Is Jon Stewart ready for his closeup?
February 28, 2006 7:39 PM   Subscribe

At this Larry King interview 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.
posted by skepticallypleased (77 comments total)
 
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.
posted by skepticallypleased at 7:40 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:41 PM on February 28, 2006


I predict he will do as well as Letterman.
posted by smackfu at 7:46 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by wfrgms at 7:46 PM on February 28, 2006


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
posted by ChasFile at 7:53 PM on February 28, 2006


Was the lack of capitalization on "the factor" intentional?

If not, can I pretend it was?
posted by secret about box at 7:53 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by my sock puppet account at 7:56 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by chrominance at 8:00 PM on February 28, 2006


"...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?
posted by Drastic at 8:01 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by shmegegge at 8:10 PM on February 28, 2006


"Uma....Oprah....Oprah...Uma..."

Sort of like that, but with more boyish self-deprecating charm.
posted by briank at 8:10 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by frogan at 8:15 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by delmoi at 8:15 PM on February 28, 2006


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?
posted by pitchblende at 8:16 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by dhartung at 8:17 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by NGnerd at 8:23 PM on February 28, 2006


bugmenot worked for me to read the TNR article, and it totaly sucked.
posted by delmoi at 8:30 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by pruner at 8:32 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by filchyboy at 8:33 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by skepticallypleased at 8:37 PM on February 28, 2006


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?
posted by fungible at 8:37 PM on February 28, 2006


flichyboy: not all of his viewers are 12 yrs old.
posted by bobloblaw at 8:39 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by kozad at 8:44 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:48 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by purephase at 9:01 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by spiderwire at 9:01 PM on February 28, 2006


Here's a clip of Stewart on King.
posted by homunculus at 9:09 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by shortfuse at 9:09 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by Cassford at 9:12 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:15 PM on February 28, 2006


I think most stewart fans are going to tune in just to see how bad it will be :P
posted by delmoi at 9:29 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by skepticallypleased at 9:30 PM on February 28, 2006


God, Tim Allen was the #1 TV Personality from 1993-1995?

How can anyone think society has gone down hill?
posted by delmoi at 9:30 PM on February 28, 2006


How did Jerry Seinfeild make it back on the list this year?
posted by delmoi at 9:32 PM on February 28, 2006


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?
posted by skepticallypleased at 9:38 PM on February 28, 2006


Somebody wake me up when they get David Cross.
posted by idontlikewords at 10:05 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by notmydesk at 10:31 PM on February 28, 2006


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.
posted by ryokoblue at 10:49 PM on February 28, 2006


skepticallypleased:

I was hoping you'd say something like that. Absolutely could not agree more. :-D
posted by secret about box at 1:00 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by graventy at 1:16 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by LondonYank at 1:39 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by spock at 5:23 AM on March 1, 2006


WTF do you think this guy is cool or clever?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM on March 1, 2006


Or subversive?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by spock at 5:57 AM on March 1, 2006


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?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:08 AM on March 1, 2006


OC, if he's neither then isn't PP correct?
posted by spock at 6:33 AM on March 1, 2006


WTF does anyone think that NYT article is cool or clever?
posted by youarenothere at 6:48 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:49 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:55 AM on March 1, 2006


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."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:21 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by rekka at 7:23 AM on March 1, 2006


THAT is a relevant observation, XQUZYPHYR. Viacom owns CBS and MTV Networks. (MTV Networks wholly owns Comedy Central).
posted by spock at 7:29 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by Tlogmer at 7:34 AM on March 1, 2006


...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.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:42 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:48 AM on March 1, 2006


...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
posted by prostyle at 7:49 AM on March 1, 2006


"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.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:52 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by callmejay at 7:53 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by bondcliff at 7:55 AM on March 1, 2006


"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.
posted by soyjoy at 7:56 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by amberglow at 7:57 AM on March 1, 2006


Here's to John swallowing whatever pill he swallowed right before going on Crossfire.
posted by thisisdrew at 8:54 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by bardic at 9:30 AM on March 1, 2006


I'd rather see Craig Kilborn host the Oscars (and the Daily Show).
posted by kickerofelves at 10:26 AM on March 1, 2006


**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.
posted by spock at 10:33 AM on March 1, 2006


This has some good background on Stewart you might enjoy reading...
posted by dontrememberthis at 10:46 AM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by Mitheral at 12:03 PM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by mammary16 at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2006


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.
posted by skepticallypleased at 5:09 PM on March 1, 2006




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.
posted by adamp88 at 1:57 AM on March 2, 2006


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."
posted by spock at 5:02 AM on March 2, 2006


"as long as it's evenhanded."

Oh for fuck's sake.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2006


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.
posted by holgate at 8:28 AM on March 2, 2006


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."

posted by crunchland at 6:55 AM on March 6, 2006


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?
posted by holgate at 5:52 PM on March 6, 2006


« Older Ferrari meets phone pole at 162mph   |   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments