Talk:The Daily Show

Please sign your name with ~~~~ (four tildes). To reply to someone, please indent replies with a ':' (colon) at the beginning of the line. Thanks.

Citation 8 link dead, typos and cleanup

The citation "8. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52300 No joke! 'Daily Show' substantive as network news New study says comedy program just as informative as 'serious' TV broadcasts. WoldNetDaily (Octover 2006)." appears to be a dead link, in the section The Daily Show as a "news source". There are also some typos and such floating around in the article, I fixed some of them but probably missed a few. Null Nihils 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Half hour news hour

The new half hour news hour should be mentioned somewhere.. possibly under spinoffs? It is definitely relevent to this article.

Since it has no connection to The Daily Show, it can't be a spinoff.

It still should me mentioned somewhere.

cs302b

Joel McHale

I heard that when Jon leaves the show Joel McHale from The Soup would become the guy to replace him. Is this true?User:alfredosolis

I hope not. The guy from The Soup is NOT funny at all.

I was wondering if any one knew the movie that they showed March 15 when Sandra Bullock was on, they where talking about Iran and 300, it was the movie clip that they showed dipicting jews. If you know could you email me at spencerjfish@yahoo.com

I believe the joke about Jon Stewart being like Willy Wonka mixed with Hitler came from Ed Helms' human interest story, not a Stephen Colbert 'interview'. Can anyone verify this? -- Mac OS X 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

tds_rps

The lj community tds_rps has been linked to numerous times on this page, and they've expressed concerns about being made "public." So please stop linking to them. Or they'll slash you. Seriously. Mysticfeline 16:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Mysticfeline

[1]

Dan Bakkedahl

I just took a quick stab at creating Dan's wiki page, which I am sure will be completely updated later. Dan is an improvisor from Chicago, and he is going to be replacing Steve Carell. I got this news from the improv community. Does anyone have any / know how to get any Official Info on when he'll start?

I think there may be a big shakeup in the works...Samantha Bee has been conspicuously absent lately, and Stephen Colbert is leaving for The Colbert Report (Yes, I know it's French Stephen). I think we may be in for up to three new people. I personally am crossing my fingers for Shaun Majumder, but I'm not holding my breath.

As noted on the Samantha Bee entry, she is out pregnant and has "corresponded" twice by "phone" that I know of during this time. During the January 19, 2006 (?) episode they even had a fake image of her breast feeding. badmonkey 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Now that I spent a little more time looking, I found you a reference to this people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1151667,00.html from people magazine. badmonkey 07:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Carrell

Can someone confirm that Steve Carrell indeed said that he is done with TDS? I believe he said that on August 15, 2005 when Jon was talking to him about the film The 40-Year-Old Virgin. For now, he has been moved to the "former" section of correspondents and contributors.

i say if he comes back he comes back

Steve Carrell is no longer on The Daily Show, he is now full-time on The Office

Media Celebrities

There's no reason for this new section. The political guest section is already a little out of hand (seperate page anyone?) but I'd say 35% of the guests are political and 65% are media/entertainment, meaning these two lists could encompass everyone who's even been on the show except the token number of authors that come thru every now and then. Let's chuck 'em (and maybe their political friends) before dutiful wikipedians start to remember everyone who's been on the show since Kermit the Frog.--Signor Giuseppe 20:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It does seem like someone comes along and adds a little something--either a guest or a joke--from almost every episode. While I can definitely empathize with enthusiasm over this show, I think we sacrifice the real meat of this article--recurrent and original themes--when we turn it into a repository of mere lists.

Now, the interview with Colin Powell certainly deserves mention, but as a mere list item it is pretty well useless. If this article aspires to reflect the show, we ought to spend less time adding tidbits to this article and more time summarizing classic moments.

Guests of the Daily Show article, anyone?Yeago 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just get rid of the entire guest list, it is all here anyway List of The Daily Show guests. MechBrowman 20:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get carried away here fellas. As the one who seperated the political guests list into its various categories, I think it still has some merit. If it does get entirely deleted (which I still support) I think the text should go still-organized over to the list of all guests, as that definitely has merit.--Signor Giuseppe 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoëver added Kermit the Frog: I deserved that. Anyway, does anyöne want to keep the mediä celebrities list? I'm itchin' to get rid of it...--Signor Giuseppe 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a very comprehensive (and, far as i can tell, very accurate) list of Daily Show guests at this address shuntv.net/tdslist.html . I would add the information, but I don't have enough time and energy. On a side note, if this info is added, we would definitely need to make a separate page for daily show guests. User: ixat

Signor Giuseppe, I love the umlaut in the word "whoever". Is that your own original joke? Peter Johnson (04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Notable story?

How is the Rufus Pfükke joke a notable story? It was one joke in one episode. This section should only be reserved for long-running jokes. Remy B 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

werd.

I mean, look, I know Jon Stewert is The Second Messiah, but let's not go running to wikipedia about every little thing that happens. Although, I do think the Pfukke joke and those like it may deserve mention _in time_....Yeago 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another one, the Karl Rove Affair entry -- it's not even close to a 'notable story'. Plus, it's written in a horribly confusing and poorly styled manner. I'm taking it down unless there are objections. - Tyler Somes

Agreed. I say we cut both of them....User:getaaron

I have to disagree about cutting Karl Rove Affair. I agree it is badly written, but that does not warrant removal, only cleanup. The presentation which the Daily Show did about current situation with Karl Rove was a piece of genius. It went through a very sequential and detailed timeline of events, and sparsed it with humor, making this typically drab political content accessible to many others. Good, thorough presentations on current matters is why persons like myself watch the Daily Show, and I'd like to see the show be given credit, and these presentations some attention on Wikipedia.

As for Pfukke.... ax it.Yeago 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rufus Pfükke

Rufus Pfükke is a fake Supreme Court nominee created by the Daily Show for its expose on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts.

As a joke, they reflected on failed nominees in the past. One nominee was Robert Bork (nominated by Ronald Reagan), who was rejected by the Senate because of his extreme views. "Getting borked," became a sexually-themed joke on the show. Then, Senior Legal Analyst Rob Corddry, one of the show's "correspondents", introduced the false nominee Rufus Pfükke. The syllogism obviously lends itself to the phrase, "getting pfükked," a sexually-themed joke in the vein of the real candidate, Bork.

Corddry claimed that Pfükke, a judge of supposedly-Dutch origin, was one of Woodrow Wilson's presidential nominees. In reality, Wilson did not have any rejected nominees.

Old comments

Is that video really public domain? Or is it just promotional material from their website? --128.235.242.52 12:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The show's theme seems to have changed in December 2003 or January 2004 (at least for lead-in and lead-out to and from commercials). It may just be sped up, but I'm curious if anyone knows if it's now done by someone different. —Mulad 18:43, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hmm. Now that I just made The Weekly Daily Show appear in bold, I see that the edition.cnn.com/CNNI/schedules/schedule.4.html CNN International schedule says the show is named The Daily Show: Global Edition. Maybe someone across the pond can figure that out —Mulad 01:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interview section name changes

I think it's a bad idea to list the formal names of the interviewees. I think instead we should list them by their common, everyday names - the ones we see and hear about on the news. Example: Bill Clinton (good) vs. William J. Clinton (needlessly pedantic). User:Danielt 04:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Notable guests?

Something might need to be done about this. All of these people are political, and just because Gephart and Kucinich were two of nine democratic candidates doesn't make them more notable than Michael Moore, Tom Cruise, or Tom Hanks does it. You can say those three were just there to hawk their movies, but I think we know that Kucinich and Gephart were there for basically the same reason. And should we mention somewhere on here that he interviews a lot more authors and political types than Leno or Letterman? —User:Signor Giuseppe 23:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liberal?

Don't know what you mean by liberal, if its things like anti-slavery and womens rights or other things that make common sense like not starting a war, then it would seem like a good thing. At least use another word. -- Alex User:209.197.154.240 05:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal as in anti-conservative and anti-gun rights, for starters, no to mention opposition to a war 3/4 of the American public supported. No word is more appropriate. Oh, and not to mention his latest show, when he launched a vicious, all-out assault on the good Senator Zell Miller. User:142.166.102.33 03:14, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Haha, that good old Zell, shame on Stewart. Seriously however, the word liberal is overused, left-wing is more to the point. --Alex User:209.197.155.44 00:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Another recent edit added left wing in the description of the show; hasn't this been settled? cde 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please take it elsewhere. Pyrop 04:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well done sir. The tab is even called "discussion." And the discussion was certainly relevant. Good to see this comment has been ignored.--Signor Giuseppe 21:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you saw the recent episode featuring Zell Miller promoting his book Deficit of Decency, Jon was very cordial and Zell looked like he was having a good time, even cracking a joke or two. This is not meant to stir the fires of political debate but rather to point out a new development in the Stewart-Miller saga. I don't think either man dislikes the other, they just disagree as Jon pointed out.--El Slameron 03:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I know really, the guy who caalled it a "all-out assault on the good Senator Zell Miller" Is clearly a right-winged nut.

the description of the show should definitely be changed to "half-hour, left-wing, satirical "fake news" program". the shows left-wing bias should be stated and really, no fan of show should object to it, unless they are somehow in a state of denial. Elchup4cabra 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC) elchup4cabra

Too bad that, you know, they existed as a show before Bush's Presidency and skewered Democrats as much as is understandable considering they're not in power currently. They especially took to bashing Democrats during the elction campaigns and Democratic National Convention of 2004, just as much as they did Republicans during the time. While individual members of the show, including Jon Stewart himself, may indicate themselves and their beliefs to be left-wing or at least anti-Bush, the show takes a bite out of both sides, though it's much easier to target the highest power, which they do. The Republicans are the ones making the decisions that creates the fodder for comedy, and if the Democrats were in power today, you know the show would do the same to them. Labelling the show as left-wing in an encyclopedic description is clearly POV of the editor who would carry out such an action and more biased than the show has ever been. Viewdrix January 6th, 2005

A friendly word of advice: Saying that those who disagree with you must be in a state of denial helps your argument about as much as singing a duet with Ashlee Simpson would help a singing career. --Poochy 08:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Poochy. I think it would be more accurate to say something like "Some consider the show to be slanted in favor of the left, especially since the recent rise of The Right in both the Executive and Legislative branches." or something to that effect. Whether or not the show is definitely slanted one way or the other will always be subjective. They did indeed attack the left ruthlessly before the Bush era; they are just attacking the most prominent and public idiocy they can find. --YtfeLdrawkcaB 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look i dislike the word 'liberal' being used in this article. it has different meaning outside the US. ‘Liberal’ in the US seems to mean 'hippy' (sorry i can't think of any other word to use) but milder and more politically correct. my point is it is sometimes used insultingly. in the rest of the world the word has no negative connotation. it would be nice if it was replaced with a definition.

I say we axe it at least until after the next presidential election.

Neither liberal nor conservative

I don't see the show as strictly liberal or strictly conservative. The attitude is more like, make fun of the absurdities of both. It's like that scene from Full Metal Jacket: "I do not look down on negroes, kikes, wops, or greasers; here you are all equally worthless!"

Just because he makes fun of Senator Miller doesn't mean he's a liberal. He makes fun of the Clintons all the time.

I think you'll find that his personal viewpoint is more libertarian than anything else. User:Danielt 04:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

He may poke fun at Democrats but it is rarely (if ever) because of their political stances or their policies, as is the case with Republicans and right-wingers in general. The difference between the basis of the shows satire/criticism of Republicans and Democrats is what places it firmly on the left. Elchup4cabra 04:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) elchup4cabra

Elchup4cabra, you're clearly wrong. He's hardest on people in power who are either ignorant or flat-out greedy - whether Democratic or Republican. For the last 6 years now, the Republicans have been the ones running the politics so it's only natural for The Daily Show to poke fun at them, becoming mostly corrupt from being in power for so long. Therefore, the show is placed firmly in the middle. It's a centrist show, and it always has been.

If you truly dont see this show is blatantly liberal then you are (no offense) obviously extremely ignorant of politics or liberal yourself and cant identify this because yours ideals match.

I think you're right in saying that the show is blatantly liberal. This is a statement of fact. Likewise, another statement of fact is that Fox News is blatantly conservative. Wouldn't you agree?

But The Daily Show is not blatantly anything, if anything it is subtly liberal, if that.Macdaddy5539 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was saying that in jest to the person. I don't believe The Daily Show is "blatantly" liberal. Even if it was subtly liberal, that's a meaningless label that's been thrown around far too long. These days, anyone who sees the Bush administration for what it is - the worst in history - is labelled as a liberal by braindead Bushbots. Ericster08 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please keep the topic constrained to things that have to do with this page and not accusations towards other people. The topic started off as promising and completely pertaining to the article but you are steering the article towards topics that will likely cause flame wars and trolling. Gdo01 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? Ericster08 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to sign your comments on discussion pages. Gdo01 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Ericster08 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as liberal per say, it's more 'anti-conservative'. It doesn't really advocate liberal viewpoints so much as present strawman conglomeration versions of conservative viewpoints and then attack them. For instance, they'll often use cleverly edited videos of right-wing figures that make them appear stupid. It's exactly what Rush Limbaugh used to do to Democrats and Liberals on his TV show. Now it might be argued that it's because Republicans have held everything these past several years. Time will prove that right or wrong shortly. --208.204.155.241 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote to remove the block in question.

Not to mention that the whole block is an opinion. The phrase beginning with "It is clear that..." is not justified for inclusion in an objective work. The political stance of the show may be clear to that particular contributor, in which case he or she should be free to put the phrase on his or her personal page; however, regular articles are not soapboxes for contributors' opinions. User:Danielt 04:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) I second the recommendation. The daily show article is neutral--Tjkphilosofe 07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Writ of Douchebaggery

I have merged the article Writ of Douchebaggery into this article (as requested in the October 5th edit). The following was the content of the talk page on that article before it was redirected (it's still there too). Apart from indenting it in a bit it has not been changed from the original talk page. Jxan3000 13:28, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm deleting this...

Too my knowledge he has only referenced this one time.

This does nothing other than to ridicule the Attorney General.

Rather than blank the article (an action that will only be reverted), you may wish to list this on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (but you may also want to log in first). -- Hadal 04:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous blanking aside, is this something Stewart does regularly, and is there anything more to say about it than what's here? The simple fact that a late night comic uses the word "douchebag" frequently does not strike me as encylopedic. RadicalSubversiv E 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do not mess with THE WRIT OF DOUCHEBAGGERY! --John Ashcroft66.108.105.34 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

?

Not really pertaining to the article itself, but does anyone happen to know where I can get a mp3 of the Daily Show theme (the intro mainly). I was looking for it for a school project. Thanks, Hoekenheef 22:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good question, If you find the answer, please let me know! I heard it's called "Dog on Fire" by They Might Be Giants, but I have no way to substanciate this... iTunes and Windows Media Player don't seem to have it.Macdaddy5539 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Signifigance?

"and about half an hour before most other late-night programs begin to go on the air."

I don't see the signifigance of it being a halfout before late night shows.

Reub2000 22:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I, but neither do I see any reason to remove it. --BDD 22:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well,the significance may be that it doesn't have to compete with Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc., for a comedy audience.

Bubba73 14:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe the significance is that TDS competes with the local news for time and that most of the other late comedy shows don't.

Heading toward featured article

Thanks to everyone who has worked to improve this article. I think it is becoming very close to featured article quality, and hope that it may be nominated shortly. It would be great to dig up some more references, create some of the related articles that are currently red links, generally tweak things where flow is inconsistent, and add a list of notable writers for the program since they deserve credit for making the show what it is. Details relating to the show's creation and early history would be helpful too. Other suggestions are welcome. —User:Mulad (talk) 22:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

There's a new (May 4, 2005) article about the TDS spin-off, The Colbert Report posted today. I was trying to figure out a good place to incorporate a comment about that here. Thinking either in the introductory blurb, or in Section 7 "Other info". Any suggestions? Sarah 03:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Carrell

Regarding the few sentences about Steve Carell, perhaps there should be a mention of the "Produce Pete with Steve Carell" segment that still airs occasionally. There should also be a mention of his wife, Nancy Walls, who is also a former TDS commentator. Any thoughts?--El Slameron 02:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You know I never thought "Produce Pete" was funny. If I was Steve I wouldn't put that in my portfolio.--Tjkphilosofe 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Macdaddy5539 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)=="Are you OK" link==

70.26.13.17 removed the link to the "Are you ok?" monologue, which Yeago later reverted. I am re-removing it, as it is a dead link. If anyone knows of a live link to the monologue, feel free to re-replace it. MrItty 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would anitasdailyshowpage.tripod.com/transcripts/2001okay.htm or www.andreacaroline.com/stewartspeech.html or anitasdailyshowpage.tripod.com/2001comeback.htm be okay? (Some of the top results www.google.com/search?q=daily+show+%22are+you+okay%22+monologue from www.google.com/search?q=%22there+is+really+no+other+way+to+start+the+show+then+to+ask+you+at+home%22 Google ;D ) --Peng 03:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw all those too. However, the original link was to an actual video clip of the show, not a simple transcript. I was hoping someone's Google skills were better than mine and would be able to find the clip again. MrItty 23:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Well, the second one does link to a video, though I haven't watched it to see if it's any good... --Peng 07:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor have you actually clicked on that link, to determine that it's also a dead link. MrItty 10:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and Firefox, at least, determins it to be a perfectly fine link, and I can download a 293 byte file, though I don't feel like bothering to attempt to watch it or something in XMMS. *Shrug* --Peng 11:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.... and you didn't see anything suspicious about a supposed real-audio file being only 293 bytes? There's no video there. If you allow it to actually load, Real Player will give you an error. MrItty 10:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A 293 byte real media file probably contains a stream link to a real media server to stream the video. It's rather common to not directly put real media stuff on HTTP servers. Cburnett 15:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

How goes the search for a video? The transcript just doesn't do the real thing justice. SFont 04:55, Aug 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of that video on my computer that I can upload, but I can't host anything permanently... Mysticfeline 15:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Thank you, Mysticfeline. A stable link has been added since this discussion concluded. -Scm83x 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever said this discussion was concluded? Oh, snap! In yo Face!

Dick Cheney appearance

Can anyone confirm http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.73.18.60 24.73.18.60's latest edit? I don't recall seeing Dick Cheney on TDS, and I can't find any reference to his appearance on the web. Mr2001 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Dick Cheney from the list, pending some source for his appearance, or at least an air date. As the article says, when Colin Powell was on the show, they called him the closest they'd ever get to the White House. I'm quite sure Cheney hasn't been a guest since Powell was. Mr2001 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It was an obvious--albeit unusually clever--vandal.Yeago 16:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dick Cheney only appears as a ghostly image behind Jon. And Jon would say "did it just get really cold in here"--Tjkphilosofe 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Crossfire debate

The following appears in the article:

The "Crossfire" appearance became the most blogged item of 2004, according to automated blog tracker BlogPulse, and a video clip circulated widely on the world wide web has been downloaded more than 3,200,000 times from online media repository ifilm.com. Such was the influence of Stewart's criticism of the program that CNN president Jonathan Klein cited him in an interview explaining the decision to cancel "Crossfire" in January, 2005.

I don't think this section should be in this article. Because it has nothing to do with "The Daily Show." So I figure i should delete it. Hope there are no objections :-) Akamad 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object. The Crossfire appearance has become the manifesto for the show's main purpose/intention/thesis/what have you, and goes a long way both to explaining the nature and execution of the show, and its significance in modern culture. Ario 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, User:Ario that the Crossfire appearance is important in relation to "The Daily Show" (which is why I didn't delete that part). But the bit that I thought was irrelevant is the part regarding how much the clip was downloaded and what not :-) Akamad 13:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't actually check the article, just assumed you'd removed it. That sounds like a reasonable edit. Ario 16:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Someone removed the NAMBLA section of the article.

I reseurrected the NAMBLA section. It was removed by 199.181.174.146 with no explanaition. A Whois lookup on that IP address says it's at the New York Times! It even resolves to nytgate05.nytimes.com. The same person appears to have also removed other sections and all but the NAMBLA section had been replaced. Imroy 13:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution Schmevolution

Is this going to be added to the notable stories section? Decessus 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that special very notable. Jon himself said on the air that he doesn't see doing that evolution special again. It wasn't all that funny in fact was a little stupid. It wasn't one of their better reports.--Tjkphilosofe 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New Correspondents?

Okay, first we got Dan Bakkedahl, then we see Sammy Bee's hubby Jason Jones, and now we've got a more hirsute version of Rob Corddry on October 4th, Nate Corddry if I heard correctly! So who is REALLY in and who is REALLY out?? --J L C Leung 08:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though they needed some new blood, with Colbert getting his own show, Carell off doing TV and movies, Bee on the verge of maternity leave. At this point, Corddry is taking over the Colbert status as the main correspondent. Jlove1982 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, Dan Bakkedahl is a correspondent and Jason Jones and Nate Corddry are just "contributors". Mysticfeline 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Actually Ed Helms is the senior correspondent replacing Stephen. Rob just took over the "This Week in God". Rob does a better job than Stephen in fact.--Tjkphilosofe 12:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada

I was just wondering, why is there so much information about the show in Canada? Not to sound anti-Canadian, but I think that more emphasis should be given to the US ratings and programming and less emphasis on Canada.

The Canadian connexion is significant for several reasons:

1. The high ratings are an indication of the show's success at marketing itself outside the U.S.

2. Canadian news is dominated by nationalist-slanted, Canadian-centric news, so perhaps Canadians are just bored by their own newscasts.

Peter Johnson (12 November 2005 (UTC))

Have you ever seen Candadian news? One could argue that it is too dominated by American-centric stories. Thus it is no surprise that The Daily Show is popular in Canada, when considering the widespread knowledge of American news (political and otherwise) and the popularity of other American shows seen in Canada.

One of the reasons for its popularity in Canada is that it offers a similar thoughts ans ideas in which a poular American show looks at the U.S. with the sardonic view that Canadians usually save for themselves.

Plus Samantha Bee and another Correspondent (I can't remember who) is Canadian.Macdaddy5539 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More Craig

I think this article does not have enough coverage of the Craig Kilborn years, including the perception that during that time, the remote pieces were mostly about being snotty towards harmless eccentrics. Also his bits, like 5 questions, the head getting karate chopped clip, "this just in", which he took with him to the late late show. I agree with most that TDS is better with Stewart, but at the same time you shouldnt just gloss over the first few years...Also there is little mention of the show's co-creators Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead. Rotten.com, of all places has a juicy article here www.rotten.com/library/culture/daily-show/

National Annenberg Foundation Link

In the Daily Show As News Source section there is a link to the National Annenberg Election Survey, a non-existent article, I tried to link it to the National Annenberg Foundation instead but that article doesn't exist either (a travesty). For the time being, until those articles are made (I don't know that much about the NAF so I'm not very qualified, perhaps I'll do some research) I pointed the link to the founder of the NAF Moses Annenberg, which is the only article relating to the NAF at present. Once these articles exist I hope somebody will notice and relink them if I forget. --Brentt 08:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Guest list

There is currently a very long guest list on this page. But is it necessary considering the existence of a List of The Daily Show guests page? Akamad 15:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Edited info on the Colbert Report to reflect present tense.

Stewart destroys Right Wing Spin

You should have seen him tonight he destroyed the Right-wing spin on Scooter Libby, Somehow the Right-wing spin is that the indictment is good for the white house. Jack Cox 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some mention of liberalism should be added

At least from an American point of view, maybe not a European one, The Daily Show tends to be left-wing. They often criticize the war in Iraq, and at one point during the election a actor ( I forget which one) filling in for Jon Stewart specifically stated he was against Bush. Some mention of this should be written into the article

• Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Jacqui ^★ 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I said good day!

I think that Willy Wonka is by far the most likely pop-culture reference here -- but does anyone think that this could be specifically a reference to Wilmer Valderrama's take-off on Gene Wilder in That 70's Show? It's certainly what I think of, and I'd suspect that there's a decent demographic overlap between that show and TDS.

I'm certain I recall a scene from otherwise forgetable 1982 movie "Tootsie" with a humourously overwrought "I said GOOD DAY, sir!" line. ...spoken to Ron Carlisle by "Dorothy Michaels". - J. -4.181.77.195 9:42 1 December 2005 (UTC) (signature added by Scm83x 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

From www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=7041 Moviequotes.com, the quote is "Good day Dr. Brewster. I said Good Day!". Also, I would not write off Tootsie as otherwise forgettable. The movie was #62 on American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Movies and #2 on its 100 Years, 100 Laughs, and has been deemed "culturally significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. -Scm83x 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Tootsie received an academy nomination for Best Picture in 1982, competing against Gandhi, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and The Verdict. That's some rough competition. Not to mention nominations for Best Screenwriting, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Editing and Best Music. If that's forgetable, I want more of it! Gotta give it up for Tootsie. dpotter 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2005 Emmy Awards

From Peter Johnson [20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)] Can anyone quote Jon Stewart’s very funny, brief speech — really just a one-liner — from the recent Emmy Awards?

Are you referring to the speech in which he said "George Bush hates Black Sabbath"? Mysticfeline 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Are you OK? link removal

Recently a link to the "Are You OK?" clip was removed from the article. The link does work (it's not obsolete). I am not really familiar with whether or not linking to this file hosted on another site is copyright infringement. It's not our business what goes on on other sites. Just wondering. Thanks. -Scm83x 09:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

added criticisms

I added them. --Capsela 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Notable stories, events, and shticks" consolidation/move

I've contributed sections of the "Notable stories, events, and shticks" but I think it's getting too long and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article about the daily show. However, I certainly don't think it merits removal--I think it should be shortened to a paragraph and made into its own article. If a complete list of Daily Show guests gets its own article (and has survived a deletion vote), I think a "Daily show running jokes/references" or "Notable stories, events, and shticks" is worthy of its own article. And I certainly think it would be much better to have it as a separate article so it could be more complete. Anybody agree/disagree? Sorry if this was supposed to go at the bottom, I haven't added a new section to a talk page before. Ario 06:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Moved this section to the bottom of the talk page. If there are no objections to this, I'm going to do it in a week or so. Ario 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredibly unencyclopedic tone of writing

This article is amazingly unencyclopedic in its tone. Many of its sections are probably not compliant with our NPOV policy, and recent additions to the article are only piling on more not very cleverly hidden praise of the show. About a week ago before I went on vacation, I had to completely rewrite the most glaringly POV subsection, but there's a lot more work to be done. While TDS is of course a great TV show, this doesn't excuse its article from you know, being actually neutral and not heaping praise on TDS. Thoughts? Johnleemk | Talk 03:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone over the article again and it still stinks. For instance, "The results include some of the most pointed political satire broadcast in the United States." Or "For years, Stewart and the correspondents of The Daily Show have crafted a unique form of humor around sexual innuendo." The occasional reference to Stewart as "Jon" doesn't help with the unencyclopedic writing tone either. I've tagged this article with the NPOV template. Johnleemk | Talk 05:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• • goodcall.ytmnd.com Good call. Danny Lilithborne 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, god forbid we have some fucking criticism of the liberal darling daily show. "JON" my sweet prince, i worship the ground you walk on. I'm only fit to lick your shoes and edit your wiki article. --Capsela 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Up until you stepped in, it was all valid criticism. What you said is certainly valid, but way past professional. -- user:zanimum

Perhaps the Neutrality Dispute should be labeled more clearly in this talk page considering its size... --71.33.83.184 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the tone of this article.--Tjkphilosofe 09:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, God forbid anyone have a sense of humor. It's amazing how people feel the need to be over-sensitive to an admitedly satirical show, who expreses opinions and view points that differ from the mainstream. It's like the Dailey Show is exercising there 1st Amendment, how dare they... I never once saw someone call Stewart a "prince" or kiss his butt in this article. If you can point out where the show is at fault, by all means edit the story. I don't think the show is liberal or any other political label since they can make fun of everyone, and the fact that America is ran by Republicans will mean that that is who will be made fun of more, since they make our policies and choose if we go to war and how we handle disasters, not the minority Dems/Libs. I have no doubt that if it were the other way around then this show would be labeled anti-liberal... 68.254.111.102 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What the mainstream media is not

If you see something that needs editing than do so. I made a couple of edits to the grammatical form. As for those who criticize seeing a bias, I don't see that with The Daily Show. In fact like with wikinews and wikipedia, The Daily Show maintains a goal of impartiality. It is too bad the mainstream media has lost that.--Tjkphilosofe 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In following your example, I edited the title of this section. You wrote "What the mainstream media not," which makes no sense whatsoever. And I agree, The Daily Show does not really have a bias - as said before, they make fun of everyone. -- MasterXiam 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo of omission. Good of you to catch the mistake.--Tjkphilosofe 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Overseas editions

With the hasty revert of "subtitles," the last sentence now makes no sense. BabuBhatt 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Still no sense ... "It is transmitted either in its original language in Danish, Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian." BabuBhatt 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then.... fix it. JDoorjam 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seemed fixed with "subtitles" as though that was the intended construction. But I don't know if the show airs in those places with subtitles. The current construction indicates that it airs in either one of those three languages or Norwegian. ... don't know enough to fix. Cheers. BabuBhatt 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Programmes in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) are usually subtitled whereas Central European countries like Germany tend to use dubbing.

There is no dubbing of the show in any of the nordic countries. --AiR 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The show is not neutral, it's liberal.

The show is liberally biased. This is true. But as far as that goes, it's still one smart show!

Actually it's sort of a blend, with Jon himself being, as he sometimes says, something of a lefty. (or somewhat leaning to the left, I don't recall exactly.) Since Jon is the man that reviews the writers scripts, his admitted bias may shine trough (and he makes it clear whenever anyone asks that he is SOMEWHAT biased. Still, it doesn't pull any comedic punches, and has joked a great deal about Democrats not being any better at running the goverment than the Republicans, believing them both to be equally inept/corrupt.

The whole concept of liberal/conservative/left/right is flat out stupid. It's all relative; To someone extremely right wing, this show would seem leftist. To someone extremely leftist, this show would seem right. This is true with anything, not just this show.

The only thing that matters is this shows focus, which is being funny. I think they succeed. If this show was intended as propaganda to brainwash the masses then bringing up it's slant might be worth noting, but it's not.

With all of that said, my personal opinion is that Stewart personally opposes the current administration but that he would be making a lot of the same jokes regardless of whos in power. The fact that the Republicans hold so much power makes them an easy target for a show that is relatively limited to covering current events. I'd rather see Stewart skewer Bush daily than hold a single joke for fear of not being "neutral", which is a big problem for our "real news".

--Semi 12:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, this may seem slightly POV (but so is what was said) but I really don't consider the Daily show as 'one smart show' (this maybe because im not American, although I am a socialist and liberal, left leaning myself in otherwords) because it relies heavily on explained comments and jokes that require the audience not to work one thing out in their mind. In 'The Daily Show' the ability/responsibility for an audience to 'get a joke' is lovingly removed from their shoulders before an uneccessary and patronising (to the audiences intelligence, but ofc from my POV if you choose to wish this program egularily you may be considered to have little intelligence, in my country at least, humour differs from place to place) explaanation of the joke is rammed down the audience's throat (generally accompanied by irrelavant pictures and yelling from Jon Stuart in a voice which tries, but tragically misses to amuse anyone)in a kind of way which personally I can only describe as a kind of physcological torture (or at least a grave insult to a monkey's intelligence, considering the fact that the monkey has a low IQ for a monkey). I mean I think real progress medicaly could be made if they played the Daily show to people i PVS in hospitals and could even possibly stimulate these people (though im not taking any chances, people in PVS may fidn this suggestion an insult to their receptory abilities). Yes the previous statement is trollish and written from a strong POV (though suprisingly pro-liberal, which involves having a sense of liberal humour) but I just couldn't stand the idea of someone describing the show as smart without nearly choking on some indignity stuck in my throat. Everyone of course is entiled to choose what is funny and what is not, but smart would nto be a way to describe this show, even if funny is.

Both sides are targeted

The persons who claim The Daily Show is liberal are the far right. It could be equally argued that the show is conservative. Jon takes quite a lot of shots at democrats. He has a lot of fun showing how truly stupid they have been behaving. He focuses on Bush and the Republicans because they are the ones in power right now.

• I'm a liberal. I promise. And I enjoy the fact that Jon is unabashedly one too. He makes fun of anyone, as he should, but he always does it with more "love" for the Dems. -Jcbarr 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pundits like Bill O'Reilly have accused Jon being too liberal even coming close to calling him downright unamerican. Jon will take the criticisms and fire them back at his critics. This could be the reason why the Colbert Report was created. The look of the set and Stephen's commentaries remind me of the O'Reilly Factor.--Tjkphilosofe 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Realisticaly speaking all forms of imply some form of bias. In the case of a show that deals comedicaly with the nature of government bias will always be focused at whatever party is in power and therefore does more damage through their stupidity. Furthermore The Daily Show is in fact a FAKE! news show and thereby should be free from restrictions of neutrality.

The problem with that excuse, however, is that it's not that much different from "real" news shows. There are no actual "restrictions of neutrality" on the media anymore, anyway, which partly explains this. NBS525 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Show is a comedy show HE MAKES FUN OF PEOPLE. Why does this article lack neutrality is beyond me? He's not a force in politics, he's a comedian. Might as well label Chapelle, Pryor, Williams, Colbert, Rock, etc etc.. liberal. Give me a break. Enough with the hypersensitive politcal crap and get your heads out of your asses.

You're kidding, right? The Daily Show is comedy with a liberal slant. It's by no means conservative. Have you even watched the show? Andre (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The show's comedy itself aims at everyone. Though Stewart himself may be liberal, the jokes come from both directions. In fact, the show constantly contradicts what "side" it seemed like it was standing on when a subject from the past is recalled. It just goes for the laugh. -- Viewdrix 23 January 2006

Although Andre does make a legitamate point that the show is not conservative. It seems difficult to justify his(her?) reference to comedy with a liberal slant as all comedy is liberal otherwise it defeats the purpose of comedy. A joke that agrees with the party in power is not 'risqe' and therefore by moden standards of observational comedy 'funny', so until popular humor changes or there is a change in the blance of power in our government all comedy inclding the Daily Show will be 'liberal'.

I don't know whether Jon is liberal or conservative but he takes more shots at the democrats. For instance their shameful speeches on MLK day. Stephen is equally hard to pin down. He plays it conservative but he may be liberal mocking conservatives or he may be something else.--Tjkphilosofe 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While Jon said that he voted for Kerry in the 2004 election, he describes himself on the show as an independent. In other words, he avoids extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Those who believe that Jon has an excessive liberal bias would do well to watch some of the shows from 1999 as well as particular shows from the 2004 election campaign. While Jon ridicules conservatives on a regular basis, he doesn't do so because they're conservative; he simply pokes fun at those in power (that's kind of the definition of satire anyways). Mysticfeline 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Mysticfeline

Jon has aimed several jokes towards Democrats. He almost always pokes fun at their ineptitude as a political party, he calls them out whenever they do something stupid (Hillary Clinton comparing the Bush White House to a plantation on MLK Day), and even created a sole segment to make fun of Ted Kennedy's facial expressions during an Alito hearing (or was it something else?). He doesn't make fun of Kennedy as much as he does Bush of course, but then again, Kennedy isn't the president. Every late night show has taken pot shots at Bush, not because they are super liberals, but because it's funny to mock the guy in charge. Clinton was always mocked in the 90's, from his McDonalds visit on SNL to god-knows-how-many Lewinsky jokes. The president is a lightning rod for jokes. - Omex 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My entire opinion about the whole "does he target left or right" is that he makes jokes about whoever seems to be screwing up the most. And since right now (2006), the Republicans have the majority of power, most of the focus is on them. When the Dems get back in major office (and anyone whose studied poli-sci knows they will, it's the natural flow of things), he'll go after them with more vigor. Once again, my opinion... Poisonouslizzie 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You people are wrong. The daily show is unbelieveably liberal. TAKE OFF YOUR ROSE TINTED GLASSES AND OPEN YOUR EYES!--Capsela 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course we're all wrong. And you're right. I think you should also open your eyes, and realise that your whole country has a definite right-wing lean. To hear an American label someone else as 'left-wing' or 'liberal' would almost be humorous, if not for the sheer hatred involved. If you want left-wing, go look at Europe. Your attack is meaningless in the wider context and only exposes your own bias. Imroy 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's undeniable that The Daily Show is slanted somewhat against the Republican Party, even if it bashes the Democrats occasionally (and I say this as someone with great antipathy towards people like Dubya). There is no point in arguing about this, however. Since apparently there are different points of view over how biased the show is, the article should simply state something like "Although The Daily Show is commonly regarded as left-leaning in American political terms, some fans have argued that Stewart and the other anchors denigrate the Democrats and other left-leaning politicians as well." (Don't forget to WP:CITE for this assertion.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The staff appears to have a strong dislike for the Republicans in power, one that apparently goes beyond simply lampooning those in power. See, for instance, the reaction to Cheney's hunting accident. However, being against that group, specifically, does not mean the show is particularly biased against conservatives, as Bush & his followers have been anything other than true conservative in their 6 years in power. They have represented ineptitude and corruption and political hackery instead, and that deserves as much pointed comedic attack as one can heap upon it. Put McCain or Specter or Snowe or Jeffords, or any other responsible conservative, on the Daily Show, and you would find a much different treatment. I know Jon is liberal w.r.t. marijuana use, mainly from his MTV days and his movie appearances, but in most aspects of policy I get no sense from the show that he's anywhere other than moderate. It's probably a by-product of the skewed state of American discourse that TDC is considered to lean heavily left.

Rob as Host

On one of those rare occasions, Jon was off Thursday night. Rob was the guest host. It was awkward watching him and he didn't do a very good job when a joke about Hitler and Ann Frank failed to get a laugh. The last time I heard that much silence was the infamous Sinead O Connor piece about the Pope on SNL. Whoa...Bomber !!! There just some people who can't anchor a fake newscast.--Tjkphilosofe 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What an incredibly pointless addition to this page. Thanks for the hyperbole about the silence and the complete lack of anything justifying you writing that. -- Viewdrix 11 February 2006

Rob Corddry with his exaggerated style was poorly suited to host the show. Ed Helms probably would have been a better replacement. Has anyone besides Stephen Colbert filled in for Jon before?

You know that is what was thinking Stephen originally filled in. It would explain what Stephen did at the end where he had his stage manager fill in for him. Considering Ed is looking for a new job according to his new year resolution piece may be able to keep him happy by making him the guest host. Rob is just too wild and crazy to be host. That is what makes him good for This Week in God.--Tjkphilosofe 11:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rob filled in with his character rather than trying to be a "good host". It was only a temporary thing, and I don't think he treated it as an "audition" since if he ever did host his own show, he wouldn't want to do it as a straight-man, the way Jon does. Perhaps I'm just being naive.--SportWagon 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jon Show?

My wife and I refer to it as simply "The Jon Show". Does anyone else do that?--SportWagon 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at previous comments, is this talk page regarded as more than just a talk page? --SportWagon 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show Going Hollywood?

This isn't directly related to his bio, just an opinion question in general. Is anyone worried that since he's gotten so popular, and the gig with the Oscars, the Daily Show is going to get a little more like Access Hollywood? Like back to the Craig days? I know, I know, it isn't directly a political show to begin with, but I still appreciate the Washington satire as opposed to jokes about Brad and Angelina. I can get that on Letterman... Poisonouslizzie 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be an irre;evant comment but one of the links near the bottom is not linking properly, you can just see the brakets and all. Someone should fix it if they can.Skuzabut

This Page is EXTREMELY Bloated

And it need some reformatting. I agree a lot more info needs to be included for the Craig years and I'd love to add it. I can't find a place to put it, though. So much of this fluff on "sexual innuendo" and other running jokes should be removed as its just overkill. I can do this myself if no one else wants to step up. --Mark 2000 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've writen a new section about the creation and early years of the show. I've reformatted some sections and deleted others. I know many will be angry that I removed sections for rucurring in jokes, but, frankly that kind of over analysis should be left for fan pages. I also deleted the "interviews section because that information seem more efficiant as part of the differnt era's sections instead of in a section of its own. I also removed many screen caps as Wikipedia rules ask for only one screenshot per page. We had four before, we have two now. This page still clocks in a lot bigger than the page for 60 Minutes, a show with litterally decades of history and greater cultural importance. If further work goes into this please let it be subtractions, not additions.--Mark 2000 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guide

Has anyone considered beginning a daily episode guide for the show, listing which topics and correspondents are featured on eahc show? It seems like it's necessary. We could just begin with new episodes as they air.

Again, too much bloat. Their are thousands of episodes. This is best left to a fan site. Make one and lick to it. --Mark 2000 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia does have an episode guide for The Colbert Report which is on just as often.

You would then have to make a case that the Colbert Report guide is a good idea considering how long running the series might be. Does Jay Leno have an episode guide? Does 60 Minutes? Conan O'brian? Even Saturday Night Live? In the long run its impossible goal.--Mark 2000 22:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper; I say, go for it. This project aims to be a repository for all human knowledge; what's wrong with an episode guide? Sounds useful to me. JDoorjam Talk 00:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and weasel words

I've left most of your tweaks, but i complete reconstituted the criticism section. As someone who doesnt necessarily believe most of what i wrote, the fact is the criticism exists and repressing the fact is revisionist. The daily show is concidered biased by many. Jon Stewart is a self proclaimed liberal, period. What you called "weasle words" im guessing the fact that i explained the standpoint of the critics accurately instead of making it vague as you did. Please speak to me about this section before editting it again to avoid a war. Thanks.--Mark 2000 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- from my talk page

My edits to the criticism section were not because I am trying to repress anything; I simply removed weasel words. The term sounds incivil and it's not meant to be. That's unfortunately the terminology that the Wikipedia community has chosen for the insertion of opinion in the guise of a commonly held belief. The problem with your criticism is three-fold: first, you reinserted the statement that Craig Kilborn would take on "the character of a "enlightened frat boy": handsome and privileged, but extremely liberal, in touch with his feminine side, and always willing to take a cheap shot at himself." This is just pure editorialization. Second, slightly less important, your other criticism has less to do with The Daily Show than with Jon Stewart.

But it's really the final point, that your edits incorporate unsourced claims about what "some" feel and what unsourced "critics" complain about. You complained that my edits make the section more vague, but your criticism is completely nebulous in regards to who is actually saying these things. You say that Stewart is "unapolagetically liberal"; do you have a citation for that? I'm trying to fulfill WP:V. Please look to do so as well. JDoorjam Talk 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to disagree on this. I restored the original again. I have two examples right on the page of people criticizing stewart on not asking hard enough questions. In both their statements they saw outright or implay the show is used as a platform. I've added two sources for work but they are really unnecessary. Stewart in every interview he makes says hes a liberal against the war and against the bush admin and his personal hope is that the democrats will finally rise up. Its common knowledge and theres nothing wrong with it. Its like finding a source to say Al Franken is a liberal. I think you are asking for an unusual amount of documentation because you are try to protect the show from conservative critics. Second, the "frat boy" reference is actually from character creator winstead as well as a description by Janeane Garofalo on the show itself.

I suggest the next time you want documentation for common knowledge you help find it rather than delete the material. That isnt scholarly either. Thanks--Mark 2000 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor adding information to find sources for that information. If you want to claim something as common knowledge I suggest you find evidence of it before putting it into articles. I also hope you understand the gulf between saying "Al Franken is liberal" and "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been criticized by some because of its liberal slant." If you're going to say "by some," I'd like to know the source. Incidentally, the source you gave doesn't "criticize" him for it, and so doesn't really belong in the "criticism" section. For the sake of NPOV, I'd say that his political leanings don't belong in "criticism" regardless of who said what about him: that would be like putting a criticism section into Bill Frist's article and saying "Frist is criticized by some for being conservative." Stewart's political leanings are, at most, an attribute; you assume a priori they are a fault. (I also, incidentally, don't see how Stewart's repeated criticism that the Democratic party is flaccid on every issue is a show of support.) JDoorjam Talk 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are miss reading the article. The "criticism" is that the show is slanted. The "evidence" is that stewart is slanted. Stewart's leaning is a fact. Whether the show is slanted or not is a topic of discussion. Second, "liberalism" is not owned by the democratic party. A citation that stewart criticises the dems for not doing enough is infact a proof of liberalism.

After looking at you edits, your language changes are fine, but liberalism is returned to the "crit" per above. The frat description removal is back. If you're allowing the "enlightened frat boy" part is left then a description of what that means is necessary. Again. Please stop merely deleting content and instead discuss first.--Mark 2000 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the source you've provided for the "criticism" isn't criticizing him. It also states that while he's liberal, his first duty is comedy, not politics. If anything, the citation you've given is a counter-argument to the claim you've made. I left "enlightened frat boy" because I assumed that you could provide a citation for it, which you haven't. Without a citation (or hell, even with one), everything that follows it is pure editorialization -- especially that "liberal" follows from "frat boy." Most frat boys are pretty conservative, at least where I went to college. Too much of the content in question is opinion. JDoorjam Talk 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we reading the same text? You're agreeing with me but still arguing against me. Stewart's liberalism isnt the issue. The criticism of the show is. Whether its a correct criticism is not the issue. Its what critics are saying, and a wide amount of them.--Mark 2000 04:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote for me some criticism from that article. JDoorjam Talk 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Gorman

Dave Gorman was the "Senior New Correspondent" on lastnight's show... was this a one-time thing or is he actually a new correspondent that will appear again? Should we mention it in the article? I notice it's mentioned in his article but not this one. Shivers 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume he's at least reoccuring. Most likely a contributer like Hodgeman, not a correspondant like Helms. I did however tag Gorman with the Daily Show cat and his article has a blurb about the show. --waffle iron ^talk 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(Probable) inspiration for 'The Daily Show'

Perhaps a mention of 'The Day Today', the UK show that is a satire of the news, should be added to this main article.. as 'TDS' is practically an Americanized clone of it.

I wouldn't say that, The Day Today's stories were all fictional (some quite bizarre) rather than current events and they were a parody of news programmes, they didn't invent the style and format of 'The Day Today' . I wouldn't call it a clone by any means.--Sully 09:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the show as it stands now is different from how it used to be (as I recall). It used to have a greater emphasis on the interviews; now, it is much more of a "biting social commentary"-type show. EVula 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why Jon Stewart Isn't Funny"

Has there been any formal response by fans to this article? Omphaloscope » talk 08:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fans of The Daily Show aren't exactly an organized group that gives formal responses. There are plenty of individual fans who contribute to the page itself, but I doubt that their is an organization of them that issues such responses. Mysticfeline 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)mysticfeline

I wasn't suggesting a response lodged by some representative body for TDS fans, or anything like that. However, fan websites and op-ed sections publish opinions which are generally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia articles if pertinent.

So is there a Daily Show fan site with an opinion on the article "Why Jon Stewart Isn't Funny", or newspaper article in Stewart's defense? Omphaloscope » talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry im from the UK (and so my sense of humour is liable to be different according to norms) and I understand that this really isn't the place for saying things that don't have any relevance on the actual topic, but it didn't stop this section from forming so....

Im a liberal supporter (as far as you can be and from the UK)but I think it is neccessary to say that for at least the majority of semi-articulate primates Jon Stuart probably tells the worst and most over explained jokes in the history of creation (scientific or otherwise). I mean seriosuly his idea of telling a joke is literally yelling it at you and showing you a picture, which you just look at and are like wtf??? (see the wtf wikipedia article for further information) and he relies utterly on canned laughter for any actual humourous stimulation of the audience. I think to refer to this man as a comedian is a grave insult to people like, I don't know, corpses? who are probably on the whole more funny and although can be disturbing usually don;t inflict the same sense of suicidal depression (in me at least). In reference to this section I think fans of Jon Stuart should either go deep into hiding in darkest Africa (and never come out), or go to America, which appears from the point of view of the TV (often misleading I understand, but you cant blame me with the Daily show featuring on it) to be a wasteland of any kind of humour that uses more than monosylabic yelling. Basically what Im saying is I doubt there is a Jon Stuart fanbase of people who would admit to liking him because if there were it would be used as the resource for the purpose of mass-lynching by those with a sense of humour greater than neandertile.I don't understand how this article can describe his humour as satire because the way his jokes are told almost totally rely on no intellectual effort by the audience to understand, thus rendering the whole point of pollitical satire (where people can deduce sarcasm and then actually recieve some intellectual stimulation and thereby experience humour)pointless. Im sorry if it offended anyone who enjoys the program, its proberbly just the mindset and location of me and the people I know, and the people they know, and the people their grandparents know in soem distat country. I dont have anything about American humour on the whole btw, btw for information on btw check btw on wikipedia, (not that anyone will probably be reading this after they have skipped my rather disputed comments) the other guy form the program who does that paroday of the O'Reily show seems to actually possess a brain and so is considerably more funny. ---And just so everyone knows this was written from a purely NPOV way from my POV,

The Daily Show recurring elements

I've just made a new page on the show called The Daily Show recurring elements. I incorporated the running jokes section that used to be on the main article, and the new article also lists the names and descriptions of recurring segments. Naturally, I don't remember every recurring segment done on the show; so, any help is greatly appreciated. This new article will be useful for getting rid of surplus articles. There were complete articles for Back in Black, This Week in God and Baptiz'd but I've simply turned them into redirect pages and incorporated them into the recurring elements article. Thank you.

Ratings

This site needs evidence that John Stewart actually increased ratings for the show. Craig Kilborn averaged 2 million a night, John Stewart gets one million. If you have evidence, site it.

• "Ratings are at their peak, averaging nearly a million viewers this year, up 18% over 2002 and nearly threefold since Stewart replaced Kilborn in January 1999. A weekly "global edition" follows real news on CNN International in dozens of foreign countries." (www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-10-06-daily-show_x.htm)
• "Leblang gives Comedy Central credit for having the patience to let The Daily Show at 11 p.m. build over time, growing to become one of cable's biggest success stories in late night. He pointed out that The Daily Show (originally hosted by Craig Kilborn) debuted in 1996 with a 0.3 rating, and now seven years later averages a 0.7 or 0.8, according to Nielsen. (Stewart took over in 1999.) The Daily Show's ratings have increased every year, Giacopelli said. This summer, after some testing, Comedy Central bowed a follow-up show to Stewart, namely Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn at 11:30 p.m." (www.multichannel.com/article/CA328840.html?display=Supplement)
• "[Kilborn] rarely played to more than 1 percent of the Nielsen household universe at one time." (www.icriticus.com/lsn-archive/lsn-050598.text)
• "But it's also a demonstration of television done right. In the six years since Stewart took over, the audience for The Daily Show has grown almost threefold to 1.4 million viewers a night. It boasts a legion of young, smart fans who are among the most demographically desirable audiences in the industry - further collapsing the caste distinctions between networks and cable." (news.agendainc.com/mt-agenda/content/archives/media/index.html)
• Mysticfeline 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Jones in Denmark?

I remember this episode pretty well. I am pretty sure that Jones was not in Denmark, as he did later appear in the studio at the desk with Jon during that same episode. I know he did actually push the passerby, but I would think it may have been shot outside the studio in New York City. I don't know, but all I can say is I'm sure he's not in Denmark. 71.252.21.89 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been to New York, but I have been to Copenhagen, and I'm pretty sure that was Nyhavn where he pushed the passerby. In other words, he's most probably in Denmark.

Dr. Schnellkopf 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that two-part segment, and yeah, they did film part in Denmark. Remember: they record their segments not in the studio (the latter are also recorded, but usually the same day). It's not too difficult to see how they were able to have him actually in Denmark for those recordings. Also, if you recall, nothing in that segment was too time-sensitive, it was just a loose report on the mindset of the Danes in light of the Muhammed cartoon flap. --Bobak 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he appeared later in the studio, but the broadcast wasn't live or anything of that sort. --Zagsa</font>]] 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

The in-line external links would be better if they were converted to footnotes using the <ref> tags. That way, the numbering would be consistent.--Esprit15d 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohio - First Section

Is it really that important that The Daily Show *might* be taping for a while in Ohio? I mean, its in the first section of the article and it might happen... does that comment really belong there?

Split needed

This article is just physically too long. I suggest moving the "History" section to a separate article, and cutting the History section in this article to one or two paragraphs, with a link to the main History article at the top. I've seen this done is several articles.

Does anyone object to my doing this? Herostratus 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)#

It certainly isn't anywhere near the longest articles we have, but is over the suggested limit and a very large proportion is taken up by history. I would, therefore, tend to agree the section be split off into History of the Daily Show (and have put a split suggestion on the history section).

However, I would suggest that each subsection of history be summarised into one or two paragraphs as opposed to the whole history section just being one or two paras (which is way too extreme). When created History of The Daily Show could also be expanded to include some summaries of individual episodes (as suggested above).

I'd wait until others respond to the tag I've put on the article, and, if there is consensus, have a look at other History of articles for ideas on how to split.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright information

Does anyone know how the The Daily Show crew obtain copyrights for the various clips? Is it under the Fair Use clause or do they have a royalty system? I am interested in knowing this, as it could be a news show as well as a comedy show.

I am also interested in knowing how the copyrights work in any other comedy show say Late Night Show or Tonight Show or the Colbert Report. Anyone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormant25 (talk • contribs)

Everything they air is copyrighted. This applies to all the shows unless they state that they release it with a free license (which wont happen any time soon). --Cat out 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh.. no; I didn't mean the The Daily Show videos, but the clips they acquire to criticize mainly from Fox News, CNN, NBC etc. Does it qualify as fair-use? I think an encyclopedia should have some information about this, as I am racking my brains here. Not that it matters, and not that "obviously it is fair use", but where is the line drawn if there is one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfxguy (talk • contribs)

Yes, the Daily Show relies on fair use. After all, if they were required to obtain permission, they would have less than one day to do so. Lawyers don't usually work that quickly, as they are paid by the hour. ;) 71.105.98.198 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending, but what proof do you have for that fact? I know that it will be a "widely held and obvious" fact, but do you have some links or pointers to that effect?

Well Wiki's fair use page says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,... is not an infringement of copyright." So I'm guessing that since the Daily Show critiques, comments and sometimes reports news, their use of copyrighted videos is appropriate and legal. Gdo01 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tonight they referred to John_Oliver_(comedian) as the "newest" staffer.

Tonight they referred to John_Oliver_(comedian) as the "newest" staffer.

What does that mean for Aasif_Mandvi??

Hopiakuta 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh...that he's not? Roehl Sybing 19:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry support

I believe it was the night before the election that Stewart, after having spoken about how the Bush administration's lunacy made his job all too easy, said, "Make my job difficult." So there's no need for the {{cn}}. Zerblatt 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

UTC-5

What is 11:30 UTC-5? Unless the shows airs at the exact same time worldwide, I don't think there's really any need to define it based on a time zone. And if it does, why use an obscure time zone like UTC-5, "used in the Central Time Zone during Daylight Saving Time." Theshibboleth 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

well, wikipedia uses the "UTC" format. dposse 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

International

Since TDS is now broadcast 4 days a week on freeview channel More4 in the UK, it's probably incorrect to say that Canada's the only country that has it broadcast 4 days a week on free-to-air channels... J•A•K 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The article seems to brush off the Criticism as being trivial.220.238.214.119 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms sound trivialized because the criticisms listed have been rebutted by "defenders of the show", so proponents have the last words. If you know any follow ups by the critics, feel free to add them so it does not sound trivialized. --Voidvector 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Edition intro

This edition is always prefaced by the following announcement, which is also displayed in written form against a Daily Show background: "The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through."

I can't recall ever seeing this on More4 - is this notice actually part of the Global Edition supplied to foreign broadcasters or just added for the CNN International transmission? Timrollpickering 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with The Eleven O'Clock Show?

The line in the introduction that mentions this programme is perhaps not that well worded, as I think the Daily Show pre-dates the Eleven o'Clock show by a few years. Can anyone confirm this?

Tozznok 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spinning Globe

One subtle joke in the show which I've never seen referenced anywhere is that whenever they have the graphic on the bottom of the screen showing the name of whoever they're interviewing or the name of the "on-site" reporter giving a story, there's a little animation of a spinning globe on the lower-right corner. However, instead of spinning in the proper direction, it's spinning end-over-end, completely off-axis. I'm pretty sure this is a reference to one of the major network's news programs (I forget which one), which for years featured a globe spinning in reverse during its intro scenes before somebody pointed it out. Can anybody remember which news program that was? Lurlock 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now. With the set-redesign, they've taken away the summersaulting globe and replaced it with a larger, snazzier one that is spinning in the proper direction. Just wondering if I was the only one who noticed this... Lurlock 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging List of awards won by The Daily Show

The 22 awards this show has won should be listed in a section of this article rather than a seperate one (which ironically also includes awards lost by the show). I'm mentioning it here first if anyone wants to preserve the table format from List of awards won by The Daily Show, if not I'll just merge the awards won here. Saikokira 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's a pretty long list (and likely to get longer) to add to this already decently long article. And award nominations are still significant, so even if they didn't win, it's worth mentioning. (Just try telling Oscar nominees that it doesn't count if they don't win...) It might be acceptable to take the most important wins and mention them on the main article, but certainly not all of them, and the list of awards page should be preserved either way. It's not like this is the only show with a separate page for a list of awards. In fact, quite a few of them do, especially if they've been around for a little while. I'd say keep it. Lurlock 13:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Issues in Criticism

This article is rife with phrases such as "some say" and "defenders of the show say." I am all for criticism sections but you gotta back it up. Further citing to another article that uses this phrasology (sp?) does not give this type of language any more force.