Mondays With Jon Stewart

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't get why the talking heads on cable news think the election is about policy at all. The elections haven't been since what? 2008? If that? 1996 probably. 

We got detailed policy plans in 2016. 

I think lean mostly left here, but it seems to be only one side is being held to specifics. 

 

Edited October 1, 2024 by DoctorAtomic

[DoctorAtomic]

I liked how frank the Politifact guy was - yes, Republicans lie more than Democrats. The stats are in the book. Interesting that he traced it back to Gingrich, but I can buy it. That was the first time the House was flipped in 40 something years, and he had a win at all costs attitude in shutting down the government. 

One thing I would have liked is to learn how they determine a lie. Politicians do spin, but I don't think that's outright lying. Pointing out favorable economic indicators isn't necessarily lying. Saying, they're eating the dogs, is totally lying. That's way different. 

And the lies are only one half of it. People need to be able to see through that too, in part. 

I think part of the problem is that people just don't know how government works to be able to say, they can't they use FEMA money for that because Congress only authorized it for disaster relief. 

 

[Ottis]

On 6/6/2024 at 12:17 AM, Bastet said:

I do think time has passed his particular style by, and he's even more plagued by false equivalencies and trivial distractions now

That's really well put, and it is why I quit watching him back when he hosted the show. There is plenty of legit material about Trump and his minions to call out without, say, ranting about Trump at a McDonald's fry machine noting workers make "4.25 an hour." Yes he said this was over decades, but if you are citing the minimum wage in 1991-1996, say so, or cite today's rate. The needless hyperbole is constant.

On 10/1/2024 at 12:15 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

I think lean mostly left here, but it seems to be only one side is being held to specifics. 

Which side is that? Because if it is the right, there are no specifics. It changes based on Trump's whim and need. If it is the left, we have quite a few specifics now, enough that I don't agree with some Harris policies. It doesn't matter, because I can't vote for Trump, but still.

Edited October 22, 2024 by Ottis

[possibilities]

I think when Jon came back to host Mondays, he was treating politics like it was a game. It really annoyed me. But this week and increasingly over the past few, I think he's figured out either that he was wrong about that, or that his ratings were tanking due to him acting that way. 

He seems to be showing an understanding of the seriousness now,  even as he's missing things like the current minimum wage. Last night he said flat out that there's a double standard, and only one side is being asked to be more specific, or is being treated like what they say is serious, and he's naming names and citing examples of what is terrifying and what is bullshit.

I do agree that there are a lot more people these days doing the job he used to do, and many are doing it better and more consistently. But I also think he's improved a lot since he first came back, and my sense of it is that he genuinely has become very out of touch and was not paying attention before, and now he is trying to catch up, but he's also still halfway out the door anyway, so when he hits it, he's good but he is also kind of sloppy so he doesn't always hit.

I think he wants to "just be funny" but when you are talking about real things with real consequences, you have to sober up and think harder about what you are doing, and he seems like he's kind of ambivalent about that role.

[Sarah 103]

6 hours ago, Ottis said:

Because if it is the right, there are no specifics. It changes based on Trump's whim and need. If it is the left, we have quite a few specifics now, enough that I don't agree with some Harris policies. It doesn't matter, because I can't vote for Trump, but still.

Also, you may not agree with some of the policies Harris has announced, but she has announced clear policies on many issues and explained in some cases how she is going to pay for them. 

Will Jon Stewart host on election night? 

[DoctorAtomic]

7 hours ago, possibilities said:

Last night he said flat out that there's a double standard, and only one side is being asked to be more specific, or is being treated like what they say is serious, and he's naming names and citing examples of what is terrifying and what is bullshit.

Maybe he read my note! That one's on the house. Next will cost ya!

As for doing his 'job', it's a comedy show about the news for me with political satire, which I've always loved since I first saw Dennis Miller on Saturday Night Live. There shouldn't be any more of a job than delivering jokes/satire. I'm not a 'both sides' guy, but I do think both sides should be skewered if that's where the jokes are. Just so happens, there's one side where more of the jokes are. That's fine. Bill Clinton bore a ton of it (remember how quaint that impeachment was?), then W. Now, it's quite the shift where the jokes are. 

I live in reality, and people do take The Daily Show seriously. To be fair, and I'm not a 'blame the media' guy either, but the media has done an overall poor job this election cycle. The Daily Show has actually had better insight at times. However, I don't really think cable news is news-news, more than it's entertainment news anyway. There's a larger social context on the role of our news, and I think they all need to take a hard look at one another and think about the real damage over the last 6-8 years or so.

I do think there's some exhaustion setting in, but it's taken a long time to get there. 

I don't know if anyone remembers, but Michelle Wolf was dead on in her White House Correspondents' Dinner then, and it's decayed further now. 

Edited October 23, 2024 by DoctorAtomic

[purist]

I loved Jon this week. The first part of the show had me laughing out loud several times, and you can bet I screamed with horror when the camera panned out to reveal fake Drumpf in bed with Jon at the end.

I haven't seen an extended interview with Tim Walz before, but damn he's just so likeable, and so clear on what he stands for. I want to hug him.

[gesundheit]

The Walz interview was great. I was a little miffed at Jon for trying to get Walz to criticize places/people (Saginaw/Cheneys) it would impolitic for Walz to criticize right now, but of course that's the game and Walz handled it well.

Anyone who's concerned Stewart isn't taking this all deadly seriously and doing his homework should check out his Weekly Show. It's very in-depth, very wonky, very serious, and has nothing to do with satire/comedy. It's excellent.

Does anyone know the plan down the road for this show? When the Jon Stewart Returns announcement was made, it was a vague "until the election," but does that really mean we lose him in 2 weeks??

[Palimelon]

Quote

I loved Jon this week. The first part of the show had me laughing out loud several times, and you can bet I screamed with horror when the camera panned out to reveal fake Drumpf in bed with Jon at the end.

I've been liking his return overall. The once a week format suits him well.

[gesundheit]

Guess we get to keep our Mondays for a while! https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jon-stewart-daily-show-extension-through-2025-1236046622/

[Lantern7]

I hope Jon survives the election. I know that he exaggerates for the cameras, but I can see this cycle is pushing the aging process even further. Jessica Williams appearance for the win.

One downside is that this video didn't air. It's from the show's Facebook feed, so I can't embed here. I'm sure it'll make YouTube soon.

Are we getting a live episode next Tuesday?

[gesundheit]

10 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

I hope Jon survives the election. I know that he exaggerates for the cameras, but I can see this cycle is pushing the aging process even further. Jessica Williams appearance for the win.

One downside is that this video didn't air. It's from the show's Facebook feed, so I can't embed here. I'm sure it'll make YouTube soon.

Are we getting a live episode next Tuesday?

I believe so, yes. I think Jon is hosting, too. (That's why he said last night that it was his last show before the election -- there will be a show this coming Monday but someone else is hosting.)

 

I knew this would happen and predictably it did -- social media is outraged because last night Jon said Tony Hinchliffe was funny. Cue furious liberals insisting Jon is one of the bad guys now and "part of the problem" and that they've refused to watch him since his return (so how do they know??). No context provided, of course, about the fact that he showed a different clip and said he thought it was funny. He certainly didn't say the Trump rally jokes were funny! But we've got high-profile people out there fanning the flames about it anyway.

 

Klepper's special last night was excellent. I can't believe that Trump supporter didn't burst into flames when he said Harris is a pure narcissist.

[DoctorAtomic]

It's context though. People go to roasts to expect to be insulted. Jokes at a roast aren't comedians' usual acts. I don't have a problem with Jon laughing at the roast jokes, but they were derivative and bland. Why would you make an ovens joke at Gronk, when the real material is that he's a jock meathead? Or, you make the ovens joke, but then the punchline is that you explain the Holocaust in detail to Gronk because he doesn't know anything about WWII. 

Everyone is focusing on Garbage Island, but he made a way way worse crack after. Also, if he's doing roast jokes, then you'd be roasting Trump, Miller, Guliani because you roast the people that are actually there. 

A better joke is at a political rally is, if Harris shoots a burglar trying to break into her house, does she take her own gun away? Or, I was at Mark Robinson's house and needed to use the bathroom, but I didn't know which one to use. They all were crammed full with trans whores! Those are roast jokes. 

[Bastet]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:19 AM, DoctorAtomic said:

It's context though. People go to roasts to expect to be insulted. Jokes at a roast aren't comedians' usual acts. I don't have a problem with Jon laughing at the roast jokes, but they were derivative and bland. Why would you make an ovens joke at Gronk, when the real material is that he's a jock meathead? Or, you make the ovens joke, but then the punchline is that you explain the Holocaust in detail to Gronk because he doesn't know anything about WWII. 

Everyone is focusing on Garbage Island, but he made a way way worse crack after. Also, if he's doing roast jokes, then you'd be roasting Trump, Miller, Guliani because you roast the people that are actually there. 

I just watched Jon's segment on this, and, yeah, it was completely tone deaf.  Because Hinchcliffe is (allegedly) funny in a roast, somehow inviting him to speak at a Trump rally without roasting - which means roasting everyone but Trump, mind you - is somehow equivalent to inviting Beyoncé to speak at a Harris rally without singing and so what did we all expect?  Fuck off.

It was a stupid, false equivalency instance to which he's been prone his entire tenure, and that he used to do it X times per 5 days/week a season is different than doing it X times per weekly appearance doesn't negate the fundamental problem despite all the good he brings to the show.

The rest of his episode was good, blasting anti-immigrant bullshit and bringing back the fantastic Jessica Williams, but he can't complain if that got lost in coverage of his opening stupidity.

[Lantern7]

I found the title for Tuesday night's extended episode: “The Daily Show Presents A Live Election Night Special With Jon Stewart: Indecision 2024: Nothing We Can Do About It Now.”

That sounds about right.

[shok]

Jesus Jon. Let her finish a sentence and make her point.

I'm so tired of him bashing the Democrats all the time.

[DXD526]

I've about had it with Jon. I've been watching him for nearly 20 years, but he's really trying my patience. Delivery-wise, his style has degenerated into him basically shouting everything, and politically, his morphing into Dennis Miller is nearly complete. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't know if I'd go as far as Miller, but Jon certainly missed the mark last night. I'm not sure if he forgot how politics worked or what, but this whole pardon issue is just so low on my meter. A politician went back on his word? In the lame duck session of his term? 

Presidents have wide latitude issuing pardons; typically, when they feel there's some injustice done. Also, acceptance of a pardon is still an admission of guilt. Here, Hunter is already convicted and stays convicted. There's no automatic innocence. One could argue that he was pursued a little much being a Biden; no one is saying he's innocent. So what? 

Sure, I would have said, "I don't know what I'm going to do. He's my son" You can criticize about the future charges in this pardon too. But literally no one is talking about this by the Inauguration, let alone by xmas. 

All this 'moral high ground' argument is just as invalid as 'norms'. If a norm is so important, make it a rule or law. What is moral high ground? This 'We know better' holier than thou attitude cost the election in part. Why is Biden held to some higher standard. I'm not saying get in the mud, two wrongs make a right. I'd say the best you can do is be the adult in the room and don't worry about 'morality' in politics. There wasn't any moral high ground in this election. It was 'we aren't going to trash democracy; they're talking about using the government to pursue political enemies.' That should have been enough, but, you know, the price of eggs got everyone bent out of shape. 

I'm glad, when she could actually talk, that Yates pointed out the massive false equivalencies in the arguments. Let's not forget when Biden found documents in his garage, Pence also found some too. And, there was an investigation in to Biden. I think the main point is that we classify too much, but both of them notified the FBI as soon as they found out. No harm, no foul. Not even remotely the same as deliberately taking documents then lying about having them and SHOWING some of them to other people. Come on. 

I do agree people would just like plain spoken politicians, but I don't think it's fair to apply less standards unequally. 

I mean, dial it down and look at the bigger picture.

'chrissakes, you got Stewart over here, clutching on them pearls like Mary Todd Lincoln at a seance.' (That's my Dennis Miller impersonation over the internet. Not bad, eh?) 

Edited December 3, 2024 by DoctorAtomic

[DanaMB]

I turned off last night’s episode before Jon even finished. I think I’m done with him. 

[shapeshifter]

I'm still catching up. There were some good points and zingers in his Pardon bit, like:

• [Jon paraphrasing Donald] Oh, you pardoned your son. Well, what about the people who tried to help me overthrow the government?
• [Jon's response] That's kind of a leap there. It's like going, you know, oh, you're going to let the kids stay up to watch SNL, but you're not even going to try to help me burn the neighbor's house down?(https://youtu.be/V5BcIHPMAHw?si=rPrBAZsQm36hPDeL&t=399)

 

ETA: Jon's interview with Sally Yates was interesting; she seems to be, as Mom would put it, "a sharp cookie," and she has a relatable laugh. 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by shapeshifter

[Bastet]

Jon can fuck right off.  He has one episode a week and this is what he chooses to harp on?  This show is supposed to call the media out for its BS - like frothing about the pardon of Hunter Biden rather than noting it happened and moving on to discussing the autocratic nightmare that is Trump's collection of nominees - not emulate it.

[possibilities]

I fast forwarded when I saw what he was doing, but I tried to hang in for the Sally Yates interview. But when he said "to be fair" a certain someone thinks that HE's the victim of what he's doing to others.... It just pisses me off because just because someone thinks something, or says something, doesn't mean it's true. And if you're going to use your megaphone to amplify it, you ought to know the difference.

I deleted the episode and I'm not going to give him another chance. I hope the Monday ratings plummet so low that they cancel his Monday gig once and for all. He's lazy, irresponsible, and not even funny anymore.

Even if he occasionally sprinkles in a funny line or a smidgen of insight, it's not enough to counter the 90% garbage.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

On 12/3/2024 at 5:12 PM, shapeshifter said:

Jon's interview with Sally Yates was interesting; she seems to be, as Mom would put it, "a sharp cookie," and she has a relatable laugh. 

Yates has been on the Daily Show a bunch of times before with Trevor. She's always been good.

 

[possibilities]

Jimmy Kimmel was smarter last night than Jon was on Monday. How times have changed! I used to think Kimmel was a useless frat boy. Now I enjoy his commentary more often than not.

[Sarah 103]

People can grow up and change. At one point, Jimmy Kimmel may have been a useless frat boy, but those days are long behind him. He grew up and matured. 

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

People can grow up and change. At one point, Jimmy Kimmel may have been a useless frat boy, but those days are long behind him. He grew up and matured. 

Yes, but every once in a while this show does one of their on-the-street bits that crosses the line into territory that seems to think it’s funny to embarrass people on national TV for being uninformed.

[Ms Lark]

I've been thinking for a while that I like the episodes with the usual crew better than any with Jon. I just can't relate to his style or humor. I guess he's the "big draw" and probably makes more in one episode than the rest of them combined all week. I could really do without him and just have the revolving rota. Take his salary and divide it among the cast (and crew). That's just me, I'm sure TPTB feel differently.

[gesundheit]

I definitely prefer Jon's The Weekly Show to his Mondays on The Daily Show. On TWS he doesn't have the pressure of comedy (even though he just naturally inserts it from time to time), he's not delivering anyone else's writing while feeling like he has to punch it up with physical humor, and he gets to do a wonderful deep dive with incredibly intelligent guests. I still really like him -- maybe more than before as a political observer (anyone who's convinced he's drifted center is definitely not checking out TWS), but far less than before as a poitical satirist. 

 

I'd like Klepper to take over, though it may be an impolitic choice if they're choosing strictly from the current rotation.

[SusieQ]

Klepper would be great and he truly needs to be rewarded after all the rallies he had to attend. How he survived that is a miracle!

[Barbarblacksheep]

As much as I really like all the current correspondents (except for Grace, but I know I'm in the minority there), Klepper would be my choice for permanent host as well.

[SoMuchTV]

17 minutes ago, Barbarblacksheep said:

As much as I really like all the current correspondents (except for Grace, but I know I'm in the minority there), Klepper would be my choice for permanent host as well.

I gotta say, I think I prefer the current rotation to picking a single permanent host. And re:Grace, I’m not sure if she’s not my favorite based on her actual skills, or because she seems to be getting the assignments I tend to think of as, well, dumb? Because she’s the new kid?  Now if she’s pitching and getting her own bits then that would help me decide. 
 

oops, just realized I’m in the Monday thread. Moving to the general season thread.  

Edited December 14, 2024 by SoMuchTV

[DoctorAtomic]

I thought Jon's monologue was funny, especially the save on the cloche bomb, but I don't know if it's the state of our existence, but I could have generally wrote the material, simply because the events and response are just so run of the mill now. 

I've yet to hear anyone ask a Democratic rep, senator, operative why so many people *didn't* vote this time compared to 2020. I think that's it. No need to overanalyze. "Courting" undecided voters is a complete waste of time too. 

Edited January 8 by DoctorAtomic

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I've yet to hear anyone ask a Democratic rep, senator, operative why so many people *didn't* vote this time compared to 2020. I think that's it. No need to overanalyze. "Courting" undecided voters is a complete waste of time too. 

Now that you mention it, I wonder if Jon will get out in front of this issue before it enters the general public’s zeitgeist in another year plus a few months?

He seemed a bit rested, which was reassuring.

[DoctorAtomic]

I guess being the first show back, you have to cover the shootings, and you have a guest on that was in Congress for the electoral verification. I thought the show overall was still funny, but I don't think Raskin had any good answers either. Gropert killed though. 

Part of the problem is that Raskin didn't have any good answer to what are obvious questions. At least he didn't say 'we have to communicate our policies better.' I don't think Raskin had a good answer yet, but I did think remarking that the majority of the House can't even govern themselves was a hard shot. 

I did like Jon's comment that there's some freedom in being in the minority in the White House and congress because you can basically still do your job, but when nothing basically happens, or you have morons in the cabinet, 'well that's what you voted for!'

[Shermie]

Good interview with Marc Carney, potential leader of the Liberal party in Canada. I haven’t seen the first part of the episode yet, about the fires in California.

Jon knows his stuff, but I wish he’d stop interrupting his guests. He asks a question, Carney starts answering, and Jon interjects with a quip. I get it’s a comedy show, but the host has to let the setup finish before landing the punchline.

And Jon doesn’t seem to know (and Carney sure wasn’t going to say it) but Trudeau resigned because nobody likes him. His polling numbers are in the tank and he was too self-involved or poorly informed by his aides, that this was the thing.

And I wish American shows would quit acting like Trump taking over Canada is a joke. We don’t want to join your country, not now, not ever. Go away.

[rwlevin]

Jon really likes cloches, doesn't he? 

[DoctorAtomic]

2 hours ago, Shermie said:

And Jon doesn’t seem to know (and Carney sure wasn’t going to say it) but Trudeau resigned because nobody likes him.

I think the point they were making was that because of that, Trudeau knew he wasn't going to win, so he got out of the way to give the liberal party a better shot in the election. I think Jon did know, but that seems to be the larger point. 

I was going to take Jon to task on the first segment. Yes, the fires were not the result of DEI. However, it is a failure across the board in assessing and managing risk, and that has nothing to do with party. It was a failure in Katrina and in Houston. Pick whatever other disaster you want. 

While the fires likely were going to happen, the consequences could have been somewhat mitigated. More funding would have been good, but that wouldn't have totally helped either. Or, people simply don't want to pay more. Burying transmissions lines would reduce risk drastically, but people don't want higher electricity bills. But they'll complain about the predictive blackouts. Colorado did this for the first time recently (CA did it awhile), and people went bonkers.  

But they did talk about it in the interview, so good job. It's a good point that proactive risk planning just isn't politically expedient. I'm wondering if that's going to change. 

It's telling though that the insurance companies have been making adjustments over the last decade though. They sure aren't losing money. I'm betting they're not going to be issuing new homeowners insurance in Palisades for people wanting to rebuild either. 

[Shrek]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

 

I was going to take Jon to task on the first segment. Yes, the fires were not the result of DEI. However, it is a failure across the board in assessing and managing risk, and that has nothing to do with party. It was a failure in Katrina and in Houston. Pick whatever other disaster you want. 

 

Interesting, in theory it should be easy to assess risk as it's what insurance companies do the world over & have done for a long time. The problem with risk is that you have to draw the line somewhere on what you can & should do to mitigate that risk & all of the disasters you mention were known to be a possibility but the chances of them happening were very slim & the upfront cost would far outweigh the possibility of them happening, with the exception of maybe Houston which had a lot to do with greedy developers building where they shouldn't have built.

I would ask is it a failure to assess & manage that risk or a once in a lifetime (that we know of) occurrence of that happening & therefore the risk was worth taking. It's okay to say that with hindsight it wasn't worth the risk but it certainly was up until last week in the case of L.A.

You are of course 100% correct that it has nothing to do with party but that hasn't stopped one party from blaming the other & everything from DEI to dam removal hundreds of miles away and everything in between, none of which would have had any bearing on the fires whatsoever and weren't even decisions made by just one party. 

Like they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and there sure is going to be a lot of it in the next few months. None of which will help the people affected by the fires with what they really need right now.

 

[DoctorAtomic]

4 hours ago, Shrek said:

I would ask is it a failure to assess & manage that risk or a once in a lifetime (that we know of) occurrence of that happening & therefore the risk was worth taking. It's okay to say that with hindsight it wasn't worth the risk but it certainly was up until last week in the case of L.A.

No, that's my point. There's no current, dynamic component to assessing risk. You'll hear something like 'this was a 500 year flood'. Well, no. You're (them) not updating the frequency increase of these incidents *and* the consequences, which are also higher. Yes, the insurance companies are doing it, but policy-wise, elected officials are not. 

So, for example, so many people were accessing water, that the pressure head was reduced and no one could get at the water. That's something that should have been caught with a thorough hazard analysis. 

Same with transmission lines. You bury them and you basically eliminate fire risk. But, no one wants to pay for it. So they have preemptive blackouts, which isn't the best solution, but it is a proactive solution. But everyone then goes bonkers. 

4 hours ago, Shrek said:

Like they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and there sure is going to be a lot of it in the next few months. None of which will help the people affected by the fires with what they really need right now.

So I'm saying, you can proactively assess risk better to reduce both the occurrences and consequences of these incidents proactively than reactively. But it's not because, as Jon said, the political component to it won't allow for it. 

 

[shok]

18 hours ago, Shermie said:

And Jon doesn’t seem to know (and Carney sure wasn’t going to say it) but Trudeau resigned because nobody likes him. His polling numbers are in the tank and he was too self-involved or poorly informed by his aides, that this was the thing.

That's pretty harsh, and not actually true. There were/are plenty of people who like him but it was hard to be heard over the raucous social media hate troops and all the regular media which has been taken over by the right wing in Canada with, I'm sure, much help from the conservatives in the States. The lies and the misinformation and disinformation and shit-stirring that's been constant for the last five years at least have finally won out. It's been disgraceful to see.

[Shermie]

3 hours ago, shok said:

That's pretty harsh, and not actually true.

Of course it’s true; his polling numbers were dismal. And yes, some people still support him but very few. Even diehard Liberals weren’t supporting him specifically anymore. I had great hopes when he was elected, but he’s been a disappointment.

If he had resigned last summer, we’d have a PM in place by now to deal with the American bullshit leader. He’s following in the footsteps of Biden and RBG; all 3 stayed on way too long to the detriment of their countries.

As for disaster prevention, it would help if humans didn’t build things in deserts and on floodplains.

[Lantern7]

I didn't really laugh tonight. To be fair, Jon was funny, but I don't think Peak Jon could have made me smile for more than a minute under those circumstances. The bit where he told the audience he pitched the graphic of a pigeon raising its wing (Musk-style) at practically the last minute before taping? That was funny.

On 1/14/2025 at 9:47 AM, rwlevin said:

Jon really likes cloches, doesn't he? 

If that's going to be a "thing," it isn't so bad.

[DoctorAtomic]

Broligarchy. Jon was right. Trademark that stat, lady. 

I know Jon isn't the best interviewer, but the I assume the long form is what I watched on youtube and it was really good. Excellent guest.