The New Daily Show

[kurto]

His book is ridiculous. Its a comedy program and Goldberg's book offered himself up for ribbing.

It would be more interesting if, rathar then getting uppitty that Stewart challenged the guy.. take issue with Stewart's points. The guys list was ridiculous. Barbara Sreisand shouldn't be on any list except for overpaid torch song singers who gay men idolize and Repulicans obsess over.

And I heartily agree with Stewart when he says obsessing over celebrities is just a distraction from the people who do real harm; the people in power in Washington.

[[censored]]

I personally thought Stewart acted like a jerk in that episode. I am probably biased but it seems like he has slowly gone from giving it to both sides to attacking anything republican and praising anything democrat. He of course should do whatever he sees fit, I just won't be watching it.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
What was the ORIGINAL aire date on that show please?

I love the Daily Show, but miss it often.

I was a fan when the Craiger was still the host, too! (don't nit, he called himself that)

>TW<

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that the show originally aired on 7/13. I tape them and watch when I find the time.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a comedy program

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was under the mistaken impression Stewart wanted his interviews to be taken seriously, especially if he's going to try to make any sort of real point. If it was just a 'joke interview', I don't think he would have tried to actually debate the guy. You can't have it both ways.

If you can't see that mocking a guest is bad form for someone who is trying to have actual televised discussions with the most 'important' and 'big' names they can find, I'm pretty sure there's not much point in me trying to discuss it with you further.

[ QUOTE ]
The guys list was ridiculous. Barbara Sreisand shouldn't be on any list except for overpaid torch song singers who gay men idolize and Repulicans obsess over.

And I heartily agree with Stewart when he says obsessing over celebrities is just a distraction from the people who do real harm; the people in power in Washington.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point.
I never said Stewart wasn't correct in much of what he said, but he was a jerk about it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was under the mistaken impression Stewart wanted his interviews to be taken seriously, especially if he's going to try to make any sort of real point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heard of the expression "Truth in Comedy?" And even you seem to agree that he made plenty of valid points.

[ QUOTE ]
If it was just a 'joke interview', I don't think he would have tried to actually debate the guy. You can't have it both ways.


[/ QUOTE ] Humorously poking holes at a suspect position is having it both ways.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure there's not much point in me trying to discuss it with you further.


[/ QUOTE ] LOL. Okay. That's fine. Probably best since you don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on. Clearly you were just hoping to rant and stick to your position as I suspect you usually do.

btw- I would be curious if Goldberg thought Stewart was being a jerk. I have a feeling he seemed to take it better then you.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the point.
I never said Stewart wasn't correct in much of what he said,

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I've been watching the show nightly for years. Stewart cuts people off to riff all the time. Its not at all uncommon. It seems to me that Goldberg's list is 'jerkish' by nature and completely flawed. And since you seem to think Stewart's points were valid, I find it silly that you're focusing on your perception that he cut the guy off and made jokes.

But whatever... since the merits of what was said aren't important to you, we can certainly stop this thread here.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
since the merits of what was said aren't important to you

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats EXACTLY right. You did get something!
You shouldn't be a jerk to those you interview. That is my one and only point, and it hasn't changed.

[ QUOTE ]
"Truth in Comedy?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I didn't witness much comedy in that interview. Well, Stewart was acting like a joke, but it wasn't really funny.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I've been watching the show nightly for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah? I've been watching it since the first season, and I could tell the difference. It's clear I wasn't the only one who saw it. Hopefully the producers (including Stewart) won't make me wish Craig Kilborn had never left. That wouldn't be fun for anyone.

[ptmusic]

I just watched the rerun today. I don't see what the big deal is. The guy was obviously getting frustrated, but he should have known what he was getting into. Sometimes Stewart is annoying, though, and he has been leaning left in a more obvious way lately (and so has his audience).

But I do think he is respectful to "bigger" conservative guests. So he should probably be more consistent; whatever, it's comedy first.



Very funny moment (paraphrased) -

Goldberg: Don't you think our culture is showing signs of decline when every other word you hear is the "F" word?

Stewart: Jefferson F ucked slaves!

-ptmusic

[thatguy11]

Random thought out of line with the post, sorry. But does anyone think the tone or focus of attack on the daily show will change when a dem takes office?

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally thought Stewart acted like a jerk in that episode. I am probably biased but it seems like he has slowly gone from giving it to both sides to attacking anything republican and praising anything democrat. He of course should do whatever he sees fit, I just won't be watching it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just watched a re-run of the interview in question. All of the hand-wringing over Stewart treating Goldberg poorly is BS. Stewart made excellent points regarding Goldberg's book. The "culture war" that Golberg complains about is a red herring. Goldberg wants to whine about Chevy Chase calling Bush a dumbfuck while he ignores the truly offensive bits of our history. Looking at the interview again, Stewart showed him enough respect. Goldberg got his ass handed to him for sure, but it Stewart didn't do it maliciously. I think the really uncomfortable part--maybe this is what has some people here upset--occurred when Goldberg wanted to steer the discussion away from Babs and Stewart took the reigns away from him. Stewart had every right to do that.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Random thought out of line with the post, sorry. But does anyone think the tone or focus of attack on the daily show will change when a dem takes office?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully that won't happen for a long, long,long time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]