republic thinks about comedy? No, wait, what it thinks about anything?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:17:32 -0800

Stewart will suck. The hosts always suck at the Oscars. Feh. Crystal has been good to great, and I even thought Letterman was excellent. I mean, briank's comment -- that's a classic Oscar moment. You make the easy jokes that Leno threw out that week, and you leave the stage for 20 minutes or more at a time. See, that's being a host, not being the anchor of a comedy program. The point is that we all want to sit through the crap and the industry glad-handing so that we can stay awake to the big awards. I was never fond of Whoopi Goldberg's comedy, but she's a good B-list Oscar host, because she knows Hollywood well and is able to make those little digs that aren't too personal and let the country laugh along with the star. I think people expect way too much out of this job -- it isn't a comedy gig.

By: NGnerd

NGnerd — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:23:38 -0800

honestly i never watch the academy awards (because really, it's just a bunch of drama majors) but i'll probably tune in for at least part of it just to see what stewart does. That said, i don't expect my political commentary as anyone who has seem him interview knows that he will hold himself back from asking really tough questions (john kerry interview) or putting himself too far out.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:30:09 -0800

bugmenot worked for me to read the TNR article, and it totaly sucked.

By: pruner

pruner — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:32:28 -0800

IronMouth - Anyone who saw the Daily Show the day after Cheney shot his buddy in the face can't possible say that he's lost his bite. the funniest bits were done by correspondents, most notably Rob Cordry.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:33:53 -0800

Jon's been around a long long time and has fans in lots of corners. I'm sure he'll do just fine. Much ado about nothing. As Jon might say, "You expect something besides 'sucking'?" Shrug. I was just wondering yesterday how many current fans of the Daily Show even know he's not the first host of the show or even who the previous hosts were.

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:37:31 -0800

Chasfile -- the post is probably a bit long, but I'm not sure where you would state I editorialize. I make a statement, talk about the issue, what's a stake, mention some views and throw in some numbers. Nowhere did I say "Stewart should not be the host." or even that "Stewart is not funny." In fact, I'm a fan -- and a good fan since I'll critique the guy.

By: fungible

fungible — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:37:34 -0800

I'm glad you brought up this issue. I'll sure be on tenterhooks, waiting for his big moment in the limelight. Will he flop? Will he shine? Is he famous enough? How will I sleep not knowing?

By: bobloblaw

bobloblaw — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:39:18 -0800

flichyboy: not all of his viewers are 12 yrs old.

By: kozad

kozad — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:44:32 -0800

I never watch the Oscars, but I would, to see Stewart, even if I didn't have to...(you don't need to know why I have to)...but, Jon is funny because he is in control of this strange TV media thing, and molds it to his specifications. It remains to be seen if he can do anything funny or progressive or whatever within the contraints of the stupid Oscar event.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:48:03 -0800

Stewart is funnier in his stand-up than he is on the daily show, though a 45 minute act that you can work on for a year using material you've been collecting for probbably way longer than that is an unfair comparison to being in front of a camera for 20 minutes a day. Still, his schtick on the Daily Show consists of basically 3 gags, the eye-rub with funny sounds and / or an exagerated "whaaa???", the nebbishy voiced guy and a bad Bush impersonation. Since Colbert's gotten his own show I often don't bother turning the TV on until 12:30 now.

By: purephase

purephase — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:01:47 -0800

frogan writes "Jon Stewart was a rock-solid stand-up comedian before he took the MTV show gig and The Daily Show gig." Not was, is. I saw him a few months ago at Massey Hall in Toronto and he was great. The Daily Show is fun, but after seeing what he is really capable of it's hard to imagine that anything he does on television will even come close to what he is capable of in person.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:01:52 -0800

I think Stewart's consistently brilliant on the Daily Show. Space Coyote's point about stand-up being practice-able works in reverse; it's really, really hard to do new comedy every single night and keep being funny. Stewart's main strength is that he can recover really, really well from the bad jokes ("No? More of a Maxim crowd?"), which is why he'll be an excellent Oscar host. If you saw him on Crossfire, you know how well he can think on his feet when he has to. He singlehandedly took Tucker Carlson off the air, and that alone makes him a great, great man.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:09:43 -0800

Here's a clip of Stewart on King.

By: shortfuse

shortfuse — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:09:53 -0800

The local ABC station just aired an Oscars promo with Stewart. That famous clip of Adrien Brody kissing Halle Berry passionately is accompanied by Stewart saying something like: "Adrien Brody gave Halle Berry a memorable kiss after winning his Best Actor award... Later that night, Halle Berry won her own award for Best Knee to the Groin." Maybe a small glimpse of the kind of humor we might get on Sunday night. Sounds like a mild Daily Show joke.

By: Cassford

Cassford — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:12:41 -0800

Stewart is sort of unknown outside his core devotees... He had a bestselling book and has been on the cover of just about every major general-readership magazine in the US. Also, The Harris Poll just found him to be the second most popular television personality in the US (behind the ever-dominant Oprah). If that's "sort of unknown," pity poor Dr. Phil, who dropped off the top 10 list this year into "Phil Who?" territory.

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:15:45 -0800

I entertain (admittedly naive) hopes that somehow Jon will have convinced the Academy Overlords that by giving him a loose leash he'll be able to do them a whole world of good, making this years Oscars as entertaining as The Daily Show usually is. But then cursed reality jumps back into frame and I realise that there's no way in hell that that would ever happen. And I realise that I'll tune into the Oscars and probably find that Jon will be funny, but not "Ha Ha" funny. In short; he won't suck, but fans who hope he'll be as scathing of the establishment as he usually is on TDS will likely be in for a big dissapointment.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:29:44 -0800

I think most stewart fans are going to tune in just to see how bad it will be :P

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:30:01 -0800

Book sales bestsellers and polls like Harris (run completely online) are not indicators of mega-popularity. Every right wing nut who can sell about 200,000 copies of their hard cover complaint about something in America is a "best-seller" for about a month. I want Stewart to be big -- I think it's good for America to hear a palatable liberal voice -- but he's not there yet.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:30:55 -0800

God, Tim Allen was the #1 TV Personality from 1993-1995? How can anyone think society has gone down hill?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:32:36 -0800

How did Jerry Seinfeild make it back on the list this year?

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:39 -0800

Mikey -- I saw I didn't cap the factor and didn't feel like changing it. It sorta fit -- he gets all his facts wrong, why should I get grammar right for the same moron?

By: idontlikewords

idontlikewords — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:05:36 -0800

Somebody wake me up when they get David Cross.

By: notmydesk

notmydesk — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:31:28 -0800

I think Stewart fans, like Bruce Campbell fans, find him fun and enjoyable no matter what he does. I think I'll find his Oscar stuff funny just because I find him funny. The show will suck otherwise, as per usual.

By: ryokoblue

ryokoblue — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:49:29 -0800

Hasn't Jon Stewart hosted the Grammys a couple of times already? I guess I could track down someone who actually watches the Grammys to tell me what to expect, but the odds of finding a big fan of those awards aren't great.

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:00:00 -0800

skepticallypleased: I was hoping you'd say something like that. Absolutely could not agree more. :-D

By: graventy

graventy — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:16:20 -0800

I expect it will be the same crappy Oscar broadcast it is every year, and I expect like the fool I am I'll watch it until the end, funny or no. Good luck, Jon.

By: LondonYank

LondonYank — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:39:25 -0800

Those of us over the pond would have to stay up till the wee hours to even see the start of this bloated exercise, never mind the end of it. Methinks it will be more amusing played at 30x on my PVR the next morning.

By: spock

spock — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:23:08 -0800

I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that Stewart will bite. Anybody who remembers Crossfire and the following exchange: CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny. STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey. might think twice about Stewart being guaranteed to pass up such a world stage and play by the rules. I am pretty certain that he will somehow work in an apology to the world for the current administration that the U.S. put in office. I'd go so far to say that with the position that this administration has taken on freedoms and civil liberties that the Academy may have actually chosen Stewart because he could take the administration down a couple of notches on a big stage.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:46:03 -0800

WTF do you think this guy is cool or clever?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:46:14 -0800

Or subversive?

By: spock

spock — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:57:41 -0800

PP, if you are talking to me . . . the Crossfire "interview" was one of the most remarkable things to air on television in recent memory. To have someone go on a show as a guest and take that show to task for what it is (or has become) takes balls. If you are going to deny that, then we have nothing to discuss. "Subversive"? Well, CNN cancelled Crossfire and Tucker and CNN parted ways shortly thereafter. If you think that Stewart's exposé had nothing to do with it, I hope you'll share the name of your pharmacist. Whether you think of that as "subversive" as opposed to "what should have happened" depends upon your point of view. "Cool"? It is hard not to admire the sort of person who would take that sort of gamble and pull it off. "Clever"? Undeniably. His ability to think quickly on his feet and ad-lib doesn't come from someone slow in the synapses department.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:08:41 -0800

WTF do you think this guy is cool or clever? posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM PST on March 1 If he's neither, then what are you?

By: spock

spock — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:33:41 -0800

OC, if he's neither then isn't PP correct?

By: youarenothere

youarenothere — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:48:17 -0800

WTF does anyone think that NYT article is cool or clever?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:49:00 -0800

Stewart won't say anything overtly controvertial about US politics just out of the blue, but I'd expect him to use "Good Night and Good Luck" as a jumping off point for a few stabs, but not much more.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:55:31 -0800

It won't be the Daily Show but it will still be okay, definitely better than Chris Rock last year. CBS/Viacom owns Comedy Central as well, and this is an investment for them: they want to make Jon Stewart a palatable network star, especially with a decline in primetime comedy staples and the ever-approaching retirement of David Letterman.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:21:52 -0800

OC, if he's neither then isn't PP correct? posted by spock at 6:33 AM PST on March 1 Well, I'm sure PP's tastes tend more towards the toadying, post-9/11 Dennis Miller, who takes on such edgy topics as "Osama is bad."

By: rekka

rekka — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:23:07 -0800

I live in the UK and when I first saw Stewart on the Daily Show I was just shocked that this sort of comedy exists in the US and gets over a million viewers. I'm happy it does.

By: spock

spock — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:29:04 -0800

THAT is a relevant observation, XQUZYPHYR. Viacom owns CBS and MTV Networks. (MTV Networks wholly owns Comedy Central).

By: Tlogmer

Tlogmer — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:34:46 -0800

Isn't the New Republic basically a rag for Lieberman-type Democrat Neocons? Just as Entertainment Weekly is hurt by its name sounding like Entertainment Tonight, New Republic gets connotations bled over from Free Republic.

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:42:13 -0800

...You make the easy jokes that Leno threw out that week, Wrong. Leno doesn't throw out jokes. He's STILL enamoured with the whole Joey Buttawhogivesafucko thing from 15 years ago.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:48:58 -0800

Wow, there's nuthin' like playing "Thursday morning quarterbacks," eh? Still, his schtick on the Daily Show consists of basically 3 gags, the eye-rub with funny sounds and / or an exagerated "whaaa???", the nebbishy voiced guy and a bad Bush impersonation. Since Colbert's gotten his own show I often don't bother turning the TV on until 12:30 now. posted by Space Coyote at 11:48 PM EST Comedy--like music-- is very personal. I can't help laughing every single time Jon does his Bush impersonation- in fact I only have to see him go into the crouch and before he gets to the "heh heh heh" I'm already laughing. Colbert, on the other hand, just isn't my cup of tea. I watched for about three weeks before deciding I had better things to do with that half fhour. Although I still love his promo spots on The Daily Show. think Stewart fans, like Bruce Campbell fans, find him fun and enjoyable no matter what he does. I think I'll find his Oscar stuff funny just because I find him funny. The show will suck otherwise, as per usual. posted by notmydesk at 1:31 AM EST That sums it up for me. And thank the good lard almighty that I have TiVo.

By: prostyle

prostyle — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:49:48 -0800

...but, Jon is funny because he is in control of this strange TV media thing, and molds it to his specifications. *chortle* pass that spliff

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:52:52 -0800

"Somebody wake me up when they get David Cross." If they hire David Cross, there will be a lot of people that will need waking up.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:53:09 -0800

Secret Life of Gravy: Colbert, on the other hand, just isn't my cup of tea. I watched for about three weeks before deciding I had better things to do with that half fhour. Although I still love his promo spots on The Daily Show. Just FYI, he got better. Not a ton better, but it might be worth another look.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:55:21 -0800

Unlike most of the MeFi population, I think I'll watch it before I decide whether or not to hate it or love it. In any event, Stewart as host has already succeeded, since they've gotten a bunch of folks who normally don't care about such things discussing the oscars.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:56:03 -0800

"Uma....Oprah....Oprah...Uma..." Y'know, little off topic here, but how many people here watched that moment and thought "Oh My God! WTF is he doing!?!? That's absolutely ridiculous!"? I remember seeing it (for some unknown reason I was still watching the Oscars at that point) and thinking it was just another oddball gag Letterman was trying out, and fell a little flat. Over time conventional wisdom has raised it to a blunder of epic proportions proving why Letterman should not have been allowed onto that stage. I'm wondering how many people are drinking that KoolAid. That said, I agree with the CW that Stewart will be fine, if tame, and this will not amount to a huge turning point one way or another in his career.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:57:05 -0800

Comedy--like music-- is very personal. I can't help laughing every single time Jon does his Bush impersonation- in fact I only have to see him go into the crouch and before he gets to the "heh heh heh" I'm already laughing. He's really just recycling an old Ross Perot impression. I love him, but he's better as straight man to all the idiotic politicians and the things they do, and to his own correspondents, i think. He's going to be on a very very tight leash, and the Oscars will probably be dull as usual. Whoopie was the last host to really get political and got in big trouble for it.

By: thisisdrew

thisisdrew — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:54:44 -0800

Here's to John swallowing whatever pill he swallowed right before going on Crossfire.

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 09:30:06 -0800

New Republic gets connotations bled over from Free Republic No, the New Republic has been around much longer, and its circulation has been in free-fall for the last few years now. However, they just got a new editor. I used to really enjoy the balance and writing in it, but haven't read it for a while--I'm willing to give it another shot now.

By: kickerofelves

kickerofelves — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:26:30 -0800

I'd rather see Craig Kilborn host the Oscars (and the Daily Show).

By: spock

spock — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:33:07 -0800

**sticks finger down throat** Craig Ferguson would be a good Oscar host, but probably won't be tapped until he takes over the Letterman time slot. Craig Kilborn, like Keith Olbermann, should never have left ESPN. Stewart and The Daily Show? Don't mess with perfection.

By: dontrememberthis

dontrememberthis — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:46:08 -0800

This has some good background on Stewart you might enjoy reading...

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:03:45 -0800

amberglow writes "I love him, but he's better as straight man to all the idiotic politicians and the things they do, and to his own correspondents, i think." Jon plays an awesome straight guy, his bit in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back had me laughing my ass off.

By: mammary16

mammary16 — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:20:32 -0800

Why all this New Republic bashing? The magazine is pretty unique, offering a wide range of opinion in a purely argumentative way, preferring argument over story. Granted, sometimes TNR's ridiculous. It endorsed Lieberman, for example, in a way that acknowledged the alck of Joementum but in a spirit of "Let's go down with the ship". But I like the fact that I don't often agree with it.

By: skepticallypleased

skepticallypleased — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:09:06 -0800

Colbert's hard to take for 22 minutes (and he'll even admit he's got it harder than Jon for that (previous Mefi thread)). BUT, his "THE WORD" has to be the funniest 2-3 minutes on television. Thanks for the link remember, it voiced my concerns about Stewart's appeasment track much more well than I could and told me a lot about the guy that I never knew. I hope he takes a couple jibes at the Bushies anyways.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:12:27 -0800

They should just let Bruce Vilanch host--he writes most of the jokes anyway for most of them anyway.

By: adamp88

adamp88 — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:57:28 -0800

For those of you who may have given up on Colbert early on in his show, I'd suggest giving it a go again. I watched the first few episodes and thought it just wasn't clicking, but I picked it up about a month later and really like it now - Colbert is really nailing his character now and the whole show seems to run cleaner. And "The WORD" is indeed the funniest 2-3 minutes on tv.

By: spock

spock — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:02:14 -0800

This would seem to bode well: Bruce Vilanch is apparently writing mostly the banter for the award introducers, this year: "It's really live television, the way God meant it to be," said Bruce Vilanch, a writer on 15 previous Oscar broadcasts who is returning this year, after a two-year hiatus, mostly to write introductions in various award categories." Stewart will apparently be using his Daily Show writers, "among others": "armed with punch lines drafted in consultation with Mr. Karlin and six other "Daily Show" writers, among others." In terms of political satire, Gil Cates, who is producing his 13th Oscar telecast, said his host was welcome to take on the Washington establishment, "as long as it's evenhanded."

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:46:30 -0800

"as long as it's evenhanded." Oh for fuck's sake.

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:28:51 -0800

I think it'll be interesting, because it may involve Stewart playing his role of 'fake news anchor' outside of his usual setting. Something you might not have noticed: Stewart never wears a suit when he does interviews or appears on TV outside the Daily Show. I think it's a very deliberate choice, and it gives weight to things like the 'Crossfire' appearance. Monday's Larry King was similar in character: there's always a bizarre dynamic, in which King is oblivious both to Stewart's dry irony, and to the moments when he's deadly serious.

STEWART: Yes, I prefer not the fodder. I'm not -- we're not the guys at the craps table betting against the line. I would -- we'd make fun of something else. If public life, if government suddenly became inspiring and moved towards people's better nature and began to solve problems in a rational way rather than just a way that involved political dividends, we would be the happiest people in the world to turn our attention to idiots like, you know, media people, no offense. KING: So, you don't want it to be bad? STEWART: Did you really just ask me if I want it to be bad? KING: Yes because you... STEWART: What are you -- I have kids what do you think? Yes, I don't want them to have any kind of a -- I want things to corrode to the point where we're all living in huts.

When he wears a suit, he's doing fake news. And when he wears his dinner jacket, he'll likely to be be fake-news guy doing the Oscars. (At least, having Karlin and the other writers there suggests he's going to be in character.) But, he might not be. He might be they guy who appears on Larry King doing the Oscars. And that may well be even more interesting, given his comments to King on the bullshit idea that Hollywood is engaged in some kind of 'culture war', as opposed to making money from filling cinemas in Iowa. As for 'losing his bite'? Bollocks. The middle sections are weaker now that Samantha Bee is on maternity leave and Colbert is doing his own thing (I'll back up those who say he's really found his character) but the opening segment bites like a piranha. It's Juvenalian satire.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 06:55:20 -0800

Tom Shales at the Washington Post says "Keep Your 'Daily' Job, Jon Stewart." "Stewart began the show drearily, loping through a monologue that lacked a single hilarious joke with the possible exception of 'Bjork couldn't be here tonight. She was trying on her Oscar dress and Dick Cheney shot her.' "That was about it -- and Stewart had five months, working with his legions of writers from the 'Daily Show' on Comedy Central, to come up with good material. It goes to prove that there's still a big, big difference between basic cable and big-time network television after all."

By: holgate

holgate — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:52:37 -0800

And Tom Shales is full of it. He's had five months to prepare his 'there's a big difference between the networks and cable' piece, and that's the best he can do?