• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Dang, Jon was MEAN tonight...

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Ford Prefect

GAAAAAAAAY
Anybody catch the Daily Show just now? I've never seen him attack a guest like that before. Even if he disagrees with the person 100% he usually just smiles and barely hints toward it, like with Zell Miller and other guests of the past.

But he was just ferocious tonight :lol Very good points, though. I guess with new studio comes new no-crap policy.
 
I was so fired up by his take on the book that during the first commercial break I almost rushed over here to post a topic about it. Glad someone else did.

It wasn't as mean as his time on Crossfire, but he definately was not taking the standard answers and letting him do the soundbite routine. Good stuff!

EDIT : On the new studio... The only thing I don't like about it is the desk. The old studio's desk was that nifty glass setup, and this one looks like a freaking kitchen counter. Other than that I think its fine. The arrangement for guests seems to set it up more like a table discussion, taking away some of the formality which I like.
 
I'm not digging the new studio. Whoever said it looked like a CBS News show was right on.

It didn't seem like Jon was letting the guy finish his points, which is atypical.
 
When I checked The Daily Show's lineup earlier today and saw that Goldberg would be on promoting his lame book, I wondered whether Stewart would take him to task or just make it a cornball interview. I'm very glad he did the former, and I think it's pretty damned telling that they even cut the Ed Helms segment (after having shot the studio portion) for a longer interview. I also think the new set and specifically the face to face interview setup across the desk is basically designed to make interviews more confrontational.

I think it'll be interesting to see where the show goes, because clearly they're not satisfied with complacency. They didn't just change the set, but also some subtle and not-so subtle parts of the format.

It's always great to hear some actual debate occur. It's far more interesting to see an interview like this than for some bullshit discussion on a crap book's [lack of] merit.
 
I know, it was hilarious. That guy was not hiding is annoyance at all :lol

"A few years ago, a drunk in a bar-"

"Hey, don't bring my dad into this."

Jon was just being difficult :lol They even dropped the planned Ed Helms vaginal cream segment in favor of the extended interview.

Edit- beat. Also, with the new set-up it looks like they're ditching celebrity interviews altogether for a more political fare.
 
hate the new desk, and they both seemed to be applying double standards though jon didn't outright proclaim them.

When he the guy was talking about a network where mexicans were spiks and blacks were etc. he should have said "yeah, its called comedy central!"


Did they cut the vaginal creme bit or did I just miss it, the comercials had it, and the guest mentioned it but...
 
This isn't the most ruthless interview he has given, it was very aggresive, but I still think the biggest ambush he has given was on that Republican spinster during the Democratic Convention I believe. I dunno, maybe it was just because it was the first time I had seen him tear into somebody, but that interview really made a mark I think.
 
I don't get the mind frame of this being an ambush though. He was brought on to discuss his book. They did that. Why is it an ambush if Bernard Goldberg wasn't prepaired to discuss the book he wrote about?
 
Red Mercury said:
I don't get the mind frame of this being an ambush though. He was brought on to discuss his book. They did that. Why is it an ambush if Bernard Goldberg wasn't prepaired to discuss the book he wrote about?
Click to expand...

I probably shouldn't have said ambush, I am just too tired to think of a better word, hit me up with one and I can replace it if you want.
 
Red Mercury said:
EDIT : On the new studio... The only thing I don't like about it is the desk. The old studio's desk was that nifty glass setup, and this one looks like a freaking kitchen counter. Other than that I think its fine. The arrangement for guests seems to set it up more like a table discussion, taking away some of the formality which I like.
Click to expand...
To clarify... you find the guest sitting at a desk less formal than sitting on a couch?

The lack of a couch on The Daily Show really weirds me out.
 
blahness said:
*remembers why he stopped watching the daily show* I wish it would go back to the days when it wasnt so political :\
Click to expand...

i'd bring back craig kilborn any day of the week :(

the daily show commercials before the premiere episode cracked me up... and i loved the show... but i can't watch it nowadays... if i want politics, i have 50 other channels for that crap...
 
Its funny how everyone here seems to think that Jon is free of any bias at all. He's as much a shill for the DNC as O'Reilly is for the RNC.
 
Ark-AMN said:
Its funny how everyone here seems to think that Jon is free of any bias at all. He's as much a shill for the DNC as O'Reilly is for the RNC.
Click to expand...

Not really. There's been plenty of DNC bashing, actually.
 
Daily Show is pretty good, mostly because it's one of a kind. All those other talk shows have celebrities on and stuff and that always sucks because I really don't care about Hollywood at all. The only other show that's somewhat similar to it is Real Time with Bill Maher, but he really sucks dick (And he's not funny).

But yah, clearly The Daily Show is leaning towards the blue party but I don't give a shit. It's funny, informative, and John and the crew basically call it how it is. I haven't seen this new set up though, so I'll have to tune in again soon.

I haven't watched it since the election...
 
Umm, can anyone give me a rundown of what happened? I missed it. :( And who's this author guy and why did Jon rip into him so much? I MUST KNOW!
 
I love the Daily Show but the problem now isn't that it's more political, but that it's more political at the expense of the comedy. I haven't seen this ep that everyone's talking about now but yesterday's episode was him basically pointing out how the Whitehouse press secretary said Karl Rove was innocent 2 years ago and now he's saying "no comment" and the reporters were attacking him for it. I mean that's funny in of itself but they were just reporting the news there and not really coming up with any jokes. The Daily Show is becoming basically a liberal news show with some comedy in it. I think they're doing too much legitimate news reporting at the expense of the comedy. Jon Stewart also cares too much about these political stories (he's obviously a liberal and hates Bush) and it shows when they do politics verses when they do something like Michael Jackson or some other non-political news.
 
Red Mercury said:
The arrangement for guests seems to set it up more like a table discussion, taking away some of the formality which I like.
Click to expand...

How is changing from a couch to an ergonomic desk chair for the guest taking away from the formality? I really don't like the new set.
 
Jon has ALWAYS said that their job is to point out and make fun of the inconsistencies of the political system. The repbulicans are in power, they're going to get most of the guff anyway. Of course Jon has bias, everybody has bias. The good thing is, though, that he knows how to temper his bias with some logic, explaining his position, laying off the talking points, and so on.

Usually what Jon says makes a whole lot of sense, whether it is the right or left he was talking about. If the dems were in the white house, etc. doing these same exact things, what he says would have no less truth.

Maybe I just love the humor and the brand of discourse found on TDS, but I'll take it in its current form over Craig Kilborn crap any day. He actually wasn't all that funny. Being cocky can last only so long and his late night show on CBS, well...we see where that's gone.
 
Bernard Goldberg is an isolationist conservative. Jon is a social progressive. This was an oil and water interview.

Moderate conservatives who hold strong opposing views don't frequent the show, and only when there is a book to sell, so Jon probably took the opportunity to grill the only one that will cross his path... for the next 13 months.

Colin Powell on the other hand, is a prime-rate dissembler, and someone who can pretend to believe in something, plus he has incredible political power -- you just don't really know what a man like him truly believes in or what he can do to you, and Jon was really flustered, maybe even scared by him. He made that one a "fun and funny interview". Goldberg was easy pickings though.

Bernard Goldberg "lost" the interview. He let Stewart speak his mind longer, he allowed interruptions, and he failed to play devil's advocate, which is how Jon rebuked him on each point. That "Bigot Channel" thing was a "look, I'm so right because I'm exagerating my point and showing you how culture really is evil!" and earned negative credit.

Oh, and on the Amazon page for this book... the reviews... it's like a comments section at a blog where liberals and conservatives can post at the same time.
 
On the "too much political"-ness of the Daily Show, I can understand that. I love Jon, but the best stuff still is the wacky news segments like the gay penguins. I hope it doesn't try to be too serious, this past year I was getting kind of sick of the same old shit on the Daily Show and most of the time, I'd rather just skip the interview segment.
 
Wah wah wah, too partisan.

Something can have a certain political perspective and still be very funny (Tom Lehrer in the 50's, Dr. Strangelove in the 60's, Doonesbury in the 70's, Bloom County in the 80's).

Something can have a certain political perspective, and be unfunny, perhaps because of this (Doonesbury in the aughts, Mallard Fillmore, This Just In).

Most political comedy is not very funny. Most non-political comedy is not very funny. The Daily Show has no responsibility to spend equal time ridiculing each major political party, and thsi would not make it funnier.

This concludes the DS discussion part of this post.

kablooey: The author is Bernard Goldberg, and his new book is "The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America." His previous books had names like "Bias" and "Arrogance" and were about liberalism in the media.

His book is essentially a list of people who have said mean things about president Bush, his administration, and his political allies. There are a couple conservatives in the list so Goldberg can pretend it's a non-partisan book.

On the show, Goldberg said the book was about the crassness in modern culture. Stewart argued that this doesn't matter nearly as much as abuses of power by people who have real authority. I think this is summed up best by:

<Goldberg> In those days, even a drunk at the bar wouldn't use the F-word.

<Stewart> Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves!
 
Ark-AMN said:
Its funny how everyone here seems to think that Jon is free of any bias at all. He's as much a shill for the DNC as O'Reilly is for the RNC.
Click to expand...

Indeed. He's not even pretending anymore.
 
Ford Prefect said:
There was a point during the 2004 campaigning when the show was so one-sided I could barely watch it, but it's usually alright.
Click to expand...
That's just the thing. You're so conditioned to think that THERE MUST BE TWO SIDES TO EVERYTHING that people don't know how to react when there is just THE FACTS and DELIBERATE ATTEMPTS TO MISREPRESENT THOSE FACTS. You, Ark-AMN and GDJustin seem like people who don't fuckin' get it: who cares what side of the fence Jon Stewart is sitting on? Is WHAT HE'S SAYING TRUE?

Well then.
 
Ark-AMN said:
Its funny how everyone here seems to think that Jon is free of any bias at all. He's as much a shill for the DNC as O'Reilly is for the RNC.
Click to expand...
This is part of why I hate the dominant two-party system. Anyone with a beef with one of the major parties is quickly presumed to be a pawn of the other major party. Jon clearly comes across as a relative liberal and probably votes predominantly Democrat, but all the time he's ragging on the Democrats "in power" for being ineffective and not presenting clear alternatives to Bush administration policies and statements. He was unsuccessfully trying to get some of that out of Dean a few weeks back.

Not dissimilar to The Daily Howler, though it's like a "mean drunk" whereas TDS is more of a "funny drunk".
 
It's not the political aspect of The Daily Show that bothers me, what bothers me is that the show hasn't been funny since Craig left. I was a huge Craig fan on Sportscenter so I followed him when he started The Daily Show. Not only did I like the host better, but for me the old reporters were far funnier. Brian Unger had some great pieces but nobody could top A. Whitney Brown. I've tried to watch the show recenty but for me I can see the jokes coming from a mile away and I'm not entertained or amused.
 
The interview was funny, but I got to sort of disagree with Jon about Hollywood being powerless. Friends DOES matter and if this country wasn't so concerned with what happens to Ross and Rachel maybe they'd know whats going on with the Goverment and the people they vote for. The reality is culture impacts thought and that thought ends up casting votes and opinions.
 
etiolate said:
The interview was funny, but I got to sort of disagree with Jon about Hollywood being powerless. Friends DOES matter and if this country wasn't so concerned with what happens to Ross and Rachel maybe they'd know whats going on with the Goverment and the people they vote for. The reality is culture impacts thought and that thought ends up casting votes and opinions.
Click to expand...
Yeah. PREDOMINANTLY LIBERAL Hollywood had such an easily recognizable effect on the outcome of the election in November.
 
etiolate said:
I don't think you understood the point.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I got your point just fine. I think that's America's fault for being fucking stupid, though, not Hollywood's. Maybe the media- maybe.
 
etiolate said:
I don't think you understood the point.
Click to expand...
Entertainment as a distraction from other important things is quite a different thing than what Stewart and Goldberg were talking about. Jon's argument would be something more like... Given that Friends exists, whether Jennifer Aniston is always wearing a habit, or Matt LeBlanc is constantly spouting profanity, would that cause any difference in any important real world statistic?
 
Yes, people get distracted from their duty as vigilant citizens of a democracy by menial stuff. This is such a constant, permanent aspect of human nature that it's hardly worth discussing, and doesn't mean anything in a discussion of how one particular culture affects a society's politics.

Sergenth: I'm pretty sure you got "prime" and "first-rate" crossed up in your mind. Otherwise there's some Alan Greenspan humor I'm missing.


Also, I'd like to add that Stewart's giggle is much more devastating than any amount of theatric moral outrage from any number of talk-show hosts.
 
Mandark said:
Yes, people get distracted from their duty as vigilant citizens of a democracy by menial stuff. This is such a constant, permanent aspect of human nature that it's hardly worth discussing, and doesn't mean anything in a discussion of how one particular culture affects a society's politics.

Sergenth: I'm pretty sure you got "prime" and "first-rate" crossed up in your mind. Otherwise there's some Alan Greenspan humor I'm missing.


Also, I'd like to add that Stewart's giggle is much more devastating than any amount of theatric moral outrage from any number of talk-show hosts.
Click to expand...
Hey, dude, what's up? Haven't talked in a long time. How's life?
 
Sergenth said:
Bernard Goldberg is an isolationist conservative. Jon is a social progressive. This was an oil and water interview.

Moderate conservatives who hold strong opposing views don't frequent the show, and only when there is a book to sell, so Jon probably took the opportunity to grill the only one that will cross his path... for the next 13 months.

Colin Powell on the other hand, is a prime-rate dissembler, and someone who can pretend to believe in something, plus he has incredible political power -- you just don't really know what a man like him truly believes in or what he can do to you, and Jon was really flustered, maybe even scared by him. He made that one a "fun and funny interview". Goldberg was easy pickings though.

Bernard Goldberg "lost" the interview. He let Stewart speak his mind longer, he allowed interruptions, and he failed to play devil's advocate, which is how Jon rebuked him on each point. That "Bigot Channel" thing was a "look, I'm so right because I'm exagerating my point and showing you how culture really is evil!" and earned negative credit.

Oh, and on the Amazon page for this book... the reviews... it's like a comments section at a blog where liberals and conservatives can post at the same time.
Click to expand...

When was Colin Powell on The Daily Show?
 
For those who are looking for the clip of the interview, here you go. Bernie Goldberg, the author of the book, also appeared on Fox's Hannity & Colmes just days prior and you can view that clip here. And if you want to know when Colin Powell was on the show, it was on the 8th of June, and you can view that clip here. :: whew ::

With all that out of the way, the Daily Show doesn't really skewer to the Democratic party, which is obvious to anyone that watches the show and follows politics; it just skews away from the nutjobs in the administration. That doesn't mean the Daily Show favors the Democrats, just some common sense. If you don't find it funny, you're not paying attention.
 
Cripes man! You made it sound like Jon was outright bashing the guy. I just watched the clip and all he did was just point out the BS. He wasn't even confrontational!

What a jip. I was expecting fireworks.
 
Synth_floyd said:
I love the Daily Show but the problem now isn't that it's more political, but that it's more political at the expense of the comedy.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with this point. I'm a moderate myself, so I loved the show when it was more about poking fun at the media, as opposed to how it's turned into an angry liberal news-reporting semi-comedic show. Jon's an awful interviewer, which makes the situation worse (because when I catch it I end-up tuning out for ~1/3 of the show), and IMO a big hypocrite for attacking the Crossfire guys while his show is now just as bad (it's far more imbalanced, at least Xfire let people shout their respective talking points), and responding to such a criticism by hiding behind his position as a comedian. Despite the fact that--as people have said in this thread--the show is used as a primary source of news for a whole generation of college kids and other folks, which in itself is mind-boggling considering the world of news sources available to people. Anyway, I'll watch this episode and give some more informed comments...
 
Why are we attacking Jon? No one should take his show seriously. It's for fun. It's on comedy central. It should not be your primary news source.

Jon had admitted this in countless interviews on print and television.
 
Yeah I think its pretty bogus how TDS is labled a "liberal" show. Where were you when they drove Howard Dean into the ground over that stupid yelling thing that he did? That's just one example of how they've let the left-side have it just as bad as the right.

And when they let Bernard Goldberg have it, it was because he's a tool and deserved it. People like him, Ann Coulter, and the like should not be given a soapbox to stand on. They should be ridiculed into obscurity.
 
I thought Jon said he was against calling people out on his show since it was supposed to be comedic?

Glad to see he's no longer being a hypocrite.
 
Bacon said:
I thought Jon said he was against calling people out on his show since it was supposed to be comedic?

Glad to see he's no longer being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
He's never said he was against it, only that it wasn't his duty to be a hardass in every interview.
 
The situaiton on Crossfire was entirely different though. Crossfire wanted Jon to be a soft story and not really talk politics. He came out wanting to discuss issues, part of which the show he was on was helping facilitate, and the hosts just couldn't fathom it.

As for how I find this current setup less formal than the couch, which was asked a couple of times, I think it has to do with the fact that they are both sitting in the same chair. It levels the playing field. Jon does not obviously hold a seat of power visually becaue they are both sitting in the same kind of chair. Beyond that, the physical space seems to smaller between Jon and the guest. :: Shrug :: It just seems alot less formal to me then the old setup. I still don't like that friggin table though.

Oh, and about the shows political leanings: During the elections, I realize that alot more of the focus was put on Bush, but some of the most scathing commentary came in the form of how politically inept Kerry was at presenting himself. Of course the show didn't disagree for the most part with the issues Kerry was presenting, just in how he was presenting them. I also agree that this show is different from the 50 other channels of news and political talk. It may not be an equal opportunity show, but they tell the facts of the situation which is a damn rarity in todays news market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The total reversal of what "20 years ago" used to mean
34
499
ContrarianAsshole replied
  • Poll
A Question of Order Implying Meaning, and Meaning Implying Power (based on a username)
8
177
Godspire replied
OFFICIAL: "Jon Jones is retired. Tom Aspinall is the UFC Heavyweight Champion." - per Dana White
News  2
58
3K
Mattdaddy replied
The Accountant 2 - first trailer - Ben Affleck, Jon Bernthal
18
3K
EverydayBeast replied
Littlefoot Movie Poster | There Was An Attempt
NSFW 
5
111
pachura replied
Top Bottom