Talk:The Daily Show

Jon's interviewing skills

He is one of the better interviewers we have, and I think something should be said about it in this article, no? See this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are enough reliably sourced comments from notable people and/or media outlets regarding his interviewing skills, I suppose a section or paragraph on the subject would be justified. As long as it is NPOV in tone and style, of course.--JayJasper (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I've heard his interviewing praised before, so it would be a matter of picking out the sources. The Rumsfeld clip just made me think about it. I was wondering mostly where this paragraph/section should go. I couldn't quite decide by myself and would like consensus on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Early Critics Section

In the introduction the article currently includes the following: "Critics, including series co-creator Lizz Winstead (who has since changed her view[1]), have chastised Stewart for not conducting sufficiently hard-hitting interviews with his political guests, some of whom he may have previously lampooned in other segments.". The problems here are: 1) The Winstead criticism is acknowledged to have been withdrawn, so why bring it up? 2) the reference to the Winstead criticsm (or its withdrawl) is a dead link and 3) there are no other references to anyone else making this criticism. I suggest that either a reference to someone else who made this criticism be provided, or the criticism section here be deleted. I will wait a week, and if I do not see a reference provided will delete it. Gogh (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While the soft-ball criticism may be warranted, the example given is inadequate for the reasons you specify. And also, I don't think such a criticism really belongs in the lede. Ashmoo (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. I Googled Stewart and Winstead together, and the in-depth articles showed her praising him (for example: http://www.nofactzone.net/2008/04/23/six-degrees-interview-with-lizz-winstead-co-creator-the-daily-show/ and http://bloggasm.com/daily-show-co-creator-erupts-at-feminist-blogger-during-netroots-nation-panel). If you removed it, someone put it back. I'll take it down now.75.70.204.208 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

p.s. What I meant is that I would take out the reference to Winstead. Whether the whole criticism thing should stay in the lede is for others to say (though I would vote no). Personally, I think the criticism is without merit. Jon merely treats people like people. He interviews those he disagrees with and treats them with respect. He allows them to express their viewpoints and to convey them in a nuanced way. I don't know many interviewers who do a better job.75.70.204.208 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dick jokes

They are unfortunately ubiquitous on the show and have come to characterize it. They have moved beyond verbal references and are now increasingly graphically illustrated, in case viewers miss what is being referenced. Probably as many people (mainly young males who unaccountably can't get enough of this type of humor, but undoubtedly some women as well) watch the show for this penile wit as for the political commentary, and would sorely miss it if it stopped. Since it is so integral to the show and to Jon Stewart's mentality, it should be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. I agree with Indrian that there is no independent source for this fact, but a fact it is: one need only watch the show.Syzygos (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching the show to determine a fact would could as original research. Even if we did, how would we decide what is a lot of dick jokes. I watched the last episode and there was none. How many is 'a lot'? Do we compare it to other shows? Other comedies? For all these reasons, Wikipedia insists on reliable 3rd party sources. Ashmoo (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the point about original research and that's why I haven't put the comment back in the article. But you are incorrect about there not being an example in the most recent program. See from 1:40 to 1:45 here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-may-19-2011-lisa-p--jackson. This trope has become so pervasive on the show that it is barely noticed. A Daily Show episode without such an example is the real exception. Syzygos (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a reliable source discussing this, it might be add-able to the article. They have addressed the 'toilet humor' nature of the show several times on the air; Stewart can be a little self-deprecating in that area sometimes. DP76764 (Talk) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The program seems to have found its true calling. Syzygos (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The program has taken a pathological, or at least highly bizarre turn in this regard since the Anthony Weiner scandal. Is there any way this can be noted in the article without incurring the charge of original research? Certainly not every obvious statement about a subject in a Wikipedia article has an external source. Syzygos (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Still needs a reliable source I would say. DP76764 (Talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that Wiener is no longer in the news, the dick jokes have reduced. We need to edit for historical significance and not change the article based on each news cycle. And yes, we do (in theory) need an external source for every statement in wikipedia. Some statements are so obvious or well accepted that they are never challenged, so they don't get a cite. But obviously here, the fact is challenged, so needs a 3rd party source. see WP:TRUTH. Ashmoo (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

'In the political spectrum' OR

I chopped this paragraph, because none of the cites adequately support the statements they are attached to, and the long list of Democrat bureaucrats seems like OR, since no sources are provided. Although I have no doubt that they appeared on the show, we need a 3rd party who has counted them up (and also determined that Spellings was the only Bush era government guest). Ashmoo (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

During both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, the liberal overtures of the show were not lost on politicans, as during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was the only sitting cabinet member to appear on the show. The eight minute segment Spellings was on the show progressed largely without the "the more pointed jabs that the comedian routinely levels at Mr. Bush and his administration." Within the first ten months of the Obama presidency, five cabinet secretaries and two cabinet level administrators appeared on the show: Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebellius, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

Status

Gotta agree with Xeworlebi..."Returning series" doesn't make much sense. Will have to check pages for other series to see what is generally used...something like "Active" seems better. Dk100 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oliva Munn - reliable source/notable

I put the notability template in the Oliva Munn section. It is a striped down version of a section called "Accusations of Sexism" from last year. It's based on a blog, Jezebel, and the response from TDS. Since a blog is not an RS, and there seems to be no other source objecting to Munn, I think the whole section ought to be struck on the grounds that it is not notable and has no reliable sources. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves its own section, maybe we could condense it a bit more and include it under "Correspondents, contributors, and staff" - reception is already very long. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)