Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Daily Show Wins Peabody

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the most-important-slashdot-story...-ever dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 133

wiredog writes "The Daily Show's Indecision 2000 was awarded a Peabody Award for it's coverage of the 2000 election! The Peabody is one of the most prestigious awards in broadcast journalism. Comedy central beat out ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, and all thew other news programs. " I watch this show pretty religiously: they are the only televised "news" I watch. Their Indecision 2000 coverage was awesome: through all the prodding, satire and joking, it was probably the best coverage during the entire election (and they made the purgatory that followed tolerable). In my eyes, they're the funniest thing coming out daily in any media. And Jon, if you ever need guests that nobody in your viewing audience has ever heard of, shoot me an email. CowboyNeal and I are more fun then a bag of cats, and you should see what he can do with a hard boiled egg and a straw.

cancel ×


Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#326008)

I agree 100% percent. The previous writing was top-notch. It meshed perfectly with Kilborne's style. It's also clear to anyone who saw Kilborne on TDS and now on his own show, that writing matters!

Jon Stewart, while he can be funny, just doesn't do it for me on this show. Half of the problem is that he's a comedian that can't write for that kind of show. Or at least the show that it used to be for me.

I find the correspondents much funnier, especially Steve Carrell(sp).

Highlights from the Kilborne era:

o Brian Unger doing a piece on how to be a journalist. He kept pestering innocent people with questions like "What do you have to hide?" and pissing them off. I remember a guy (a clown?) smashing the door in his face.

o A joke about a cruise ship that was rejected from docking in the Caymen Islands because the passengers were gay. The punchline refering to the passengers being upset and admonished "Caymen, my ass!"

o Beth Littleford's revisiting her past.

Wow, I wish they would do a "best-of" from that era on DVD.

Bleah (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#326009)

  1. The Daily Show was much funnier with Craig Kilborn. It is currently unwatchable. Sorry. I tried. I really did. Jon Stewart has approximately zero charisma.
  2. I hate the interview segments; I hate it when they make fun of people who are being completely earnest and sincere. I hated them when Kilborn was host too; I can't pin this one on Stewart.
  3. The real problem with parody is that it sometimes becomes accepted truth. Dana Carvey's George Bush imitation, for example, is routinely praised as being spot-on--but if you actually listen to a speech by or an interview with Bush, and A/B it with the Carvey impression, the impression is a piece of crap. Same thing has happened to William Shatner; all the comedy routines about him are accepted reality, and people base their impressions of Shatner on them, rather than on his body of work.

I think the award should have gone to a legitimate news source. Of course, the real problem is that there aren't any legitimate news sources any more. Corporations own them all.

Also, I don't mean this to sound like I'm against satire or parody or anything like that. But people need to be aware that they have a responsibility to review non-parodized and non-satirized material as well. It's like basing your weltanschauung on Mad magazine if you're older than about 12.

that's good except... (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#326010)

the daily show isn't on on friday...

* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

Kilborn's "cute" act pisses me off. (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#326011)

He didn't do it as much when he was on TDS, but on his own late-night show I find it unbearable. Stewart kicks Kilborn's ass all over the place.

- A.P.

* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (5)

alewando (854) | more than 13 years ago | (#326012)

Sure it's just comedy, so you're supposed to laugh, right? But isn't there another cause for concern, here?

Respect for the news is an important part of the American way of life. It's written into the first amendment of our constitution, and it's taught in civics classes across the country: freedom of press reigns supreme. And it's for good reason, too. History has shown that not being a freedom-of-speech absolutist can only lead to the abyss of anarchy and even death.

But how are we supposed to approve of a comedy news program? It not only satirizes the news its reports; it even satirizes the press as an institution. That flies in the face of our nation's histories and traditions, and it undermines respect for the constitution.

If we are to remain free, then there must not only be freedom of press on paper. There must be freedom of press in our hearts and minds and souls. That means saying "no" to all attempts to encroach upon that freedom.

The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech.

Re:Rob, you are delusional... (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 13 years ago | (#326013)

1932. ph34r m3!!

agreed... (1)

Byteme (6617) | more than 13 years ago | (#326015)

...Daily Show is one of the few good things on television. Simpsons, 60 Minutes a close tie for second.

I haven't watched as much TV since Ren & Stimpy went of the air. That was the high art of television. DVD someday??? I hope so.

Re:Rob, you are delusional... (1)

Ashen (6917) | more than 13 years ago | (#326016)

My UID is 6917, eat me! :D

Re:Definitions( was Re:My JonKatzish contribution. (2)

Teferi (16171) | more than 13 years ago | (#326023)

CBS was Conservative Bavarian Seers, not Conspiracy of Bavarian Seers.


"If ignorance is bliss, may I never be happy.

Re:Ha! April Fool's! (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 13 years ago | (#326024)

April Fool's Day is April first. At the moment, it is approximately 00:12 GMT, March 31. This was posted on March 30. As such, it is not an April Fool's Day joke.


Re: A. Whitney Brown (1)

lucidvein (18628) | more than 13 years ago | (#326026)

Yeah, A. Whitney Brown [] is outrageously funny. I especially like this quip [] from his site.

The net needs better transcripts of these shows. Of course there would be a lot of stuff to choose from, but I would enjoy digging thru volumes of text for some of my favorite writers.

These days Comedy Central and Public Access are the only channels that have anything really going for them. Good writing, few restraints.

My JonKatzish contribution :) mod down if desired (5)

joshwa (24288) | more than 13 years ago | (#326027)

There is a phrase circulating through television studios and newsrooms across the country describing the philosophy of the modern television news director: "If it bleeds, it leads." Murders, sex crimes, animal abuse, freeway chases, and domestic squabbles are the main staples of television news programs today. The corporations owning most TV stations place excessive profit expectations on their subsidiaries, mandating that TV stations generate huge margins. The way most TV stations have managed to survive is by producing shows that appeal to the greatest number of viewers. However, in the process, the television industry has forgotten the responsibilities and requirements that allowed them to use publicly owned airwaves. This ignorance of the responsibility to inform is a threat to a democratic system relying on an informed citizenry.

TV news has not always been shamelessly sensationalistic. When television was in its infancy during the late 1940s and the 1950s, the news was an inconsequential portion of the television day: just 15 minutes a day were devoted to a somber reading of the news by Douglas Edwards on CBS (Isaak 1). Back then there were only the 3 major networks; CBS, ABC, and CBS, known then and now as the "Big Three." They had practically no competition for viewers-with only three stations to choose from, the networks were guaranteed a large portion of the audience (Donaldson 3). The networks made all their money on the entertainment portion of their programming, and they made mountains of it. The networks could afford to have responsible, informative newscasts that lost money (Donaldson 3).

This utopia of sorts, however, did not last forever. Starting in the late 1960s, with television viewership sharply on the rise, the local stations that run network programming, known as network affiliates, discovered the viability of local television news programming. What began as an experiment in San Francisco during a newspaper strike (Stark 3) quickly exploded across the nation as a way to supplement the compensation given station owners for running the network's programs. Creating or expanding existing news programming was very attractive to station owners because news is staggeringly cheaper to produce than a dramatic show (Stark 2). For those stations that already had news programs in one form or another, the expanding markets offered more opportunities for revenue. According to Jim Thistle, a professor at the Boston University School of Communications, and former news director at all three major network affiliates in Boston, "Once you have a newscast, the cheapest thing you can do is more news" (qtd. in Siegel, 3). Once stations started expanding, many saw newscasts generating one-half to one-third of the profit for the entire station (Stark 2).

Competition drove the development of these newscasts because of the huge amounts of money involved. For example in Orlando, the 36th largest market, the top-rated station charges $1,400 for a 30-second advertising spot on its 11pm newscast. In contrast, the third most-watched news station charges only $900 for the same time slot. With eight minutes of commercials during the half-hour, the difference in one night is between $22,400 versus $14,400 in revenue. In a year, that makes for a $3 million difference between first and third place, just for that one program. In larger markets such as New York, the difference is $100 million per year (Winerip 34).

These new newscasts did not arise from the tradition of radio and print journalism, as the network programs did. Many local TV programs were because of the potential for profits, and consequently were staffed with "TV people" instead of seasoned journalists (Stark 3). The result was a highly stylized version of journalism, focused more on the anchors reading the news than on the news itself. Some newscasts featured frequent banter between the newsreaders, and were likewise dubbed "happy talk" newscasts (Stark 3). Other stations used a different, "action news" format with fewer, faster-paced stories, exciting, upbeat music, and a heavy emphasis on visuals. These various formats were developed and marketed by a few, highly-paid media consultants to stations all across the country looking for a reliable way to make TV news attract viewers and bring in advertising dollars (Stark 4).

If the new TV news was in a decline during the sixties and seventies, it entered a free-fall during the eighties. When Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry, they changed the rules governing TV station ownership: large corporations could now own three times as many stations as under the previous laws, and they were no longer required to keep a station for three years before selling it (Winerip 35). This significantly changed the climate in the television industry. The period following deregulation was marked by a rapid consolidation of many TV stations across the country by a few large corporations. In addition, larger corporations, enabled by the deregulation, acquired each of the Big 3 networks (Ver Berkmoes 3). Because the networks, in addition to providing programming, also own local stations ("O&O's:" Owned and Operated), their acquisition impacted a large number of individual stations across the country.

Corporate ownership of TV stations and networks meant that changes were inevitable. Because TV stations typically have such huge profit margins (40-50%) (Winerip 39), they were attractive targets. Corporations with a variety of assets bought TV stations to take the pressure off more important holdings, like a flagship newspaper (Winerip 39). The result of this strategy was that TV stations bore the brunt of the profit-generating responsibilities (Ver Berkmoes 3). According to a vice-president at one such corporation, because these companies are publicly owned, corporations are accountable to their shareholders, and must pay attention to what Wall Street analysts expect of them, namely that television stations should be cash cows for their mother corporations (Winerip 39).

Suddenly, the bottom line became much more important at TV stations. Station managers began frantically looking for ways to boost viewership. Since news programs were already the stations' main source of profit (Rapping 2), modifying the news to attract even more viewers seemed to make the most sense. News directors began to look for paradigms at other stations that had been successful in boosting ratings (Ver Berkmoes 3). One standout was WSVN in Miami. After losing their CBS affiliation in 1989, WSVN signed on with the fledgling Fox network and took a different approach to local programming. Station owner Edmund Ansin added four hours of news to the station's three (Lane 2). More notably, the station drastically restyled its approach to news. The new shows were fast-paced, had flashy graphics, breathless promos, and a large diet of crimes, fires, disasters, and mayhem. The change vaulted the station from a losing position to a consistent second place in the Miami market, regularly finishing above the area's ABC and NBC affiliates (Lane 1). Station managers looking for an idea to copy found a gold mine in WSVN (Ver Berkmoes 3).

WSVN's influence is strongly felt in the picture of television news today. In a study by Rocky Mountain Media Watch in 1995 of 50 major news markets, crime and disaster news constituted 53% of news on local newscasts, on average. Other non-news items, including "soft news, anchor chatter, teases, and celebrity items" made up an average of 31% (Stark 2). These sensational stories are most often the ones with the best pictures-with satellite technology, on a slow day a station can pull in the latest mayhem from anywhere in the world. So if no one gets shot or escapes from prison in Boston, we can still see today's train wreck in Arizona or a gas explosion in Houston (Frank 2).

The main purveyors of schlock are the same consultants, now hired by stations to help them stay competitive. Consultants' basic task is to alter the newscast to bring in as many viewers as possible. Their philosophy is evident in this consultant's report:

"It is not surprising...that research indicates ratings rise when the broadcast is successful in exposing the viewer to what he wants to hear, in the very personal way he wants to hear it. In terms of news, this means ratings are improved not when listeners are told what they should know, but what they want to know." (qtd. in Stark 3)

This new concept of "want to know" versus "need to know" is now the controlling principle of modern TV news. The popular term is "infotainment," describing pieces designed to arouse, scare, anger, and ultimately entertain hidden in the guise of "hard" news (Paige 2).

The new approach has its defenders as well as its detractors. Joel Cheatwood, the news director at WSVN who pioneered the approach, defends his tactics by claiming, "I'm not talking about changing journalistic standards as much as...changing presentation" (qtd. in Siegel 4). However, one veteran reporter working under Cheatwood (who is now at WHDH in Boston) offers this contradictory anectode: "When I would get into arguments over basic journalistic accuracy, I would have five producers fighting with me" (Siegel 4).

The consultants in charge of the changes often face bitter resentment from old-guard reporters who view responsible journalism as more important than boosted profit statements. Natalie Jacobson, a 25-year veteran of WCVB in Boston, calls consultants "the worst thing that ever happened to television" (qtd. in Aucoin 2). Jacobson decries consultants' cockiness, saying that they think they know better than experienced reporters do (Aucoin 3). She also lambasted consultants' hiring decisions, claiming that young reporters are hired for "showmanship" rather than reporting skills (qtd. in Aucoin 3).

The dominance of infotainment affects not only those stations that seek out the approach, but also those stations that seek to preserve their traditions of responsible journalism. If one station in a market has moved to tabloid-style news, competitors' newscasts can seem old and tired by comparison. Many react by modernizing their own newscasts so as not to be trumped by a newer, flashier show (Siegel 4). Those that do not react quickly enough face plummeting ratings, which means plummeting revenue.

The transformation of respectable television news into infotainment has drawn sharp criticism from all sides. Charles Kravetz, news director of New England Cable News and former assistant news director at WCVB, says of the new crop of newscasts: "[There used to be] a lack of a need to sensationalize and a reverence for journalistic standards that doesn't exist now" (qtd. in Siegel, 2). In reference to increased celebrity and scandal coverage, Jim Thistle says, "You almost can't tell where their tabloid shows like Hard Copy end and the news begins" (Siegel 4). Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz weighs in on the infotainment trend:

"There's absolutely nothing wrong when they try to pitch journalism to a mass audience by making it entertaining. The danger comes when they try to pass off as real news a segment designed to titillate, anger, or scare people." (qtd. in Paige, 2)

The danger is even more frightening because television, local news in particular, is for most Americans their main source of news. According to a 1996 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 65 percent of adults are regular viewers of local TV news. The study also reported that local news is the most trusted source of news-trusted more than local daily papers, network news, and national daily papers (Winerip 32).

That so many people trust a medium so thoroughly dubious is disturbing because of the inaccuracies plaguing television. In a most basic sense, the fast-paced formatting and the importance of striking visuals make it impossible to provide context or perspective on a story, two pillars of responsible journalism (Zuckerman, Limits, 2). This lack of context can distort a story. Marvin Kalb, president of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, says that the disproportionate coverage of crime and scandal "skew[s] reality-" by covering only the politicians who are corrupt, showing wars when the world is largely at peace, and more crime in a society with the lowest crime rate in a quarter century (qtd. in McCartney, 6). One cable news reporter expresses her frustrations: "What I object to is the lack of context. It all goes hurtling by, and the world is a frightening and inexplicable place" (Stark 6). Ted Koppel thinks the rush to embrace new technological gimmicks for ratings affects the perception of journalism: " TV has confused a lot of people into thinking that seeing a live event is the equivalent of journalism" (Koppel 2).

The pursuit of ad dollars has also influenced TV news in a far more subtle way. According to the Tyndall Report, a newsletter covering the network news programs published weekly, the amount of time allotted to editorial matter is slowly dwindling, replaced by more commercials (McCartney 2). The original format for the nightly network news was 21 minutes of editorial, and 8 minutes of advertising. Now only 19½ minutes of editorial are aired (McCartney 3). Less time means fewer or shorter segments, which means less context and less information (McCartney 3).

The depraved state of television news constitutes a serious threat to the operation of the democratic system. The governmental process in a democracy relies on an informed citizenship-citizens need to know how their elected representatives are performing, what issues may be relevant to their own lives that might warrant political action, and where political candidates stand on issues in order to intelligently exercise their voting privilege (McCartney 4). Television news, by not providing context, by providing misleading and sensational coverage, and by not providing sufficient coverage of the political process, is clearly not doing its job of informing the public. Thistle sums it up: "[I don't think]...if you want to make a stab at being a well-informed citizen you would want a tabloid format as your main source of information" (Siegel 3).

The extent of the problem is wide-ranging and far-reaching. According to a study by the Rocky Mountain Media Watch, subjects not covered sufficiently or at all were the environment, education, the economy, science, the arts, children, civil rights, parenting, and homelessness (Stark 6). These are the kinds of issues dealt with by politicians, but television does a shoddy job of providing enough coverage or information. For example, during the 1997 campaign finance hearings in Washington, D.C., the major networks provided no coverage at all, instead opting to produce in-depth reporting about the murder of Gianni Versace (Bozell 4). In a similar episode, during the 1998 gubernatorial race in California, none of the Los Angeles network affiliates showed up to cover the debates between the candidates. The leading stations similarly abandoned political coverage during the 1997 mayoral race in Los Angeles. When asked about their lapses in coverage, station and network spokespersons excuse was that there was insufficient public interest to justify such coverage; i.e. the stations would not be making any money (Cadell 1). National statistics confirm the trend: a University of Miami study discovered nationally twice as much crime news as political news, and 15 times as much crime as education news (Winerip 33).

Viewers, on the other hand, seem not to care very much. Surveys have repeatedly shown that audiences prefer crime stories (Winerip 32). Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, sees this as part of the problem. "Local TV news wouldn't cover crime as much as it does if the public didn't reward such coverage with high ratings," says Altman (Public Health 1). News directors are bound to deliver whatever polls say viewers want. One Orlando news director says, "all the surveys put crime at the top of the list. Who am I to second-guess the audience" (qtd. in Winerip 32)? Critics differ as to why viewers like crime. A meteorology professor, commenting on over-hyped storm coverage, provided this observation: "People have a natural interest in damage and other people problems. It makes your own problems seem a little less" (qtd. in Stark, 5). Carlos Fuentes, a writer for World Press Review, sees the industry as the problem-because the public gets such a huge volume of low-quality news, they think they are well-informed (Fuentes 1). Writer Steven D. Stark has another theory. He says that the citizens who want to be well-informed are often wealthier, and therefore have access to other more reliable sources of news, such as cable TV and the Internet. The remaining bloc of viewers are less-educated, poorer people who probably think that tabloid journalism is perfectly acceptable (Stark 6).

Despite the fact that viewers seem to be satisfied, television has a larger responsibility than pleasing viewers and corporate profit statements. Television is a remarkably influential medium, both to viewers and to the government to which television provides oversight. The decisions made by news directors in choosing which stories or issues to cover have a direct effect on the broader political agenda, both locally and nationally. As U.S. News and World Report media critic Mortimer B. Zuckerman, most succinctly put it, "No pictures, no policy" (Blind Eye 1). The television networks and local news are the "main source of perceptions about what is important" (McCartney 3). The effect can be best illustrated by the relationship between coverage and action on foreign policy. A few years ago there were famines in both Somalia and the Sudan, but CNN only had good pictures from Somalia. The public outrage fueled a policy effort to assist Somalia, while nothing was done for the Sudan (Zuckerman, Blind Eye, 1). Television influences the public's agenda, as well-studies show that viewers who watch crime-saturated newscasts are more likely to support more radical and punitive law-enforcement policies (Stark 6).

The television industry's obligations go beyond austere democratic responsibilities to be informative. The television industry has violated the terms under which they are licensed to use the airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission: the 1934 mandate that established the FCC stated that the broadcast media are to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" (McCartney 9). While there may be some wiggle room in the wording of the license requirements, and TV stations may be serving the public convenience, they are far from fulfilling their obligations to the public interest and necessity.

Fortunately, the law provides a way out: if a station is not fulfilling its obligations, a petition can be heard to revoke the station's license. This has been done only once in recent memory-in 1972, a group of prominent business and education leaders sued for the FCC license of Boston station WHDH-TV because they were fed up with the "garbage" the station was producing. They renamed the station WCVB, which has remained a responsible news leader ever since (Siegel 2), despite the invasion of consultants (Aucoin 1). Ironically, Boston's ailing WNEV-TV was recently acquired by WSVN owner Edmund Ansin, and renamed WHDH. The tradition of schlock TV continues.

Others see self-regulation as the way to save TV journalism. Austin, Texas ABC affiliate KVUE-TV has adopted a new strategy to battle sensationalism. The news director has put in place a set of stringent requirements that determine whether or not a crime story is aired, which include: Is action required? Is there a threat to public safety? Is there a threat to children? Does this have a larger community impact? These new rules are in response to viewer surveys that indicated that they were sick of crime (Holley 5). While this is represents being a slave to the viewers in a way, news director Mike George has the best of intentions: "It's just like any other story. We ask the question, 'Why is this important?'" (Holley 5)

Works Cited

Aucoin, Don. "The News from Natalie." Boston Globe 31 Mar. 1998: C1. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.

Bozell, L. Brent. "Tabloid Trash TV Preferred Over Hearings." Insight on the News 1 Sep. 1997: 29. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Caddell, Patrick. "A Modest Proposal: Sue the Bastards!" The Nation 8 Jun. 1998: 16. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Donaldson, Sam. "The State of Television News: In the Business to Make Money." Vital Speeches 1 Jan. 1998: 168. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Frank, Reuven. "Localizing Network News." The New Leader 6 Sep. 1993: 20. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

"Health Ranks Fifth on Local TV News." Public Health Reports July-August 1998: 296. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Holley, Joe. "Should the Coverage Fit the Crime?" Columbia Journalism Review May-June 1996: 27. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Isaak, Sharon. "Anchors Aweigh." Entertainment Weekly 18 Jun. 1993: 32. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Lane, Randall. "The Dean of Tabloid TV." Forbes 28 Feb. 1994: 100. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

McCartney, James. "News Lite." American Journalism Review June 1997: 18. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Paige, Sean. "That's Infotainment!" Insight on the News 8 Jun. 1998: 8. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Rapping, Elayne. "Watching the Eyewitless News." The Progressive Mar. 1995: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Siegel, Ed. "Lack of Vision Hurt Channel 7 Under Mugar." Boston Globe 23 Apr. 1993: 45. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.

Siegel, Ed. "TV Wars." Boston Globe 12 Feb. 1995: 18. Boston Globe Online. Online. 6 Jan. 1999.

Stark, Steven D. "Local News: The Biggest Scandal on TV." Washington Monthly June 1997: 38. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Ver Berkmoes, Ryan. "89 Hours." Chicago April 1995: 66. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Winerip, Michael. "Looking for an 11 O'clock Fix." The New York Times Magazine 11 Jan. 1998: 30+.

Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Blind Eye of Television." U.S. News & World Report 18 Jan. 1993: 84. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "The Limits of the TV Lens." U.S. News & World Report 25 Jul. 1994: 64. Online. Infotrac. 6 Jan. 1999.

Daily Show used to be better (1)

mako (30489) | more than 13 years ago | (#326029)

I used to watch The Daily Show religeously when Craig Kilborn and the original correspondents were there. Jon Stewart's self deprecating style gets old fast and now I find the show almost intollerable.

The newer correspondents and writers are hacks and the whole show feels contrived. I can't remember that correspondent's name from SNL who was originally on there, but, when he left, right before Craig did, the show died.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

mako (30489) | more than 13 years ago | (#326030)

A. Whitney Brown

Yeah, thats the guy. Whenever I watch the new correspondents it looks like they have an outline called "How to do a funny interview" by A. Whitney Brown which they follow word for word. I started to see patterns in what they did to try and get a laugh and it just stopped being funny.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

mako (30489) | more than 13 years ago | (#326031)

cause the show had good writers

Exactly, I wasn't so much a Craig Kilborn fan as I was a fan of the writing during that time period. Jon Stewart may be able to improvise, but, it has to be funny improvisation. I think J.S. can be funny, but, his self deprecating shtik gets old on a show like that. Craig was a talking head who could deliver the jokes with aplomb and not let whatever personality he has get in the way. J.S.'s delivery is infused with his personality and I just got bored with it. Plus the writing is not up to snuff.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

mako (30489) | more than 13 years ago | (#326032)

Yes, I watched some of the election stuff and it was pretty good. I still wish they had gotten a non-comedian to be the anchor. And they need to get back their old writers if possible.

Re:Bleah (1)

mako (30489) | more than 13 years ago | (#326033)

I hate the interview segments; I hate it when they make fun of people who are being completely earnest and sincere. I hated them when Kilborn was host too; I can't pin this one on Stewart.

These can be very funny if done properly. One of the keys is to not necessarily be mean. Mean comedy is rarely funny. (There is a difference between offensive and mean). Also, in the past the political humor was funny on its own merit. I laugh easily at political comedy, even when I disagree with the stance that comedy is taking. Now unless you agree with the preconcieved notions of the writers, the comedy is not funny. Factually incorrect comedy is the worst. Kind of like "Sugar Free Chocolate, who's that for Ha Ha." Well, it is for diabetics jackass.

The rest of what you say I agree with. I am not a good judge of charisma, but, I would definately take a C.K. over a J.S. for a show like that any day.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (2)

Wah (30840) | more than 13 years ago | (#326034)

no way.

Although it did take Stewart a little while to realize what kind of comedy he was doing, once he caught on it has been great. What was good about the Craig years was how they would absolutely skewer guests. His interview with Carrot Top was classic. Then people found out about it and were prepared. Anyway, their election coverage was great, as was one of the pieces they did on the Rich pardon hullaballo. "What!? You mean favors for donations is common in Washington?" Anyway, I think it is better now, their writers blow away the normal networks.

Peabodies are not just journalism awards (5)

cowboy junkie (35926) | more than 13 years ago | (#326037)

Saying that the Daily Show beat out network coverage is inaccurate, as it's not as if they won an award in a 'journalism' category. It would be just as accurate to say that Malcolm in the Middle or the West Wing beat them out.

From the Peabody website:
"The George Foster Peabody Awards, established in 1939 and first awarded in 1940, recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, producing organizations, cable television organizations and individuals."

The Peabody Awards have a history of rewarding programs off the beaten path - I remember MST3K winning a few years back. It's nice to see, since the Daily Show is one of the smartest, most consistently funny shows on television.

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (1)

invenustus (56481) | more than 13 years ago | (#326041)

I strongly suspect that 'That's My Bush" will utterly destroy the cretin in the Whitehouse.

That's not really what Parker and Stone have in mind. I can't find the article I read that said it best, but this one [] does a good job of explaining it too. They say they don't want to do the cliched Saturday Night Live thing of just making the guy look like an idiot, because that gets old after 5 minutes. Their goal seems to be to bash sitcoms, because sitcoms are the lowest form of entertainment known to man. (In my opinion and theirs.) So it should hopefully be as original as South Park.
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."

Not in Canada, 22 minutes (2)

TrevorB (57780) | more than 13 years ago | (#326042)

Just checked my JamTV listings. The Daily Show is not available in Canada on cable. :(

I'll just have to be happy with This hour has 22 minutes [] . Also, this weekend is Rick Mercer's one hour special Talking to Americans [] Sunday at 9, keeping alive the grand Canadian tradition of mocking their neighbours to the south.

I've heard comparisons between This Hour and The Daily show. Anyone who's seen both have any comments about either?

Re:Daily Show used to be better (2)

CmdrPinkTaco (63423) | more than 13 years ago | (#326044)

they did bring in Bob Dole a lot during the coverage (I noticed him there more during the National Conventions). Actually that guy has a great sense of humor and a great personality. He was a good fit for the show, given the events that they were covering.
"Counting in octal is just like counting in decimal--if you don't use your thumbs."

They actually DID win a peabody award (2)

z4ce (67861) | more than 13 years ago | (#326046)

When I followed the links given by CmdrTaco and the press release was on the site itself.. I almost laughed and thought never trust a press release on a satire site.. so I went looking on the net to see if it was true or not.. sure enough I found this [] on official peabody site. Way to go daily show :)


Worthy News (1)

binner (68996) | more than 13 years ago | (#326047)

Everybody know that the only news worth watching is The Naked News [] ...Caution, this is a real broadcast!


spice girls..... (1)

ndfa (71139) | more than 13 years ago | (#326048)

Now that was one interview to remember!!! Posh Spice (I dont know the right spelling...) was one Brit B.
Jon Stewart... you rock

Re:Bleah (1)

mondrian (79138) | more than 13 years ago | (#326050)

Heh heh. You said "weltanschauung". "...they have a responsibility to..." do nothing. People do not have a "responsibility" to watch, read, or think anyting they don't want to. If you don't want to see the world through Mad magazine, then don't.

Props to the REAL journalists! (2)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 13 years ago | (#326051)

This sends a great message to all of the major news agencies in the USA: your news is CRAP.

CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and just about everyone besides the Christian Science monitor produce some of the most hideously slanted crap out there. Almost every piece of news sent out by a major news source is reactionary tripe, leaving objectivism behind in favor of a ratings boost. These people live in constant fear of offending advertisers or the corporations that own them.

Not so for Comedy Central. While they probably could get in some very deep ship for angering their parent, Viacom, they do not give a damn. Everyone is open to jokes, be they charged with ethnic, political, or scatalogical humor. This leads to a total, unabashed, unbiased news source.

I certainly hope that this shames the big news sources into change.

Ha! April Fool's! (2)

carlhirsch (87880) | more than 13 years ago | (#326052)

Uhm... April Fool's, right?


Re:They deserve it. (2)

inburito (89603) | more than 13 years ago | (#326053)

New episodes only Monday-Thursday..

Ya know (2)

rosewood (99925) | more than 13 years ago | (#326055)

If people keep putting April Fools Day stuff up 2 days early now this year ... when will it start moving up all the way to say March 1, etc etc etc. APR 1 ONLY

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#326056)

Don't be ridiculous -- Kilborn probably doesn't have the caustic wit that Stewart has, but Kilborn never read scripts at the guest. In my estimation, he's a much better interviewer than Stewart. Stewart has a tendency to cut off his guests to make only slightly amusing jokes about himself. Some of the best interviews I have ever seen, period, have been on The Late Late Show and earlier with The Daily Show. BTW, it's hardly fair to judge a show by the first week of it (the mistake was much easier to make in this case because the show's launch was incredibly smooth). Both shows are very good and aren't in competition for viewers. The Late Late Show is a much more quirky, original show than The Daily Show, which is basically just Weekend Update expanded to a full 30 minutes. Kilborn's show tries to be a different late night talk show: it has far more personality than Conan, Leno, or Letterman, which all use the same format -- Leno's saving grace is Headlines; Letterman is a fantastic host and funny; Conan is occassionally funny, but the jokes are usually too obvious and low to be memorable. So... at least Kilborn's doing something different.

Re:Bleah (1)

RoninM (105723) | more than 13 years ago | (#326057)

Kilborn is pretty good at interviews when the guest is willing to play back. This is worth mentioning not because of your second point, but because of Shatner. Everyone would get a much better impression of Shatner if they saw the Kilborn interviews on The Late Late Show. Really good stuff.

good work (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 13 years ago | (#326058)

The Daily Show is hilarious... even though they can be quite liberally biased sometimes (a studio full of people cheering when Hillary was elected... if that's not absurdity I don't know what is...) but that doesn't matter. It's consistantly funny anyway. Nice to see them recognized.

Rob, you are delusional... (1)

The_Messenger (110966) | more than 13 years ago | (#326059)

...if you think that more than .5% of the people watching The Daily Show would consider you celebrity enough to be a guest.


Re:Daily Show (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 13 years ago | (#326060)

No no no, the best of 'em all is Bill Maher.

He invites republican guests to his Politically Incorrect show only to poke fun at them, and regularly insults "environmental" president Bush.

Re:Speaking my mind (1)

Kwelstr (114389) | more than 13 years ago | (#326061)

er, mr writer,

Indecision 2000 was able to (in a humerous way)...

So, "humerous" means some kind of Homer humor?

Best print election coverage award should go to... (1)

afflatus_com (121694) | more than 13 years ago | (#326063)

The Onion [] .

Especially their "Serbia Deploys Peacekeeping Forces to US [] " coverage.

A sample excerpt from the above news report:
BELGRADE--Serbian president Vojislav Kostunica deployed more than 30,000 peacekeeping troops to the U.S. Monday, pledging full support to the troubled North American nation as it struggles to establish democracy.

"We must do all we can to support free elections in America and allow democracy to gain a foothold there," Kostunica said. "The U.S. is a major player in the Western Hemisphere and its continued stability is vital to Serbian interests in that region."

Kostunica urged Al Gore, the U.S. opposition-party leader who is refusing to recognize the nation's Nov. 7 election results, to "let the democratic process take its course."...

Can also refer to the red "Mayhem 2000" sidebar on the article for the rest of their election coverage.

"And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold."

No April Fools (5)

mr_gerbik (122036) | more than 13 years ago | (#326064)

No April Fools.. that was my guess at first as well. You can find the press release [] at the Peabody Awards website [] .


Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (5)

shren (134692) | more than 13 years ago | (#326066)

Hey, nice twist at the end there. You had me going.

Seriously. It's pretty well established, by now, that news media has to have something to draw the audience in. News shows these days pick violence, charming newscasters, violence, often watched time slots, violence, crushing the competitors, violence, and violence.

The stories, themselves, have to have draw. Violence, human interest, drugs, relevancy (well, no, this isn't enough alone, really), violence, crime, violence, violence, or violence.

Or you could throw all of that away and use humor as a draw. Think about that. Anything can be turned into humor by a skilled enough writer. You can cover any issue, if you can make it funny, anything. You can report on anything. You're not restricted to the flash-in-the-pan "I-shot-my-whole-family" kind of trash that is the only thing that gets ratings these days. People don't change the channel while they are laughing, so if you're clever, you might actually slip something informative and educational in there. You've got to get the attention of the viewer, in these days where the average american has access to 52.3 channels. Humor just may be the most flexible way to do it.

Re:That's great! (1)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 13 years ago | (#326067)

Mister, are you sayin that cowpies and tumbleweeds ain't got a right to representation?

We count 'em extra (almost double) in the electrical collage because they are more important than the cityfolk on the coasts. The Founding Fathers considered this the most sacred right: the right to more than equal representation and to receive more federal dollars than you send to Washington in taxation.

The map don't lie.

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (1)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 13 years ago | (#326068)

I am very happy for the Daily Show - I don't watch much TV but when I go through phases of watching, the Daily Show is a fixture that other programming slots revolve around.

Still, let's not confuse the Daily Show with information. They don't have the format for that. The best they have done, (mind: I do consider the sight of Beth Littleford masturbating a stud-boar through a hole in the wall very informative in it's way) is to scoff and make obscene gestures at the corporate approved reporting of the networks. While that is a crucial humanitarian service it is not a substitute for "news".

Who here misses Beth Littleford, i mean aside from the masturbating pig thing? She was the greatest smart-ass of them all. I cried the day she left for CBS or whatever sordid hole in the wall she's at now.

I think the problem is that you can make a profit turning news into propaganda for your parent company's world-view, and you can attract a devoted audience of people who want to see that kind of journalistic prostitution pilloried and ripped to shreds, the way the Daily Show has, but you can't seem to make a big profit actually telling people what's going on in the world.

Re:FOX (1)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 13 years ago | (#326069)

You're all the same brainlesss scum to me.
PS: I can tell you're a lib-RA-tarian from the foaming mouthed vitriol in your posts, so you don't need to declare it. I'm guessing most other people find libertarian&lt-&gt sociopath connection fairly obvious by now, as well.

Press Release (1)

Beckman (136138) | more than 13 years ago | (#326070)

Here's the press release... check out the first paragraph

"Athens, GA - Razor-sharp coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign from an unlikely source, a freshman comedy focusing on a loving but quirky American family, and an invaluable public service effort on colon cancer are among the 34 winners of the 60th annual Peabody Awards. Comedy Central?s "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2000" joined FOX?s "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Confronting Colon Cancer" reported by "NBC Today" co-anchor Katie Couric - along with repeat winners "The West Wing" and "The Sopranos" - on the list of this year?s Peabody recipients. "

press release []

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

BloodyStupidJohnson (150956) | more than 13 years ago | (#326071)

I must respectfully disagree. I think Jon is much funnier than Craig. Craig did make a mistake tho by leaving the show. Does anyone watch his show after Letterman? I'd rather watch Conan if I was up that late.

I do miss the old correspondents. A. Whitney Brown and Brian Ungar were hilarious.

Re:The funny thing to me... (1)

kilonad (157396) | more than 13 years ago | (#326073)

I'm fairly sure that Comedy Central used the "Indecision" moniker back in '96 when Politically Incorrect still had the 7pm/11pm time slot.

Not an April's fool joke.... (1)

TotallyUseless (157895) | more than 13 years ago | (#326074)

wow, they actually won. For a full list of winners, hit this link []
good job Daily Show

Re:News postings and User postings. (1)

Meech (166762) | more than 13 years ago | (#326075)

your cool...


This isn't news for nerds, nor does it matter. (1)

mikehoskins (177074) | more than 13 years ago | (#326078)

It only proves three things:
The quality of SlashDot continues to plummet.
The news media's journalism is almost as bad as SlashDot's, that they'd stoop this low for a Peabody. I guess Peabody == Pander.
SlashDot authors are hypocritical. "I'll pay for cable, when I'm entertained, but rant about paying for software, services, etc."

And I'm not an M$ fan, promoter, etc. I'm just not hypocritical, like SlashDot is. I don't pay for cable, myself.

CmdrTaco fun? (1)

Fervent (178271) | more than 13 years ago | (#326080)

CowboyNeal and I are more fun then a bag of cats

Riiiiighhhttt.... what are you going to do CmdrTaco, complain about Windows for all your seven-and-a-half minutes? How hard it is to be a Linux media whore? What a great project Everything2 was?

I think I'd rather see CowboyNeal in all his monotone glory.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (2)

wsdorsey (179663) | more than 13 years ago | (#326081)


Jon Stewart is a much better host simply because he can improvise. He actually interviews guests instead of reading a script at them. Craig Kilborn was a funny host cause the show had good writers. This is painfully obvious if you see his new show. The writers suck. I watched it the first week it was on the air, and after seeing the same show five nights in a row, I decided I'd had enough.


Re:Pure unadulaterded bullshit ( thank you) (2)

metis (181789) | more than 13 years ago | (#326083)

Now, my dear hard scientist, surely you don't think slashdot is the place to write a PhD? If anything, the formatting options are too restrictive, and the peer review leaves something to be desired. So please consider my post to be written in jest ;-).

Yes I am aware of King Lear being literature. I am also aware that all around the world and all throughout history, literature and theatre have been a (sometimes ) safe haven for people who wanted to express in roundabout ways criticism that could not be said in a straight face without dire consequences for themselves.

Considering the US: No, the President cannot kill journalists. He doesn't have to. As I said earlier. Power has adapted to the new rules. You can say what you want. But what you say has no political imact. You cannot see serious journalists asking tough questions and speaking in an unrestrained manner on TV or in major newsparers. The BBC described "Indecision 2000" as a stolen election. The American media barely reported that Bush's inauguration drew more protesters to Washington than have been there since the Vientam era. The only people on TV who dare mention Bush's legitimacy issue are comedians. The only people on TV who point out that Bush's ( and Clinton's ) drug policies are a supreme case of hypocrisy are comedians. The US has very tough laws that allow journalists to say extremely offensive things without liability, on the assumption that the role of the media is to protect democracy. This assumption is no longer true in the US. The role of the US media today is to increase shareholders value and that is way Jay Leno has become a source of news whereas the evening news have become a mild entretainment whose obsequesness and constant groveling is second only to Pravda's.

The journalists who worked at Pravda cooperated because they didn't want to spend the rest of their life in Siberia. Those who work at Fox cooperate because they want to retire comfortably. The result is the almost the same, and the first ammendment cannot be of help here.


If you think that Shakespeare made theatre for idiots, you really need a visit to your local academia to refresh your memory.

Re:They deserve it. (4)

metis (181789) | more than 13 years ago | (#326085)

Come to think of it. It used to be the case, in the old days of tough and tempestuous monarchs, that nobody in his right mind would dare criticize the powerfuls. The only ones who could speak freely were 'fools', or 'court jesters'. (That is why, for example, the fool in 'King Lear' is the only one telling the truth to Lear ).

Then some people invented Democracy and free speech and even fought and got killed to put those ideas into law so that people could say whatever they wanted without having to pretend they are jesters.

It took some time but eventually the powerfull figured out a way around and we are all back to square one, where only jesters tell the truth on the screens of the corporate media.

Re:Gay Motherfucker (1)

scott1853 (194884) | more than 13 years ago | (#326086)

That's actually pretty good. And I thought all the ASCII artist have perished. Too bad you can't do ANSI in a browser.

Truth or Not (2)

yoink! (196362) | more than 13 years ago | (#326087)

Well it cetainly is something to think about, regardless of whether this story is true or not. It's well known that the US government has had a stranglehold on the media since Nixon, and there are some wonderful Canadian documentaries about the gulf war and the media circus that surrounded America's decision to get involved. On that note one of Canada's own news-spoofs asked George W. Bush what he thought of Prime Minister Poutine (The name of a popular meal here involving grease, french fries, grease, cheese, and grease), and George proved he didn't even know the name of Canada's prime minister!

I think that satire offers an outlet for all the truth that the media can't handle. And whether you think you media is protected by this and that amendment, well think again. It's about a buck guys and gals, and not about the truth. Face it, news had become as sensational as ever and satire provides the proper guise of falsity so that serious issues (and not so serious issues in their own right) can be discussed without having to worry about the next payment from advertisers.

I stopped watching the television news. It's all cut up wrong anyway. There are my seven dollars (that's two cents american).


Re:Props to the REAL journalists! (2)

The_Steel_General (196801) | more than 13 years ago | (#326088)

... leaving objectivism behind in favor of a ratings boost.

That should be objectivity.

It Ayn't the same thing.


Unless you want to discuss libertarian media bias...

Jon Stewart even rocked back in the day! (1)

OverDaHype (208319) | more than 13 years ago | (#326091)

I remember John Stewart when he was a bartender at a place called City Gardens in Trenton, N.J.

He was a kind of guy that was the "perfect bartender" because he always was cracking people up. He knew instinctively what was funny, and his timing was great.

I remember a few years later I bumped into him at another bar called Mundy's after his shift. I was coming back from a recording session (I had a producer paying for a 24-track 10 song demo...and felt pretty big about it) and he asks me "what do you do"? I tell him "I'm in the music biz, I'm working on a demo". So he goes "really, I'm in the entertainment biz...I just signed a contract at MTV". So I asked him if he was going to be a V.J., he told they were giving him a show! Well I told him he'd buy the next round, and for six months I fumed because it took that long for even the Jon Stewart commercials to appear on MTV...I thought he was pulling my leg..stealing my little bit of glory.

But from day one, that man has been consistently funny. Good work Jon!

Not Just Satire (2)

msodfjsalfhlskdhf (210858) | more than 13 years ago | (#326092)

The best interview I saw during last year of a politician was when Ralph Nader was on the Daily Show. Jon asked some very point-blank and informed questions which got past the "why don't you drop out you idiot" questions that Nader got on all the other interviews he did and got to the core of the green party platform. The Daily Show's coverage of the election was more than just satire, it was a truely honest way of viewing the political process from the eyes of a normal person.

If all comedy comes out of tragedy, let the killing begin...

Re:No April Fools (2)

tswinzig (210999) | more than 13 years ago | (#326093)

No April Fools.. that was my guess at first as well.

Yeah, well it wasn't my first guess, seeing as how it's March 30th.

Re:Reminds me of... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#326096)

Mr. Peabody from Rocky and Bullwinkle.

That's Peabody and Sherman. It's rated "J" for the whole family.


Re:The Daily Show: Pure Prophecy. (1)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#326097)

Probably the first and last time a major news network has copied off of The Daily Show's ideas. Well, ever since the Peabody award, probably not the last.

This is strange. (2)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#326098)

I've soured away from The Daily Show ever since Craig Kilborn left (he was just so much more professional than Jon Stewart), but I never expected the show to win anything other than laughter from the audience and disdain from the other news shows (I think they actually had Sam Donaldson and Wolf Blitzer on two different shows).

Still, it's ironic that the winner of this award isn't a legitimate news show; it's a parody of all the other shows, with the most absurd parts exaggerated (one of my personal favorites being the spoof of the Dateline Timeline). I can just see Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather all down on their knees, shouting, "WHYYYYYYY?!?!"

The Daily Show: Pure Prophecy. (2)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#326099)

You gotta admit, they hit the nail right on the head when they kept saying "Indecision 2000". In a time when every other news network was acting like the Earth was going to explode just because the U.S. was in electoral limbo, The Daily Show revealed the funny side of it all. Even my pet bird laughed at Jon Stewart's antics while I was watching the show in the second week of December.

Perhaps the title "Indecision 2000" was one of the reasons why they won the Peabody award. At least they didn't indirectly sway the election itself by making a hasty prediction, like the other anchors did.

Approve of it because it's far better journalism.. (1)

JeremyYoung (226040) | more than 13 years ago | (#326100)

than the big media-conglomerates are pumping out these days.

They deserve it. (2)

JeremyYoung (226040) | more than 13 years ago | (#326101)

They're the only "news" (quotes because they don't consider themselves journalists) source that blatantly points out lies.

I'm going to have to watch them tonight to see Jon's reaction.

Re:Truth or Not (1)

zhensel (228891) | more than 13 years ago | (#326102)

I'm pretty disenchanted with US corporate news broadcasts myself. I have been impressed with the BBC's coverage and a few PBS broadcasts though. The last straw for me came recently when NBC (or whoever) showed a 5-second clip of the Buddha demolition out east and then followed with a 5-minute discussion on the antics in Madonna's "forbidden" video. Hell, the video wasn't even terribly controversial - I wonder how much MTV gets payed NOT to play it?

Re:Bleah (1)

zhensel (228891) | more than 13 years ago | (#326103)

I have to disagree with you on the interviews. While you can't really analyze Craig's interview style (a lightning-fast exchange and then 5-questions), Stewert seems to be doing an excellent job. He takes the right path depending on the interviewee. On one hand he interviews a couple Spice Girls, absolutely bashes their claims to artistic integrity (all the while without their realization of his sarcasm), and sends them out angry - obviously delighted your averaged Daily Show fan who was probably moaning as Baby Spice's name was announced but cheering as she left the stage nearly in tears. On another hand, Stewert will interview actors or comediens (or less phony musicians) and make an entertaining conversation - maybe not too deep, but fun. On the third hand of this strangely mutated interview beast, Stewert will occasionally get a legitimate guest. Someone earlier pointed out his interview with Ralph Nader which was, in my opinion, one of his best outside of a few "round table" interviews and a "town hall" type deal on Hardball at Wisconsin University. Whether you have a taste for Stewart's dry sarcasm or not (and you apparently don't), you have to admire his interview tact.

The funny thing to me... (1)

B14ckH013Sur4 (234255) | more than 13 years ago | (#326104)

was that they were the ones that coined the phrase "Indecision 2000"...
Months before anyone knew of the debauchery that was about to occur! Good going guys! Congrats Jon, you must feel vindicated for that MTV debacle.

Man Im so glad they replaced (1)

gwizah (236406) | more than 13 years ago | (#326105)

That Craig killborn [] guy with Jon Stewart. So much funnier since he's been gone...although I hear he's been frequenting the late night talk show circuit...."shudder"

Re:Ha! April Fool's! (1)

ellesar1 (242470) | more than 13 years ago | (#326106)

yep, notice no link to any article, or any verifying info

Finally, US tv gets a clue! (1)

Interrobang (245315) | more than 13 years ago | (#326107)

Sorry, I have to say it. American tv finally gave a prestigious award to a satirical political/current events show, only years after the huge and possibly continent-wide fame of The Royal Canadian Air Farce [] . The Air Farce and its cast have won some pretty heavy awards [] (during one awards ceremony, the actual politicians the Air Farce skewers played the actors who usually played them and performed a sketch).

Now I will be really impressed when real US politicians go on the show. Now, we all know Governor Bush would never do such a thing (Billy Clintstone might have, though), but the Air Farce has had "one Prime Minister, one Leader of the Opposition, two PC Leaders, 1 NDP Leader, [and] 1 Premier" on so far.

In any case, I think this is a great step forward for a tiny segment of US tv, at least.

Now we'll know the US is catching up to Canada in this department when the NEA starts funding The Daily Show.

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (1)

codetalker (245862) | more than 13 years ago | (#326108)

If the press is truly free, then it can present content and news in any fashion it sees fit. If humourous news reaches a larger audience, more power to them. They profit and people are better informed. A win on both sides.

hmm, violence is out, comedy in, what's next?... (1)

aethera (248722) | more than 13 years ago | (#326109)

Congrats to the Daily Show, they deserve it.

Now, I just wonder how this news program would do in a ratings match-up with that news show in Russia where the stories are read by strippers.

Daily Show wins a non-Comedy award? (1)

Tranvisor (250175) | more than 13 years ago | (#326110)

All I have to say is wow, I love the show but this is a total surprise to me. Jon deserves it.

Daily Show (1)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | more than 13 years ago | (#326111)

The Daily show is truely awesome television. Absolutely hilarious, and probably at least as accurate as FOXnews...

... (1)

To0n (256520) | more than 13 years ago | (#326112)

Yet another reason why I miss cable. That, and Thia [] .

Damn my dorms not having cable! I'm getting work done!

daily show sucks (1)

IanA (260196) | more than 13 years ago | (#326114)

the daily show sucks imo. it is simply the same humor bits recycled show after show, and none of it is original for anyone who has watched it for any length of time. seeing for the 100th time someone foreign be 'translated' with a stupid voice and the 'translator' says something which is nowhere near what the speaker actually said is one of the bits the daily show does. seeing jon stewart pause for a second after every other joke gets tiring. the daily show is good if you have a poor memory and a mental retardation.

No, you are strange. (1)

Fat Casper (260409) | more than 13 years ago | (#326115)

Kilborn was great, I loved him. Stewart's brand of humor is different, not less professional. He has a much more direct (my wife can't stand him) style; he isn't the prettyboy that Craig was.

How do you define a legitimate news show? I get my news from CNN and /. and spend a lot of effort filtering all of it. Ted Turner has his agenda, and sometimes that shows on Headline News. Slashdot has its agenda too, but I like it more. Is Fox news legitimate? They were the ones who called the election in the wee hous of Wednesday morning for Dubya. Because they had hired one of Dubya's boys for the coverage. Are the other networks legitimate? They followed suit simply because they didn't know either. They couldn't make their own calls, so they repeated what Fox said.

Donaldson and Blitzer were on. Donaldson was laughing with Stewart about Sawyer interviewing a sock puppet (legitimate journalism? Disney owned her and and Blitzer referred to TDS as "the most important television program, ever." You didn't mention that Bob Dole was their political analyst throughout the campaign. He was obviously enjoying himself, and provided a good counterpoint to Stewart and TDS' writers.

Jennings, Brokaw and Rather should not be incredulous, but ashamed of themselves for being irresponsible journalists fronting for corporate inretests. "WHYYYYYYY?!?!" do I have to depend on AOL/Time-Warner as my most *reliable* news source? /. is just too niche to depend on entirely.

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 13 years ago | (#326116)

Respect for the news is an important part of the American way of life. It's written into the first amendment of our constitution, and it's taught in civics classes across the country: freedom of press reigns supreme.

Unfortunately if you watch some of the regular news channels this type of thinking is very much ingrained. One of the most frequent bleats heard about the Internet is that the people cannot be trusted to deal with 'unmediated' information from politicians.

The US is now very much in the situation the UK was in the late 1960s before the Monte Python crew ripped the establishment stiffs apart. The US had a chance to produce first rate comedy - like SOAP. And the Moral Majority and Bigot Brigade crushed it threatening an advertiser boycott.

These days the Southern Baptist church threatens a boycott and the Disney corporation flips them the bird. Things have definitely improved.

Over in the UK we watched the Spitting Image series 'The President's Brain is Missing'. As a result GOP claims that Reagan was widely respected abroad tend to leave me incredulous. I strongly suspect that 'That's My Bush" will utterly destroy the cretin in the Whitehouse. People will laugh at the jokes for the first few months. After a year they will laugh at the President.

That is a good thing.

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 13 years ago | (#326117)

They say they don't want to do the cliched Saturday Night Live thing of just making the guy look like an idiot, because that gets old after 5 minutes.

They will face a monumental task making him look intelligent.

Do we really want to know what they can do? (1)

paranormalized (278300) | more than 13 years ago | (#326118)

"and you should see what he can do with a hard boiled egg and a straw." what can cowboyneal do with a hard boiled egg and a straw?

Remember, this is the preferred place for penis-bird-man and dude... and then the editor's post a comment like that? Either they too have been infected by the madness or else they have no fear of the trolls...

In either case: run for your lives! The porn-trolls will invade this topic I say! And none of us will come out with our sanity intact!

IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase

Re:Ha! April Fool's! link (3)

onepoint (301486) | more than 13 years ago | (#326119)

This is the link. srelease.asp?ID=57

I think someone hacked the list.

Reasons :

The last 3 shows are presented incorrectly. You will see that the winners and the description of the winners do not have a space after them.

The last 3 shows do not seem to be the types of shows that should be winning ( again this is my view ).


spambait e-mail
my web site hip-hop news
please help me make it better

umm...pardon me for asking.. but.. (1)

Negative_Earth (304460) | more than 13 years ago | (#326120)

"and you should see what he can do with a hard boiled egg and a straw." what can cowboyneal do with a hard boiled egg and a straw?

Speaking my mind (1)

Mossfoot (310128) | more than 13 years ago | (#326121)

I happen to be a writer. Since writing is what I do, I don't see why I should appologize for being a bit eloquent in what I post. If you had something intelligent to say, I don't think you'd be wasting your time coming down on me.

I write what I believe, no appologies.

Heh (2)

Mossfoot (310128) | more than 13 years ago | (#326122)

I may be a writer, but nobody accused me of being a good speller ;).

Damn spellcheckers.

Humour as Truth (3)

Mossfoot (310128) | more than 13 years ago | (#326123)

In an age where tabliod journalism seems to reign supreme, where shock-value is standard criteria, and where the line "if it bleeds, it leads" rings true to many, it's refreshing to see that Satire is finding some respect.

Humour is perhaps one of the least appreciated forms of information and education out there. During the 60's, while civil rights activists worked at changing the laws to be fair to all races, people like Richard Pryor was changing the way we think with his sometimes crude and direct stand up comedy. It made people deal face to face with the way things were, but made you laugh about it as well, and that can have a long term impact on the way people think that laws cannot.

While the real news broadcasts fumbled and blustered over the political debacle, Indecision 2000 was able to (in a humerous way) make us face up to the fact that the system is flawed, that there is no good guys or bad guys, that the business of politics is politics, and with the general silly nature of elections in general.

If we learn to laugh at our own mistakes, we just might have a better chance of not making the same mistake again.

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

MwtrV (311470) | more than 13 years ago | (#326124)

I kind of agree here...

Kilborn seemed a little more sadistic and cynical, which is really what a show like that needs and thrives on. Stewart (with due respect, as he's not *awful*) seems to have this constant cloak of silliness, and, like you say, his actions always seem to have a note of self-consciousness to them.

Also, I didn't enjoy a lot of the shows interviews, mainly because they DID seem contrived; do we really want to hear from the guy who believes aliens are visiting his cow herd? Every once and awhile, though, they'd come up with a jem; one more relatively recent one standing in mind, the interview with the Polka-dancer who objected to Garfield's creator's ridicule of the pasttime (him wrestling a stuffed Garfield while in traditional wear was hilarious.)

Likely the award was given per there being so much hoopla around court room session after court room session, demand after demand, and admist all that, a show could depict it as humorous. I wasn't watching it, because the whole topic as a whole bored the living crap out of me; I decided early on the whole thing was a circus making way for the republican (the "evil will always triumph" belief shall be stated at later time.) They were also calling it "Indecision 2000" before the whole "recount" fiasco, which could be taken with grain of salt and seen as mildly prophetic.

ObObligatoryTVBelief: I don't watch TV anymore as growing up I was exposed to the advent of sensationalism evening news consistently every night. Watching such while somewhat down and out for awhile makes one see the world as a miniture police state; I learned all too late it's best to eat tablets 1-5 minutes *BEFORE* mealtime for maximum effect to counter the opiate of the masses pressed into the atmosphere by a parent who "wishes to keep up to date" with one of your own choosing. Of course, there are people out there who can stand the evening news -- what's your fucking secret?

Re:Doesn't this undermine respect for the news? (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 13 years ago | (#326125)

> The Daily Show must be censored. It's the only way we'll be able to preserve our freedom of speech. Touche, you had me going :-)

Re:Daily Show used to be better (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 13 years ago | (#326126)

I used to watch The Daily Show religeously when Craig Kilborn and the original correspondents were there. Jon Stewart's self deprecating style gets old fast and now I find the show almost intollerable.

I have to agree with you there. The show's been WONDERFUL these last few days without Jon, with the crew rotating the anchor desk.

I also thought it was better when Craig was on board. I'll quote you back cuz you're right on: "Stewart's self-deprecating style gets old FAST..."

The SNL correspondent you're thinking of is A Whitney Brown, and it was a huge loss when he departed.

"What do you have against Iceland, Senator?" (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 13 years ago | (#326127)

...and "50-50 or call a friend?" These two phrases still make me laugh when I just think of them...

That's great! (4)

funny gal (325371) | more than 13 years ago | (#326128)

Hehe, I just love The Daily Show!

During the election coverage, they did a bit on the scientific "maps" that are always used...

"As you can see, Bush has a clear victory..."

Jon: "um, you also have to take into account the electoral votes from the large urban areas, and..."

"Nation's RED, MAP DON'T LIE!"

That cracked me up!

Re:Peabodies are not just journalism awards (3)

TrollFeeder (396384) | more than 13 years ago | (#326131)


And, it's amazing how few people understand what the REAL "smart" shows are on TV. (of course, there are just a small handful of them)

When I visit some of my relatives, I'll often turn to comedy central for the Daily Show, and I watched the Simpsons regularly at its peak. Those were the only two shows I watched with any regularity. The Daily Show was especially awesome when it had Kilborn (his new gig at CBS isn't as good) and some of those reporters like A. Whitney Brown. Hell, they're still good. And (this is important) they kept the "guest" segment of the show blissfully short.

Anyway, I was often told to stop watching 'that junk' because "It rots the brain". Then, they'd watch the local evening newscast while priding themselves on their seriousness, and being "informed".

They never grasped the irony of it all.

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"

Re:Ha! April Fool's! (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 13 years ago | (#326132)
is the peabody award homepage. No list of winners yet, it says the winners will be notified in April via Satellite. Other years, the announcements have usually been made immediately following April 1st.

I agree. (1)

Flying Headless Goku (411378) | more than 13 years ago | (#326133)

The internal freedom of press is more important than the external one. Mockery of one's most important values is an assault and a form of mind control.

We must be free. Free from bad influences and wrong ideas. Free from the exhortations of rabble-rousers and apologists.

Most importantly, we must be free from the damage caused by those who don't share all products of their work, free of the possibility that source code will be withheld. Support Free Software.

Yeah for John and the guys! (1)

forming (413168) | more than 13 years ago | (#326134)

I have been watching The Daily Show for a while now, and it just keeps getting better. I am glad to see them getting some recognition, even if it isn't "news" that everyone is used to.

Re:Rob, you are delusional... (1)

Spooge Demon (413208) | more than 13 years ago | (#326135)

Bashing CmdrTaco on his perl coding and grammar has always been a favorite past time of mine, but you go too far. Did you even read his write up? :

And Jon, if you ever need guests that nobody in your viewing audience has ever heard of, shoot me an email

He doesn't sound very delusional to me.


Re:The Daily Show: Pure Prophecy. (1)

Spooge Demon (413208) | more than 13 years ago | (#326136)

That's a good point. For years Comedy Central has used the "Indecision XXXX" title for their election coverage, but after the first week or so of the election controversy MSNBC actually referred to the election (in all seriousness) as "Indecision 2000" as well. Comedy Central should've copyrighted!


Re:Rob, you are delusional... (1)

Spooge Demon (413208) | more than 13 years ago | (#326137)

Those are some tough words coming from an AC. My original UID is actually 88,XXX (I don't remember exactly) but the login was my actual name (like Joe_Blow). My new "Spooge Demon" login allows me to express myself more freely than I have been able to with my previous, less anonymous login.

P.S.--this UID is only 2 days old.


Re:Rob, you are delusional... (1)

Spooge Demon (413208) | more than 13 years ago | (#326138)

Hey man, I'm not saying my old 88,000 UID was particularaly 1337. I'm just saying I've been here longer than 3 days.


Who gives a fucking shit? (1)

Gay Motherfucker (413442) | more than 13 years ago | (#326139)

Television is for idiots.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account