they were right on top of the RNC and did a good job on Zell Miller, though he was an easy <ahem> target.

I don’t own a TV but I download programs occasionally. This is about as good as television gets. Pretty damn good! His interview with Wolf Blitzer (in which Blitzer doesn’t seem to comprehend he’s being punched repeatedly in the face) almost justified the idiocy that is CNN, if only to provide back story for such a sublime moment. I watched it 3 times.

i recently heard a poll taken where a huge majority of people under 25 rely on the daily show as their main source of news. i mean don't get me wrong, i give it a not crap, but something about that is disturbing...

unarmedman wrote:i recently heard a poll taken where a huge majority of people under 25 rely on the daily show as their main source of news. i mean don't get me wrong, i give it a not crap, but something about that is disturbing...

Unfortunately, if you’re ever the least bit unsure of what ‘The Man’ has to say about current events, you can trust the pollsters to deliver the answer, in this case w/ a little reactionary spin.

NOT CRAP, no waffle

I really dig this interview Jon Stewart gave to Ted Koppel a few months ago. He talks about journalism and cutting through the talking points that pass as balanced reporting (and as a bonus, Koppel gets snippy):

Koppel and Stewart at the DNC

And a study just came out showing that Daily Show viewers are (relatively) politically aware: PDF or HTML

Barack Obama is supposed to be on tonight.
Thought I'd let y'all know.

I'm on the fence about this show. Jon's delivery and personality kinda grate on me by now, and I think the show as a whole has gotten really predictable. I know I'll probably sound like an idiot, but I liked it better before they "flirted with credibility." Also, Jon Stewart misuses the word "literally" more than anyone on earth.

I hardly ever watch it, but it is NOT CRAP with waffles of 6.

I agree that it's getting predictable; Jon resorts to silly voices and pointless ad-libbing with greater frequency. He can do this because TDSw/JS has the third most host-lovestruck studio audience on television, behind Leno and Oprah.

On the other hand, Jon shows great class during the interviews. The studio audience eats up any negative comment about the GOP with a roar of applause, and Jon never fails to shush them or ridicule them. When some people clapped when Bill O'Reilly said he might leave broadcasting in a few years, Jon actually looked annoyed and told them to cut it out. This attitude is the best indicator of Jon's credibility; he refuses to take the easy route and play only to liberals. I have no doubt that he would be effective if Democrats gained power, though I wonder what the audience would do.

Robin

Smirking, hypocritical, narcissistic dilettante with no demonstrated grasp of "facts" and a genuine commitment to nothing. The voice of a cynical demographic who are at home with the idea of the world being a colossal joke, and who aren't interested in why.
I feel he does an actual disservice to the "left" by articulating its positions as a string of snide putdowns directed towards the opposition while offering little or nothing to back his views. Said putdowns tend to lack the flair one might expect from an imaginative eighth-grader; how so many can be hoodwinked into thinking that calling your adversary a dick is some sort of rhetorical checkmate is something which astounds me. All I can suppose is that there's a lot of people out there who are easily impressed.
Stewart's apologists point out that his show is merely entertainment and not meant to be taken seriously, therefore, it shouldn't be held to general standards of journalism or public debate. Chickenshit. that's the fig leaf which is conveniently brandished whenever whichever half-baked argument of his can go no further. This is the cowardly mechanism by which it is deemed acceptable to interrupt an answer being truthfully given or to hijack a factual trump card with a rejoinder. When he's losing, he's merely a clown. When he's winning, it is the very basis of that which makes the humour humourous that he's winnowing through the crap and offering his viewers some version of truth. He positions himself as a pundit. He offers criticisms and opinions - if you can call doing something like quoting Rove and then staring into the camera with one of those cute "you-gotta-be-kidding-me" looks and waiting for laughs an opinion.
But upon what does he predicate his smarty-pants rights? I've never seen him corner anybody with reason, however I have seen him Uncle Tom it up pretty bad. Dark times indeed these are when smug superiority is claimed as an entitlement of educated progressives, but when they get Henry Kissinger on their show, instead of asking him why he supposes he shouldn't be wearing leg-irons and an orange jumpsuit in a courtroom in The Hague, they plug his fucking book.
The disturbing statistic which floats around out there about however many people getting all their news from The Daily Show eases one towards an understanding of why there's a whole generation out there who think they're too smart to vote.
Vile egregious mung. Crap.

Jon Stewart has said himself that anyone who gets most of their news from THE DAILY SHOW is in trouble, and you sure can't blame him for his audience. I don't think he's perfect, but the show is smart, it makes me laugh, and he does have guests on who are given more room to intelligently discuss current events than on most news shows (his interview with Christopher Hitchens was a genuinely thoughtful exchange on their difference about the war, and I'm sure not seeing that on CNN lately).

Good stuff. Not Crap.