Talk:The Daily Show

Claims of Gender Bias

Several episodes of The Daily Show have addressed the paucity of female correspondants. Samantha Bee has done several segments lampooning this. I think this should be explored more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.73 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Find a reliable source discussing it, otherwise it is original research. Also, add new sections to the bottom of the talk page in the future, please. DP76764 (Talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On location vs green screen

On 20 August 2007 the show began a segment called "Operation Silent Thunder: The Daily Show in Iraq" in which correspondent Rob Riggle gives a report from Iraq. The title was later changed to "Operation Fluffy Bunny" with Riggle noting that "I guess all the good adjective-noun combinations are taken." The "Operation Fluffy Bunny" segment featured a much-visited remark by Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana that Iraq is "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime" along with pop-culture references to the 1994 movie Forrest Gump. The segment was once again changed to "Operation Macho Kick-ass" which featured soldiers' opinions on the Iraqi Parliament taking vacation from their duties during the month of August. "Operation Macho Kick-ass" in turn became "Operation Thundering Cameltoe". The name was accredited to a less-suggestive Iraqi phrase that was lost in translation.

We already mention several cases where the fact it was in front of a green screen was made clear so perhaps this isn't necessary but IIRC didn't the above segment have one episode where there were 2 people supposedly reporting from Iraq whereas it was later revealed one was simply using the background of the other one's report? Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If I remember correctly, Riggle was live, and Aasif Mandvhi was using his feed as the background. -- Viewdrix (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

writers strike mistake

i don't know if it is just me but after jon said that whole a daily show instead of the daily show after coming back from a commecial brack i saw the daily show instead of a daily show on the opening title comming back so you might want to watch the show's title more carfully during the show to see if they didn't change it. 71.117.30.38 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)tim dalorane71.117.30.38 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart is calling it 'A' Daily Show to show his support for the writers strike however the network it's on still recognises it a 'the' hence the commercial break titles being the same as pre strike. Hope that clears it up Agent452 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that is does not belong in the lead. The show is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Somewhere in the body, the temporary shift to A should be mentioned. Articles shouldn't have temporary leads that have to change according to what's going on at the moment.Kww (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How is he supportting the strike?? There seems to be little difference from before the strike. Who is writing the jokes etc??Macca7174_talk 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Split

There are two separate articles for Late Night With Conan O'Brien and Late Night With David Letterman. I think that should be the case here, as well. The Daily Show With Craig Killborn has little to do with today's show and probable doesn't deserve to be called Peabody and Emmy Award-winning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.60.180.3 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you because Jon Stewart has many different segments than Kilborn. Anybody else back up on this?--Matt on Wiki (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart's start date

Tonight's show, Jan. 17, 2008, had a clip of Jon Stewart from 1998. It says his start date was 1999 on this page. Is this wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.192.31 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A Daily Show?

I think it might be important to add the A Daily Show to this article, because recently they have changed their name from "The" to "A" if anyone has a good source on why they changed their name could you please post it? Could you also post it here as well, because I would like to know myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.17.148 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They changed it in a show of support for the writers during the writer's strike. They wanted to make clear that the only reason they're on the air is because Comedy Central forced them to return, and that what is currently airing isn't the "real" Daily Show, so to speak. As it is A Daily Show has been redirected here. Is an explanation warranted? I'm not really sure either way. Stewart explained it on the first night back. faithless (^speak) 11:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing me The show will continue to honor the strike, with neither the show's writers nor Stewart performing their normal writing duties. To acknowledge this fact, the show is currently known as A Daily Show with Jon Stewart rather than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and will be until the end of the strike.[4] who is writing the show then? Gnevin (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably scabs. faithless (^speak) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really clear how much actual writing's going into the show. They are obviously preparing the material, but they don't appear to be reading off any script. They've also been airing (eg. Our Dead Planet) or repeating (eg. Thursday's Oliver/Wilmore report) segments that were written and filmed before the beginning of the strike. Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Faithlessthewonderboy if you have an issue with unclear ,maybe use unknown or vague. This info is important and shouldn't be blanked Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included at all. Just because you and I don't know who is writing the show doesn't mean anything. I don't know how they split the atom, but that doesn't mean I should edit nuclear fission and say, "It's unclear how this works." :) faithless (^speak) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very relevant point in terms of the strike, this show stopped because or the stike and has come back midway through without explained who will write the show . Perhaps that wording is better

To acknowledge this fact, the show is currently known as A Daily Show with Jon Stewart rather than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and will be until the end of the strike.[4]. It was however not clearly explained by Stewart who would be writing the show or to what extent' Gnevin (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How can a show we preplanned video clips be ab lib? Gnevin (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How can your head be so far up your ass. Does it matter, we have sources saying stuff is ad-libbbed. therefore, its adlibbed. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles as your new i'll point you to WP:Civil and leave it at thatGnevin (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles Stewart (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)(ec)It says largely ad-libbed, not totally. More importantly, it's sourced, which is the most important thing. If you find a source which explains exactly who is doing what, then by all means include it. faithless (^speak) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we say ad-libbed around pre-planed topics ?otherwise fine Gnevin (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

makes sense. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA delist (article sweep)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 5,

2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Detailed comments:

Since the article was listed as a GA in 2006, the criteria have been revisited and significantly tightened up (especially with regard to referencing). With regard to the current standards:

Criterion 1 (well written): The prose generally flows well and is pleasant to read. However, the lead does not provide an adequate summary of the article (per WP:LEAD), and there are a number of short paragraphs that might be best incorporated into their surroundings. There are also a large number of lists, some of which may be better either written into the prose, trimmed, or placed into separate 'list of...' type articles. Additionally, the article contains a number of minor WP:MOS violations (eg references spaced after punctuation).

Criterion 2 (factually accurate): This is the major area that needs attention; the article contains numerous gaps in its referencing, with some sections completely uncited and others only sparsely so. On the same subject, all web cites should include a retrieval date (we recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to ensure a standard format, but this is only a preference at present).

Criterion 3 (broad in its coverage): This may seem contradictory given the criterion, but in some ways the article coverage is too broad - resulting in a loss of focus. I believe more sections could be forked off into articles of their own without losing the essential coverage of the subject.

Criterion 6 (images): The image 'Kerry on the Daily Show.jpg' lacks a detailed fair-use rationale (the template {{Non-free use rationale}} might be useful here).

As a result of the amount of work required to bring the article up to current standards, I have reluctantly delisted it as a GA. Please feel free to renominate the article when the above issues have been addressed. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

US Army Web Filtering Policy

Changed the information about the show being broadcast on AFN to reflect that (1) the ban on streaming media is only on government-owned computers; a Service Member should be able to access the site via a computer provided by the United Service Organization or at Morale, Welfare and Recreation facilities, or by using a personal computer on a commercial connection. Also added citation for Army Regulation 25-1. Kant Lavar (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Redo

I have redone this page. all erased information can be recovered from article " The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" --Matthew (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have turned that back into a redirect, there has been no consensus reached. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I started a timeline. Any help would be appreciated.--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interviews and Guests neutrality tag

Does anyone know why that neutrality tag is in the interviews and guests section. I don't see how the Seat of Heat stuff is not neutral, but if anyone finds the stuff after it to be not neutral, I don't see a reason why that stuff just can't be deleted. It doesn't seem that important anyway.--DeviantCharles (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objections...I have removed the neutrality tag. 18.250.7.42 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Attention Needed-Self Contraindication

The Liberal bias section has Bill O'Reilly both criticizing a liberal bias, and then defending the show's equality. Something ain't right kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.94.244 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Gitmo?

Gitmo, AKA the Elmo-like puppet/Gitmo detainee, is a puppet Jon Stewart controls and uses for his "Guantanamo Baywatch" segment. This should be added to the article.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm inclined to think that's a bit trivial. If we include every amusing joke from the show's run, it's going to be a long article. Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- although Gitmo was very funny, it was simply one of hundreds of funny 'bits' Michael.Urban (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

International broadcasters

How relevant is the subsection on international broadcasts of the show? It's very long and is essentially only a list of countries and broadcasters which air The Daily Show. My feeling is that it's not particularly necessary; the small section on TDS Global Edition provides all the relevant information. And if the list is deemed that important, couldn't it be moved to a page of its own? -Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Daily Show/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show; the only thing better, in my opinion, is The Colbert Report :) Okay, on to the review!

• In the References, some of the publishers link back to The Daily Show. Since it's already on that page, they then become bolded terms. Unlink them so they do not appear bold.
• Remove periods at the end of image captions that are not full sentences per WP:MOS#Captions
• There are quite a number of references in the lead, leading me to believe that the information covered there is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Generally, the lead does not need any references because the information there should also later be mentioned again in the body of the article. If this is not the case, please ensure that it is. If it is the case, then the references in the lead are not needed.
• Make sure that punctuation marks are placed properly; for instance, in ""This Week in God,"", the punctuation mark should be outside the quote, so that it's ""This Week in God"," per WP:PUNC. The only time the punctuation goes inside the quotes is when it logically belongs in the sentence inside the quote.

Overall, excellent work on this article. The Colbert Report has been a GA for some time now and I would love to see this one be there, too. I'm a bit surprised that neither articles need to be semi-protected, considering the number of times that Stephen Colbert has mentioned Wikipedia and told his audience to vandalize it :) Gary King (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like some references use {{citation}} while others use {{cite web}}. Choose one or the other.
• "Craig Kilborn hosts an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." – is not a full sentence; "Craig Kilborn while hosting an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." would be a sentence. Either remove period or reword.

Gary King (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to know who is the show's announcer. I read "Each episode opens with a deep voice" and immediately wondered if it couldn't just say "Each episode opens with John Smith announcing" or something. I did quick research and found that Drew Birns is the announcer; I don't have a reliable reference, though, only his personal website. Perhaps you will have better luck?

• Also, all dashes like in "correspondent - typically" need to be en dashes per WP:DASH
• Incorrectly placed punctuation in "In," though" – it should be outside like "In", though" per WP:PUNC. Non-sentences have punctuation outside.
• The issues in the article are mostly MOS; referencing is good, and writing is good too.

Gary King (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor edit by moving the name. Besides that, looks good. Passing. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :) Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I saw this article and it was in very poor shape. It's nice to see that it's up to snuff – the referencing is definitely excellent, and I learned a lot from reading the article that I didn't know before about my (second)-favorite show ;) (Again, after the Colbert Report! :) ) Gary King (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here, Gary! Same here.  :) And congratulations, Shoemoney2night! You've done it, and done it well!  :) --Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may not be too long before this should be nominated for FA. The article looks good.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"'"Craig Kilborn hosts an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." – is not a full sentence; "Craig Kilborn while hosting an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." would be a sentence. Either remove period or reword.' - Uhh, no? That's not even close to correct. Whoa2000 (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasts of TDS and TDS Global Edition

I've removed the references to specific channels in Germany, Canada, the UK and Norway that carry the show, partly because the information didn't really belong in the lead but also because I don't think it's a good idea to let this grow into another huge subsection on international broadcasters (which was deleted less than a month ago). It's perfectly understandable why people might want to include that information - but, well, once you've got one or two broadcasters listed, there are sure to be people in other countries coming upon the page and tacking on their own local broadcast details, until it gets to the point (as it was before) where people are better served either checking their local TV guide or moving the information to a separate list. My suggestion would be that any further specific international broadcast information is kept out of the article or, if there's an interested editor out there, compiled in a new page. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that the way the article looks now it implies that only the edited weekly version is broadcast internationally, when in fact the original daily edition is shown in many places. I'm not suggesting a list of them, just a mention that the Global Edition is not the only one available outside of the US/Canada /85.194.44.18 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good point, I didn't think of that. Okay, I've edited the section to read, "The Daily Show airs on various networks worldwide; in addition, an edited version of the show called The Daily Show – Global Edition was devised specifically for overseas networks in late 2002." Does that sound better? -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"

I think that, while the lead is correct in calling the show "The Daily Show", to reflect that the article does not just focus on Jon Stewart's time as host, it should nevertheless also mention that "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" is the current name of the show - rst20xx (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...Well I added it - rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spinoffs section

This may have been discussed somewhere before, but shouldn't Lewis Black's show be mentioned? Not sure about the creation/production, but Black was certainly eased into the lineup through his segments on The Daily Show. I remember the ads for the show's premieres mentioned things he was known for and included "Broadway (yes, he did Broadway)" as a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of this. Thompsontough (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I had a quick read through several news articles and I couldn't find a whooole lot of information - creation/production-wise I have no idea whether the show's linked to TDS at all, or any particular indication that it was his Daily Show segments that got him the role (after all, he's also a successful stand-up comic with several comedy albums and a couple of books under his belt). Judging from that, I don't know if I'd really call it a spin-off. I'll have a more thorough hunt around tomorrow, though... kinda falling asleep at the keyboard now! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Black's appearances on TDS might have been just served as a catalyst. My original thinking was that it would be worth mentioning as a subsequent show starring a TDS cast member, but it's not as if Black got his start here the way Colbert did. Maybe some day Rob Riggle will get his own show and there will be more to talk about. ;) Thompsontough (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibilities of a section about audience reaction under Criticism?

I was thinking it might be worth mentioning the fairly frequent complaints that the audience tends to cheer for left-wing comments or guests and jeer against right-wing ones. I've seen the complaints multiple times - Rob Corddry himself said that the audience drove him "fucking nuts" (read both pages), I've followed TVSquad's daily episode reviews where it's a complaint that comes up every time there's a right-wing or pro-Iraq War guest, and Tina Fey made a similar criticism in Reader's Digest (transcript here, ignore the sensationalist headline). I'm a fan of the show, but it seems like a fairly credible complaint, unless you think complaints about the audience don't belong. I'd say it does since we end up hearing the audience's response as part of the show. -- Viewdrix (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleeping/Pixelation

I watch the show in the UK on More4 - all swearing is bleeped and any onscreen vulgarity (eg Clusterf@@K (sic)) is pixelated. Who does this? Is it broadcast uncensored on Comedy Central and the local stations censor or is it censored at source? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy Central still has to comply with FCC regulations, so it is bleeped to comply. The graphics aren't pixelated though, so that is probably something local to the UK. But how is this relevant to this article? Dp76764 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Several things, such as giving 'the finger' are definitely pixellated directly by Comedy Central Michael.Urban (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant in that the swearing is a major feature of the subject of the article (the show). Obviously irrelevant to the current article as neither the swearing nor the bleeping is mentioned. Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my query. TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Over in germany the Daily Show is aired also with bleeping, although there are no regulations at all (even public service will feature nudity and swearing, often well before late night). It might be relevant to the article, that the international edition is complying with the FCC, regardless where it's broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.64.3 (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549

When a plane crashes a block from the studio while the audience is waiting in line and witnesses it it is sort of a big deal. It will definitely go into Daily Show taping lore. But my REFERENCED addition was deleted here

I deleted it. Go ahead and put it back if you feel strongly about it. I just don't think it will be important. Maybe I'm wrong.Belasted (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• That whole segment needs MUCH better referencing. I also suspect that colbertsheroes.org does not qualify as a reliable source. Without a good source discussing this, it will probably be removed (exactly how does this relate to the show anyway?). DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A fan site is not a reliable source, and while the plane crash in itself is notable and certainly an experience the studio audience of that night's show won't forget, the event had no lasting impact on the show and makes a fairly trivial addition to this article. With that in mind, I believe the paragraph should be removed. (Besides, the taping time is already discussed with a more reliable reference in the Production section.) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Include Jim Cramer "feud"

It seems like there should be something about the debate with Jim Cramer here, as it was talked about on virtually every news outlet. It is also an example of Stewart's influence (as when his criticism killed the show Crossfire), his ability to ask hard-hitting questions, and his critique of the media (speaking of which--the media played this up as a personal conflict, and even Cramer seemed to take it primarily as personal chastisement, when the larger goal was to demand responsible financial reporting). 24.245.42.233 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)