[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.