Fremde Frau

I didn't mean that piece. I meant the overall show itself, viewed incomplete in individual segments on YouTube vs. seeing the full episodes on HBO. The segment itself was somber, for sure. That was my point; that there are lots of serious clips, and I hardly laugh when I watch them. So I wonder if I'm missing some comedy-heavy segments that don't make it to YouTube and lighten up the tone, or if this is also how it feels to watch the show on HBO. Ah. I've missed that silliness for the most part; that might explain it.

Here is a brief interview with one of the writers, Delaney Yeager. She seems like a nice addition, and it's great to hear from one of the women who write the show, but the article is so much fluff that it's hard to get a sense of her as a person. And forget about getting a real answer to the question, "What's it like working with Jon Stewart?" Even if he really is generally wonderful, I don't believe that the cast and crew don't feel like screaming whenever they hear that question. That said, I'm always waiting for that insightful and seemingly genuine response (like Stephen's, Travon's, or John's). I'm not a professional comedy writer, but that must be so difficult. I've always been fascinated by that aspect of the writers' job. Doesn't it become a grind? How do you stay motivated when it's always someone else's voice, and not just for little throwaway stories but for major issues about which you probably have your own strong opinions that may or may not align with Jon's. (As a former translator, I got sick of that pretty quickly.) By the way, if anyone's interested, here is the YouTube channel of the comedy group she mentioned: Skootch Comedy.

This show wouldn't be that far out of place beside someone like Maddow on MSNBC or alongside shows like The Stream or Consider This on AJA. The segment on drones was superb, like an investigative editorial, and I didn't laugh once. Perhaps there is something lost in the transition from HBO to YouTube that makes the show seem more serious than the full experience of it is, some segments that are more strongly comedy-oriented? Anyway, I know TDS aired on CNN International for some time (maybe it still does), but I can't picture the relatively over-the-top satire of TDS or TCR alongside actual news shows. I can imagine them on HBO (wow, that'd be something), but they are a great fit for Comedy Central and really thrive there. I cannot begin to imagine LWT on Comedy Central; anything other than HBO would be a downgrade for the show. John's straight-forward commentary peppered with jokes seems more in line with special-focus editorial programs; they have managed to fill a completely different niche than TDS and TCR--a 60 Minutes cut in half with sort of an Olbermann fury and eloquence, sweetened by charm that is all Oliver. It's been interesting to watch the show evolve. On the one hand, reading articles about LWT and John is like rereading what the media has been saying about TDS and Jon for at least ten years, and it's amusing to observe this cycle of looking for a non-journalist to praise for doing coverage that they label as better journalism than what is provided by many in their own profession. Jon and Stephen never shifted their position on that, so the media has moved on to a new target. (One of these days, Howard Kurtz is going to latch onto John and try to become his O'Reilly.) On the other hand, unless I'm missing something with the segments that aren't online, this show is developing into something quite different from and much more somber than TDS and TCR. I don't think that's a bad thing; none of these shows cancel each other out. But it'll be interesting to see if John maintains that he's comedy first and second. Some people still seem to hate Jon Stewart for saying that all of these years, and TDS is clearly a comedy first and second show. LWT has a very different tone.

From their Twitter: This should be good.

He was carrying it around like Linus with his blanket. What does he think would happen if the name changed? A federally-mandated memorabilia recall?

Migizi Pensoneau, one of the Native American comedians from the 1491s, wrote about his experiences doing the show.

I feel like Hutton at the Salisbury Crags, watching this One Direction thing unfold. Now, the fans are becoming miffed at the media reaction and have decided that this is a feminist issue, i.e. respecting the voices and opinions of young girls. How does this happen? The dynamics at play are fascinating. Someone should do a study. /nerd

Oh, definitely. It really couldn't be a better demonstration of the joke than if TDS planned it this way. (Hmm...) It is encouraging to see that this generation will be adamant that all people should be treated equally, but it's sort of depressing to see their inability to take a moment in order to think critically and understand the particulars of context. It's even more depressing when you consider how unlikely it is that they will revisit their opinions in the light of the facts; to them, TDS will forever be the show that hates Muslims just like Fox. (TDS is just one example that is unimportant on the grand scale, but that thought process will be applied to more than just entertainment. That's what truly worries me, when it comes to the future leaders, policy-makers, and educators of the US.) I was wondering if conservatives were latching onto this, as they had with the Colbert thing. They really couldn't have been more wrong-headed in selecting their target.

From their Twitter account: And the outrage continues... It's not just 1D kids, either; the hashtag has been picked up as a more general case against Islamophobia and racism, although everyone's still using that several-second-long vine, a misquote of it, or someone else's interpretation of it as the basis for their criticism. This is the kind of thing that bugs the hell out of me; it's not to say that shows or celebrities are flawless and that valid criticism doesn't exist but that it's counterproductive and misinformed when people rush to hyperbolic judgment about something or someone whose track record is anything but representative of what they are under fire for. How many US shows are as consistently and actively anti-Islamophobic as TDS? I'm guessing that list is pretty small. It's so typical of social media that misinformation, subjective interpretations, and rumors get passed around as though they were no different than the actual facts of the matter. Motivated reasoning: it's not just for conservatives, but also for the internet at large. Yay. As someone who researches cognition, it is fascinating, but as a person in the internet and as a fan, it's fucking annoying. Anyway, my guess is they will make a joke about this on Monday and move on, although I suppose they could devote an entire segment to it, like Colbert did #CancelColbert. I would say that he's a boob on Fox News and therefore mistaken as an expert, but that would only be an insult to boobs in the more recent, conventional usage of the word. He is, however, definitely a dunce.

Boy, does it ever make his point. Why is critical thinking so hard to do? It's not actually that hard. Argh! That fixation by Kurtz is so odd. Does he want to be Jon's new frenemy in place of O'Reilly, or does he dream of being the one to expose that one big, shocking secret about Jon that Fox has been longing to find all this while? I honestly don't get it.

Not sure if it will reach #CancelColbert levels, but social media believes TDS and Jon Stewart are Islamophobic and racist because of the One Direction joke during Jessica's bit the other night. #DailyShowGoneTooFar is a thing right now that is trending on Twitter. There is not enough facepalm for this. Seriously, though. I am stuck between laughing and feeling acute pain at the level of stupidity and laziness being displayed. Not even five minutes of research and a little critical thinking would have solved this before it began. Instead, it's the top trend on worldwide Twitter. (Or what she said.) Oops, I forgot to add what I came online for: last night's show was superb. They began and ended the week on very high notes.

He was pretty awkward last year on TDS, too. It makes me sad to see him, but if he still feels rewarded going out there, I guess nobody can or should stop him. Stephen did a graceful job.

I used to volunteer at the local animal shelter (which was not a no-kill shelter). The guys doing community service there would be really hard to talk with, but they would just soften and laugh with the dogs and cats and take such precise, gentle care of them. Sweeping the floor and other boring, mechanical work like that was one thing, but it was an utterly different tone when they were filling a rough-looking dog's bowl of water, letting the puppies outside on the grass, or coaxing that old black cat that nobody ever looked at, that's on edge and had been abused and only had a week, at most, to live caged and in fear before being put down. So many of those guys seemed to have such empathy for them and would know just how to get past their defenses, unlike a lot of the people who came in looking for a cute, cheap pet to adopt. I always thought, "This should be a thing that people know about and support. Why is this an invisible thing?" Anyway, long story short: I'm so grateful for what Tia Torres does, and I wish it was a nation-wide, standard approach to rehabilitation. It makes a real, positive difference in both directions. Forgot to add: I'm beyond tired of both Sam and Jason. How did it come to this?

In anticipation of the Washington piece, Brent Bozell is trying to make #CancelStewart happen.

I saw "Jamie Oliver" but read "John Oliver" and got extremely excited for a moment. Darn.

Nooooo. Han shot first, George. Deal with it. No do-overs. /old rage (not directed at peeayebee or attica) Is it just me, or did Huffman seem a little starstruck by Colbert? Anyway, he lost that interview, but I felt for him on the religion question. It's hard not to think of the studies conducted on how atheists have less chance than anyone else of holding office. (In other news, nobody understands or respects agnosticism. Rinse, repeat.) We most definitely if unintentionally kill bees for honey.

John Oliver will be the cover story of Rolling Stone's TV issue (out this Friday)!

Jon was losing it a little, I know, but how did they get through those "names" so many times without it falling apart? Reminds me of that video I saw of Stephen Colbert from years ago, where he had to repeat several purposefully difficult-for-English-speakers names over and over and did so flawlessly, only to trip over some easy word. "Urn," I think? I forget exactly. It was hilarious, not only for the moment itself but for how both Jon and Stephen reacted to it. I thoroughly enjoyed that interview. I'm glad Jon gave it two segments on air, since it is so timely and their conversation was worth spending time with.

This is cracking me up: Don't Ever Appear on 'The Daily Show' (in reference to the plight of the Washington fans). In other news, it bugs me when people can't or won't differentiate between an improv bit (the correspondent field interviews) and an actual interview (Jon's). The differences in intent and tone are like night and day. I think the segment is supposed to air tonight.

I agree with you on the committee's attitude, but as to his response, I think it was perfectly reasonable. I think the point he was making was that they should argue from an informed position, rather than using whatever hyperbole or misinformation is buzzing around lately. If they are on that committee to make decisions regarding science, space, and technology, then they should be expected to rely on scientific, peer-reviewed literature rather than public opinion and talking points. I don't think it's too much to ask elected leaders who are placed in positions of responsibility in scientific fields to have enough of a grasp of those fields to read peer-reviewed literature and keep abreast of the main issues and trends. What else are they doing with their time? Planning their next campaign, probably, and finding big money to lobby for in the future. How else can they make informed decisions? We see what happens when they don't care about being informed. That said, I still like my idea of voting in scientists, instead. Then we can get rid of that ignorance altogether. Yes. Happily for us, and sadly for us. It is seriously annoying but rather hilarious when, as a graduating scientist who will soon rely on grants myself and am relying on grants for my education now, I get people asking me why the hell I chose this profession since all of the money is in private industry and then hear the same people bitching about those scheming, anti-capitalist scientists with their billion-dollar grants and luxurious lifestyles.

Jon does some of his best work whenever he's beyond frustrated and becomes Lewis Black. I wonder who the main writers were for that segment; it was really good.

It's high time to vote scientists into office.

Anthony Weiner and Eric Bolling had a Twitter fight. (Thank you, Daniel Radosh.) I hope TDS leaves it alone. Let ♫ Carlos Danger ♫ play with it.

That sounds like just their strategy, dusang; they seem to want people to mistake their flash for substance. I wasn't disparaging the show's coverage of it or the general criticism of the MAP superficiality. That specific joke being aimed initially in the general direction of the contestants just fell flat for me, but it was probably unfairly exacerbated by having--just an hour or so prior to watching that segment--listened to a male scientist make a similar argument entirely without irony on the presence of female scientists in his field of study (behavioral neuroscience). It had my back up. Sorry, John.

After his 2004 DNC keynote address, I kept dreaming about a presidential run for Obama, but I was convinced that it would be Clinton vs. McCain in 2008. Obama actually running came out of nowhere, at least for me, but it was amazing how quickly that energy and excitement spread. I suppose it could happen again.