[ottertown]

I grew up watching Jon Stewart and occasionally Colbert. I always thought it was interesting how Jon Stewart would defend against his critics by saying something along the lines of "my show is preceded by puppet prank callers (crank yankers), this is a comedy show first and foremost."

That was his defense against people saying he was contributing to news imbalance or accusing him of not doing anything useful to alleviate the problems of biased journalism. He took a hard line (and still does I think) that he was a comic and was not responsible for anything beyond that.

I remember once he had a segment about a 9/11 first responders bill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM6cvbjZmQE), which may have reversed the course of that bill for the better (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.h...).

John Oliver seems to have grasped the power of that particular segment and has, in my opinion, drastically improved the form of the political satire. It will be interesting to see how his perceived influence will affect next season.

[flycaliguy]

The lineage for Colbert and Oliver is a direct line back to Stewart. They can effect change today because Jon jumped in the pit with the Spinzone (or whatever that show was called) and beat the pundits at their own game.

The big take away from The Daily Show should be Stewart declaring he was just an entertainer because the talking heads on the "real" news shows couldn't. Characters, tropes, archetypes, cliches, people with a job to deliver an audience for advertisers using a dynamic personality. The same job description for talent hired at Comedy Central as Cable News Network.

EDIT: Took me a bit of googling to remember but the show was called Crossfire. Specific clip: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)

[dmschulman]

I think Stewart was effective because he doesn't firebrand every news item or segment with to the same effect. When there is a event which deserves extra commentary or a stern posture Stewart seems genuine when speaking to the audience.

It was effective because no other show or host had the same kind of candid platform to communicate over, and when Stewart had those opportunities (arguably the first moment would be on his 9/11 broadcast), the honesty resonated with a lot of people.

Those moments are uncommon with Stewart. With John Oliver, I feel like the writers and producers are basing their program around those kinds of finger wagging moments, but it's the embodiment of the show instead of an occasional moment. It feels more forced than genuine.

[jthol]

Eh, it's a different beast. Oliver only has to do one show a week and he has an hour. He doesn't want to just be John Stewart's show but with swearing. Doing this every night would be tiring for the audience. Doing it once a week saying, "hey here's this one fucked up thing in our society" is a digestible form.

To put it another way one is comedy news, the other is a comedy news magazine.

[izacus]

Of course, having a whole week to prepare and research the content really helps at quality as well.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

What also helps is that John Oliver is on HBO - they have the budget, and they can swear or show pictures of genitals.

[cjubb39]

That's part of the reason I never really liked Jon Stewart. He knew he was the primary, if not only, news source for a large demographic; yet, he would consistently hide behind the Comedy Central logo in the bottom corner when he was criticized.

It's like he felt he---and only he---was allowed to turn on and off his "real" journalist at whim.

[dmschulman]

I'd compare it to Kronkite talking about the Vietnam War, if I had to pull out a quick example in relating it to network news. Kronkite was candid and honest and his manner might not have always been what the network wanted (they'd prefer some kind of ra ra America attitude), but it was his breaking character that made people pay attention.

I don't think anyone feels the same about any other anchor on TV right now, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. I'm not saying Stewart is a journalist, him being able to sit on the fence like he does upsets guys on the networks, but he is effective with his hosting and I don't think he's doing anyone a disservice.

[gohrt]

To be clear, you are saying that you didn't like Jon Stewart because, even though he was the best news source, he wasn't better enough for your desire?

[IkmoIkmo]

He's saying there was genuine criticism on bias and presenting stories making light of one side, and presenting the other side too favorably.

Knowing full well that a large number of people looked to him for news, and that his reporting (de facto news reporting, that is, despite him not naming it like that) received genuine criticism, how one can then hide behind the notion that 'oh it's just comedy don't take it seriously' for years and years is a bit disingenuous.

In fairness however, Jon has always said that he is biased and flavored. And that's okay. And add to that the fact that it IS also comedy, it's hard to ask of him to be completely objective. Especially when it's a counterbalance to the media landscape which is COMPLETELY biased one way or another, whether it's Fox News or Democracy Now!. And if you then look at where the ciriticism comes from: Fox News, which isn't comedy but just news, but is worse in its reporting, and is pretty much more biased than anyone in media AND is more powerful and watched than anyone, I can easily see why Jon will look at that and say 'YOU guys pretend to be fair and balanced but aren't, pretend to bring news but it's crap, have responsibility as journalists to be objective but aren't, while I'm admittedly biased and run a comedy show'.

[comex]

The parent did not say that they thought Stewart was "the best news source", but that a large demographic did.