NeoGAF

Originally Posted by Rorschach

:lol @ giving away the info, but :| @ keeping her in the fucking spotlight. When will she go away!?

Oh, wow, I totally forgot that by doing this she's giving away the info. Colbert's going to a pretty high-risk zone, too. Didn't expect him to take his entire show to Iraq, of all places. I'd have expected a slightly safer place. Still, awesome of him to do this for the troops.

Originally Posted by PHALESTINE

The interview with Larry King was pretty damn funny.

And Colberts JAI DID IT was hilarious.

Yes, it was so hilarious I had to update my avatar from the Indecesion 08 Live episode :)

Originally Posted by DrEvil

Yes, it was so hilarious I had to update my avatar from the Indecesion 08 Live episode :)

:lol do you have the full gif or just his face?

Yeah, we knew he was going but I thought the time was supposed to be secret? Then again, it's not going to be live right so they might do it well in advance...

And yes, I do think we'll need a JAI DID IT gif.

Originally Posted by Thomper

Wasn't that supposed to be a secret?

[IMG]http://i43.************/24pyog1.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Yeah, we knew he was going but I thought the time was supposed to be secret? Then again, it's not going to be live right so they might do it well in advance...

And yes, I do think we'll need a JAI DID IT gif.

Well, the Colbert Report rarely takes any breaks through the year, as does the Daily Show. There's no shows this week, and judging by the fact that they're apparently still taping stuff like the Palin-thing, the show is not in Iraq *yet*. And I don't see them taking another weeklong break in the upcoming month, so... seems like Iraq will be live. With a time-delay, sure, but a few hours, not a few days.

Originally Posted by Firestorm

And yes, I do think we'll need a JAI DID IT gif.

Originally Posted by Hootie

Wasn't that supposed to be a secret?

[IMG]http://i43.************/24pyog1.jpg[/IMG]

Holy shit is she obtuse and extremely stupid. Yes to answer the question.

Originally Posted by Hootie

Wasn't that supposed to be a secret?

[IMG]http://i43.************/24pyog1.jpg[/IMG]

Makes you wonder how she'd do with national security secrets.

Palin 2012, anyone? :D

Originally Posted by DrEvil

Well done

The Starbucks segment was absolutely amazing. I really want to post that on the Gaming side as a "hey idiots, this happens in the real world but you don't seem to understand".

Originally Posted by Firestorm

The Starbucks segment was absolutely amazing. I really want to post that on the Gaming side as a "hey idiots, this happens in the real world but you don't seem to understand".

Guess who isn't going to report the next negative news segment on Starbucks!

Stephen Colbert Iraq Show: Gen. Odierno Shaves His Head

CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- It was Sunday night in Baghdad, and President Obama was ordering Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of the American troops here, to shave Stephen Colbert's head. (Not to give everything away, but the general is not as brutal with an electric razor as one would expect a bald man to be; Mr. Colbert's hairdresser, on the other hand, has a merciless streak.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/ar...colb.html?_r=1

Woah. He actually did it? That will be an awkward couple of months 'till it grows back. :D

Originally Posted by Firestorm

The Starbucks segment was absolutely amazing. I really want to post that on the Gaming side as a "hey idiots, this happens in the real world but you don't seem to understand".

He owned Joe pretty hard today. I'd like to see Scarborough try to go toe to toe with him again. :lol

:lol :lol @ shoes thrown at Colbert. This is going to be awesome.

Did Scarborough honestly think he could get away with calling his Starbucks promoting "sarcasm"?
It baffles me.

Originally Posted by Oblivion

They're both intelligent and funny, though I think Stewart's smarter, and Colbert is funnier.

Completely agree. If I'm feeling overwhelmed I watch Colbert, if I want some news I watch Stewart.

Originally Posted by dLMN8R

Confession: I've watched every single episode of the Colbert Report. Ever. I've watched every single episode of The Daily Show as well, since the Colbert Report started, and maybe a year or two before that too.

:lol

God damn I love both of these shows. Screw everyone who thinks it needs to be a battle of which show is "better" than the other. They're two totally different shows with two totally different presentations and styles. They're each awesome in their own right!

:) Looks like you've got me beat. I've similarly watched all of both since the Report came out, but not consistently as far back when it was just TDS.

I hope this becomes a Cramer like feud... and the Thursday episode becomes some kind of epic mega fight. :lol

Originally Posted by permutated

Completely agree. If I'm feeling overwhelmed I watch Colbert, if I want some news I watch Stewart.

that works for you but I feel why bother watching a news show that half jokes and makes me cringe from its awfulness from time to time.

If I need to find news around the world I use this site:

http://newsmap.jp/

I don't need Stewart to tell me what I already know is happening.

That is why the Colbert Report is so great, he is adding onto news I already know and making it funny.

Originally Posted by Zyzyxxz

That is why the Colbert Report is so great, he is adding onto news I already know and making it funny.

Isn't this what Stewart's show does as well? I guess the humour part is subjective, I find both to be hilarious.

Originally Posted by Zyzyxxz

that works for you but I feel why bother watching a news show that half jokes and makes me cringe from its awfulness from time to time.

If I need to find news around the world I use this site:

http://newsmap.jp/

I don't need Stewart to tell me what I already know is happening.

That is why the Colbert Report is so great, he is adding onto news I already know and making it funny.

But Stewart combines humour with genuinely insightful commentary. Stephen can be fairly poignant from time to time but his character gets in the way a bit. Stewart is pretty much the single most 'common sense' spin-destroying news source out there.

Just caught Daily show on DVR. I absolutely loved that segment on fox and friends. The hypocrisy was astounding. How the fuck do these people look at themselves when they wake up in the morning? Unreal.

He absolutely nailed MSNBC, CNN, and FNC. Summed them up perfectly.

Oh shit, so awesome :lol

I LOVE John Stewart!

Just saw last night's Colbert Report and absolutely cracked up at Obama's "no, but my ears are really that large" :lol Very well put together show last night.

Originally Posted by Zyzyxxz

that works for you but I feel why bother watching a news show that half jokes and makes me cringe from its awfulness from time to time.

If I need to find news around the world I use this site:

http://newsmap.jp/

I don't need Stewart to tell me what I already know is happening.

That is why the Colbert Report is so great, he is adding onto news I already know and making it funny.

My favourite part of the Daily Show is his pointing out of inconsistencies and especially his critique on the media - a good example of which would be Monday's awesome episode.

Wasn't Stewart's critique of CNN's use of user-contributed-content in the form of Twitter @replies basically a curmudgeonly, "I can't believe they're letting average people have a voice--a privilege that should be extended only to journalists and comedians!" I felt it was a weak argument made only to create a false even-handedness in his treatment of the networks. Heaven forbid a news network solicit comment from their viewership.

Originally Posted by APF

Wasn't Stewart's critique of CNN's use of user-contributed-content in the form of Twitter @replies basically a curmudgeonly, "I can't believe they're letting average people have a voice--a privilege that should be extended only to journalists and comedians!" I felt it was a weak argument made only to create a false even-handedness in his treatment of the networks. Heaven forbid a news network solicit comment from their viewership.

Of course you think that. When it reality, he's pointing out their sheer reliance on it all. Every five seconds, there's a mention of WAT U THINK????? on CNN that's just reeks of desperation. It's embarrassing.

edit: also, from a few days ago: peter schiff is a large douche

Of course you think that. But in reality what desperation? Desperation to connect to their audience? to try and adapt to new technology? It's not a real argument. There's a potential argument that they're leveraging the technology in a functionally-incorrect manner--that Twitter / Facebook / etc are poor means of sustaining a conversation and providing meaningful contributions and / or feedback, but that's not the argument Old Man Stewart was making.

Originally Posted by APF

Of course you think that. But in reality what desperation? Desperation to connect to their audience? to try and adapt to new technology? It's not a real argument. There's a potential argument that they're leveraging the technology in a functionally-incorrect manner--that Twitter / Facebook / etc are poor means of sustaining a conversation and providing meaningful contributions and / or feedback, but that's not the argument Old Man Stewart was making.

I'm sure it's part of trying to connect more with the audience, but at the same time I think it's kinda redundant. I'm not interested in knowing what a random username says on their blogs or whatever (although it can surely be interesting to know what a large group of people think).

If it's a well thought through post which isn't clinging on to a slogan and actually voices more than a brief statement then I can see its relevance. As it seemed now, from the little I have seen, it's just as you say -- an attempt to connect to an audience. Whether that's a desperate attempt to try to seem more relevant to a certain demographic I don't know, but I do understand that people might think that's the case.

Originally Posted by BorkBork

Isn't this what Stewart's show does as well? I guess the humour part is subjective, I find both to be hilarious.

Same here.

Originally Posted by APF

Of course you think that. But in reality what desperation? Desperation to connect to their audience? to try and adapt to new technology? It's not a real argument. There's a potential argument that they're leveraging the technology in a functionally-incorrect manner--that Twitter / Facebook / etc are poor means of sustaining a conversation and providing meaningful contributions and / or feedback, but that's not the argument Old Man Stewart was making.

He's criticized CNN's over reliance on technology before as well with their 100 Days of Obama coverage where they had that elaborate chart up that didn't work correctly on air. I don't disagree with using social media in news, but I can't say whether or not CNN is doing it the right way because I don't watch CNN enough to judge. I do my news reading online (<3 CBC News iPhone site).

It's a common criticism of CNN by the Daily Show. They're always showing CNN fooling around with technology, from touchscreens to greenscreens to Twitter. Sometimes it's impressive, but most time it just takes away from actual reporting. Remember those hologram segments during the last election? So pointless.

Plus it brought us the segment "Old Man Stewart Shakes His Fist at..."

Originally Posted by BorkBork

Isn't this what Stewart's show does as well? I guess the humour part is subjective, I find both to be hilarious.

I'm just not that big of a fan of Stewart himself, the show is decent when he is pointing out the inconsistencies in the media but how much credit does he really get for that, I'd assume it was the producers and writers who did most of the research + work.

Originally Posted by Zyzyxxz

I'm just not that big of a fan of Stewart himself, the show is decent when he is pointing out the inconsistencies in the media but how much credit does he really get for that, I'd assume it was the producers and writers who did most of the research + work.

I would say he has quite a bit to do with it as well. Have you seen him on other shows while promoting his book? His interview on C-Span and that infamous Crossfire interview are obviously not his writers.

Again, I think there's a real argument one could make about CNN using Twitter et-al "incorrectly," but Stewart's argument came across more like, "how dare they give the proles a voice?" I think there's absolutely a benefit in courting user contribution (and certainly news has a long history of doing this, from letters to the editor, to talk shows, to call-in radio), and I don't hold fault CNN for trying to move with technology and keep up with the times ie reality. Stewart has an ideal he wants to hold news orgs to that is personal and anachronistic, and often doesn't realize the difference between his personal wants and the wants needs and responsibilities of real-world news corps.

Originally Posted by APF

Wasn't Stewart's critique of CNN's use of user-contributed-content in the form of Twitter @replies basically a curmudgeonly, "I can't believe they're letting average people have a voice--a privilege that should be extended only to journalists and comedians!" I felt it was a weak argument made only to create a false even-handedness in his treatment of the networks. Heaven forbid a news network solicit comment from their viewership.

The worst part of any call-in show is when people actually call in.

Originally Posted by APF

Again, I think there's a real argument one could make about CNN using Twitter et-al "incorrectly," but Stewart's argument came across more like, "how dare they give the proles a voice?" I think there's absolutely a benefit in courting user contribution (and certainly news has a long history of doing this, from letters to the editor, to talk shows, to call-in radio), and I don't hold fault CNN for trying to move with technology and keep up with the times ie reality. Stewart has an ideal he wants to hold news orgs to that is personal and anachronistic, and often doesn't realize the difference between his personal wants and the wants needs and responsibilities of real-world news corps.

Yeah, I don't think that's how Stewart came across at all, and I'm sure he's not against user contribution. Like you say, interviews with people, letters, calls, talk shows etc is common. I haven't seen him lash out against that as far as I can remember. There's no fault in keeping up with technology but I don't think Twitter has anything in news to do, at least not as a large portion of it. Other than that, having short messages from viewers sent by e-mail shown on screen or read by a commentator isn't entirely uncommon in debates.

Twitter is arguably the best format for on-air viewer contributions--it's relatively instantaneous and brief by necessity.

Originally Posted by APF

Twitter is arguably the best format for on-air viewer contributions--it's relatively instantaneous and brief by necessity.

Yes, in that regard it works well, although it might be a bit too limited. I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't want twitter posts that doesn't really contribute anything to the debates/news following all the time. There's only so much you can contribute with that amount of space, you know. Hearing a newsreader say [insert random username] thinks "Obama is right/wrong" doesn't really add that much, does it?

CNN is basically this: http://www.theonion.com/content/vide..._we_respond_to

It's pointless, annoying and vapid.

Morning Joe Battle continues

Spoiler'd joke from the Time's segment for you West Coast people: What's black and white and red all over ..... Your Balance sheets :lol

Originally Posted by ItsInMyVeins

Yes, in that regard it works well, although it might be a bit too limited. I don't know about you but personally I wouldn't want twitter posts that doesn't really contribute anything to the debates/news following all the time. There's only so much you can contribute with that amount of space, you know. Hearing a newsreader say [insert random username] thinks "Obama is right/wrong" doesn't really add that much, does it?

It can be a good lead-in or conversation starter. Online polls are completely invalid and easily scammed too, yet few people holler about a news org's desire to get a pulse of their viewers. I see nothing wrong with this (the wrong is with viewers quoting these results as though they were scientific--they are not), nor do I see anything wrong with a news org using any means they have at their disposal to try and integrate themselves into how news is being reported and disseminated in the Internet age, and love it or hate it, Twitter and Twitter conversations are definitely a large part of this today.

Oh man! Jason Jones segment really kill me tonight. :lol

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Oh god John Oliver is my favourite correspondent by far. Can't stop laughing :lol

Weird. I've never liked John Oliver or the black dude who is the "senior black correspondent." Both have never created a original character and just imitate the original cast to their best abilities.


I say the best new guy is Wyatt Cenac.




Aside from John Hodgman who of course rules the show. Aside from Lewis Black, of course.

Originally Posted by mac

Weird. I've never liked John Oliver or the black dude who is the "senior black correspondent." Both have never created a original character and just imitate the original cast to their best abilities.


I say the best new guy is Wyatt Cenac.

Aside from John Hodgman who of course rules the show. Aside from Lewis Black, of course.

I miss Rob Riggle. :( Pity he didn't stay around as long as the other new ones.

By the way, the Colbert bit with Tom Hanks was amazing.

Originally Posted by APF

It can be a good lead-in or conversation starter. Online polls are completely invalid and easily scammed too, yet few people holler about a news org's desire to get a pulse of their viewers. I see nothing wrong with this (the wrong is with viewers quoting these results as though they were scientific--they are not), nor do I see anything wrong with a news org using any means they have at their disposal to try and integrate themselves into how news is being reported and disseminated in the Internet age, and love it or hate it, Twitter and Twitter conversations are definitely a large part of this today.

No, online polls aren't exactly the most reliable source, and as far as the rest of you post goes it's not exactly specific in some regards. They're not wrong in the sense that it might seem more relevant on the internet, but at the same time I think it's wrong because it's damn pointless as far as actual news goes. But then again, I don't use twitter and I got bored with facebook after a few weeks. I do post on this forum, though.

For various reasons, Twitter has become very popular with reporters and journalists. If someone just doesn't "get" the technology, I can see them spouting knee-jerk curmudgeonly attacks as in TDS, the same as someone might have attacked quoting blogs in newscasts or something along those lines a couple of years ago. News shows aren't just about the stonefaced reporting of facts by knighted elites; it depends on the show. If The PBS News Hour started having Twitter-feedback segments I'd probably roll my eyes, but I'd do the same regardless of the feedback medium. The viewer's voice is just not a part of that show. Other shows have every right to be different however, and such content / participation is absolutely a valid part of having a network dedicated to news and events. I don't see why the medium through which comments arrive and are read should factor into it as a form of criticism, especially if the criticism is basically, "how dare normal people be given a voice!"

I think their criticism of CNN is more about reliance on gimmicks rather than a hatred of the proletariat. :lol That they can get clips of CNN anchors seriously sharing the thoughts of people using extremely silly handles is just a bonus cheap laugh.