His best correspondents leaving really hurt the show.Originally Posted by The Lamonster
Agreed.
Also, let's keep the Stewart vs. Colbert stuff out of here.
"It's like my tongue just took a shit!"
Somehow they tied this in with Bobby Jindal's response to Obama's speech back in February. :lol
John Oliver is probably the best correspondent in years.Originally Posted by neight
His best correspondents leaving really hurt the show.
I actually stopped watching when Kilborn left the show. Come to think of it, that was when I stopped watching television.Originally Posted by eznark
Bring back Craig Kilborn.
Larry Wilmore is my favorite by far, but he's not on the show very often. Aasef Mandvi would be second place, though he hasn't been on all that much lately himself.Originally Posted by Tamanon
John Oliver is probably the best correspondent in years.
As an Aussie i certainly can. I watch it every night via the daily shows website.Originally Posted by Firestorm
I'm just curious but can people outside the US watch the links from thedailyshow.com? I know Canadians can't, but I'm not too sure about Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.
Since when did they allow that?!Originally Posted by evlcookie
As an Aussie i certainly can. I watch it every night via the daily shows website.
Quality post.Originally Posted by Gruco
The following are some of my favorites.
Paul Krugman (economics- nyt column and blog)
Ezra Klein (general policy with strong health care focus- washpo blog)
Nate Silver (poll tracking, nationwide trends, horse racing - fivethirtyeight.com)
Josh Marshal (tough to describe focus, mostly an off beat journalism that digs very deeply into a handful of stories- tpm)
Ross Douthat (token non-psychotic Republican- nyt column)
Fareed Zakaria (mostly foreign policy- newsweek)
Other good resources....
Frontline PBS has a million great shows all available online
My current mix of magazines is The New Republic, Atlantic, and Mother Jones, and I find they compliment each other very well.
McClatchy is a good daily that has an less cozy relationship with its subject matter and more off-beat sources, and they are often way ahead of the curve, particularly for Iraq intelligence and torture issues. I don't read it enough and should probably set as my homepage.
in europe, yeahOriginally Posted by Firestorm
I'm just curious but can people outside the US watch the links from thedailyshow.com? I know Canadians can't, but I'm not too sure about Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358695Originally Posted by speculawyer
Great idea for a regular thread.
:( bad timing, I guess.
Yeah I found your thread when searching but it was a while ago so I thought it was time to try again.Originally Posted by blame space
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358695
:( bad timing, I guess.
Then he told them to never send The Daily Show Baconnaise ever again. That was pretty good. :lolOriginally Posted by explodet
My most recent favorite moment of the Daily Show is Jon choking on a pancake and sausage on a stick dipped in Baconnaise Lite.
"It's like my tongue just took a shit!"
:/Originally Posted by Firestorm
Single-handedly takes Crossfire off the air (okay maybe an exaggeration)
wow that was painful to watch.
I'd like to add that they recently blocked a large part of Europe, which led to a rather large uprising on their forums. I don't know if they have unblocked some countries since then but you still can't watch it from Sweden. Of course, it's very easy to fool their blocking system so I still watch it the same way as before.Originally Posted by Firestorm
I'm just curious but can people outside the US watch the links from thedailyshow.com? I know Canadians can't, but I'm not too sure about Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.
Jeez, can you breathe in that bubble? Is this considered mixed. LOLOriginally Posted by Gruco
The following are some of my favorites.
Paul Krugman (economics- nyt column and blog)
Ezra Klein (general policy with strong health care focus- washpo blog)
Nate Silver (poll tracking, nationwide trends, horse racing - fivethirtyeight.com)
Josh Marshal (tough to describe focus, mostly an off beat journalism that digs very deeply into a handful of stories- tpm)
Ross Douthat (token non-psychotic Republican- nyt column)
Fareed Zakaria (mostly foreign policy- newsweek)
Other good resources....
Frontline PBS has a million great shows all available online
My current mix of magazines is The New Republic, Atlantic, and Mother Jones, and I find they compliment each other very well.
McClatchy is a good daily that has an less cozy relationship with its subject matter and more off-beat sources, and they are often way ahead of the curve, particularly for Iraq intelligence and torture issues. I don't read it enough and should probably set as my homepage.
I don't think Peggy Noonan, Frum, and Limbaugh will educate anyone.Originally Posted by Gruco
Note that at no point do I say that list is comprehensive. I only use the word "favorite." Would have no problem discussing further but not really interested in derailing the thead. If you think Oblivion is getting bad advice in his search for intelligent commentary you could have felt free to offer your own suggestions.
I'm in Portugal and a couple of weeks ago they cut our access to the videos. Of course there's a workaround, so I still get my daily dose )Originally Posted by Firestorm
I'm just curious but can people outside the US watch the links from thedailyshow.com? I know Canadians can't, but I'm not too sure about Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.
John Boehner has a twitter feed now. That's gotta be educational.Originally Posted by Thunder Monkey
I don't think Peggy Noonan, Frum, and Limbaugh will educate anyone.
Kinda weird how he took that 5 questions bit with him to CBS. I wonder how he pulled that off.
Stewart used to be an awful interviewer, but he's gotten a lot better over the years, and now he's definitely the better of the two. When Colbert runs into a roadblock in his interviews you can see the gears churning and he falls back onto his persona to keep things moving, which is awkward because at the same time, he's dialing back that persona both in interviews and in general.Originally Posted by God's Beard
Colbert's funnier, but I usually like Stewart's interviews better. He's not playing a character, so he winds up asking better questions.
Colbert interviews are awkward at times because they are essentially mock interviews which doesn't work so well when it's a fairly serious person. It's a liberal person pretending to be a conservative person in some cases trying to hold a fairly straightforward interview. It works on the more breezy guests but not so much when there isn't a lot of territory for mocking the person.Originally Posted by APF
Stewart used to be an awful interviewer, but he's gotten a lot better over the years, and now he's definitely the better of the two. When Colbert runs into a roadblock in his interviews you can see the gears churning and he falls back onto his persona to keep things moving, which is awkward because at the same time, he's dialing back that persona both in interviews and in general.
It's generally at it's best when he is interviewing a conservative you can tell he doesn't much like or at least like their ideology.
By playing a character the difficulty of his interviews is of a much higher degree.
I don't think it's insulting at all. They know what the show is before they go on so in my view it isn't insulting in the least. They go there to plug themselves or whatever they want to plug and because it is a popular and hip show to a certain demo. This isn't the newshour and they know that going in.Originally Posted by APF
It's hard for a guest to work with a mock interview, and also a little insulting, which is why I figure he's been dialing that back recently. But as I said, he still runs for his conserva-whatever persona when there's a lull in the interview, which comes out forced and awkward.
That being said I think Colbert realizes it is difficult for them in certain cases which is why he tries to carry the interview which can be funny but makes it more like a comedy bit than a real interview.
Originally Posted by APF
I think TDS has done a lot better transitioning from a Republican Administration to a Democrat one, in terms of finding their thematic footing.
I think TDS has done a gradual transition over the years from being a celebrity centric show to a politics lite centric show. Even if the correspondents aren't of the quality of the Bush years, the theme of the show in general is more consistent. That's the more noticeable trend to me rather than a switchover from a Democratic to a Republican administration.
The show is less about Cameron Diaz interviews than whoever inhabits the pop culture world surrounding politics.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....r-revelations/
Their videoplayer is not working for me, it seems to be frozen for the longest time now. Is anyone else having this problem on this website.Originally Posted by BorkBork
Thanks. Comedy Network's website is still trash for me.
Sure, over the course of its entire run, but it's absurd not to acknowledge the degree to which retaliation against the Bush Administration and Republican political dominance played into that transition, or to TDS' subsequent rise in status and popularity as the preeminent political satire of its time (and likely in this generation)--or, not to notice the stumbling both it and its sister show have gone through trying to find targets to lash out at with the same degree of venom they previously reserved for Bush & co.Originally Posted by Stoney Mason
I think TDS has done a gradual transition over the years from being a celebrity centric show to a politics lite centric show.
That's because nobody has been as fucking dumb as them yet. Give it time.Originally Posted by APF
Sure, over the course of its entire run, but it's absurd not to acknowledge the degree to which retaliation against the Bush Administration and Republican political dominance played into that transition, or to TDS' subsequent rise in status and popularity as the preeminent political satire of its time (and likely in this generation)--or, not to notice the stumbling both it and its sister show have gone through trying to find targets to lash out at with the same degree of venom they previously reserved for Bush & co.
The false idea implicit here imo is that the show requires them to dish out the same level of venom and pretend every circumstance is of the exact same level of importance. They'll continue to criticize Obama and the national Republicans and they'll especially criticize Obama if he makes either the same mistakes Bush made or ones of the same calibur of incompetence.Originally Posted by APF
or, not to notice the stumbling both it and its sister show have gone through trying to find targets to lash out at with the same degree of venom they previously reserved for Bush & co.
Things like the Jim Crammer incident show they don't necessarily need George Bush to be relevant post George Bush.
The real idea here is that they have based the show on that level of venom for the last four years or so, and are trying to find their way into a format that's not based on it. The CNBC incident demonstrates the fallacy of your implicit assertion, that they have not tried searching for other targets in that vein.Originally Posted by Stoney Mason
The false idea implicit here imo is that the show requires them to dish out the same level of venom and pretend every circumstance is of the exact same level of importance.
Honestly though, I'm tired of you jumping on everything I say, so whatever.
You're trying to pin them as something way more than they are.
No, I haven't.Originally Posted by BrandNew
You're trying and have BEEN trying to somehow "figure out" the Comedy Central hosts and what their methods truly reveal about their inner motives and goals
I was perfectly polite and having what I thought was a perfectly reasonable discussion with you. You had your opinion and I had mine. I wasn't overly attacking you at all. Just carrying on discourse with a differing opinion. Your problem is that you think when I legitimately disagree with you and am having a polite discussion you think I have some sort of vendetta against you and yet when you actually piss me off you don't recognize the difference. The difference is that when I'm legit pissed off a stream of curse words will fly from my keyboard.Originally Posted by APF
The real idea here is that they have based the show on that level of venom for the last four years or so, and are trying to find their way into a format that's not based on it. The CNBC incident demonstrates the fallacy of your implicit assertion, that they have not tried searching for other targets in that vein.
Honestly though, I'm tired of you jumping on everything I say, so whatever.
See No curse words. So I'm in a perfectly fine mood and you haven't pissed me off. Can't we all just get along.
I always get in this weird mix of this viewpoint you have that either I'm stalking you or actually trying to engage you in conservation on a message board which is what I view it as. I find it nearly impossible to distinguish the difference to suit you so its probably better off I just stop responding to your posts at all for awhile so that you see I treat you roughly no different than I treat anybody else on this board. I'm equally a mean cynical ass to everybody. Look at my tag.Originally Posted by APF
I didn't say you were attacking me, I said I was tired of you jumping on everything I say.
I know though, it's because I'm constantly so horribly wrong! And you can't stand for someone being Wrong On The Internet. But still.
Originally Posted by Firestorm
I'm just curious but can people outside the US watch the links from thedailyshow.com? I know Canadians can't, but I'm not too sure about Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.
Can in the UK. Can't watch Colbert however.
| Thread Tools | |