TDS 3.0: Season One Talk

[ChelseaNH]

What struck me was how quiet the audience was after the clip from Obama's speech.

 

Do you wear them or do you put them in a display case to show off to people?

 

So Air Jordans are the new Beanie Babies?

Edited January 7, 2016 by ChelseaNH

[marceline]

I think this is the first time I've seen real, personal anger from Trevor during one of his segments.

 

Yep. I felt like with this another piece of TDS became his. I just hope the show doesn't age him the way it did Jon. I love Trevor's sweet little baby face.

 

Hasan's piece kind of cracked me up because I go to sci-fi conventions so I'm all too aware of what it's like for the media to look at something you do and think it's insane. The reaction when he started bending the shoe almost scared me.

Edited January 8, 2016 by marceline

[ganesh]

If anything was going to get done about guns, it would have been because of Sandy Hook. There was a decent bipartisan bill, basically the same as what Obama is proposing, and it sunk in about 2 seconds. I've said before, most congresspeople have violated their oath to protect the general welfare and should be impeached. 

I didn't think Boehner's tears were insincere either, and he took the jokes about it in good stride. That the criticisms went right to whether Obama was sincere just speaks to the fact that these people didn't care about the substance of the policy at all. *Everything* has been anti-Obama since "we're going to make him a one-term president" and it's been getting worse since they all *have* to oppose anything Obama says, except now we're talking about kids being killed. So you're all for letting kids get killed because welp! Whatayagonnado! 

 

You know what though? I'd much rather a bunch of dudes get together somewhere and sell and trade sneakers. They're collectibles like anything else. You know why? Because they're not getting together to sell guns. I don't recall off the top of my head how many sneaker-related deaths we had last year, but I'm going to say it's less than gun deaths. 

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by ganesh

[peeayebee]

That Gawker care package is great.

 

He's not the only one. The whole gun thing just makes me see red. I'm so tired of the right wingers waving the 2nd amendment every time someone talks about gun control. It's really quite simple, it all boils down to this: your right to bear arms does not trump my right to live. 

Plus the 2nd Amendment says "a well-regulated militia," not an unbridled militia.

[fastiller]

That Gawker care package is great.

 

 

It was, right?  I only wished they'd've sent a first package with a camera in it and instructions to record the opening of the second one.  I'd've loved to have seen the reactions to Didion or condoms.

 

 

If anything was going to get done about guns, it would have been because of Sandy Hook. There was a decent bipartisan bill, basically the same as what Obama is proposing, and it sunk in about 2 seconds. I've said before, most congresspeople have violated their oath to protect the general welfare and should be impeached.

 

Yep! If the 10000% random and 1000000% senseless killing of kindergartners couldn't do it, nothing will.  Sadly.

[tenativelyyours]

I hate to say this but after watching Trevor's piece, I am 1. hoping that a Democrat wins the White House for the next eight years and 2.there is a severe death toll among the older conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

 

Now I don't wish death on anyone.  But I think in order to truly address this we need a Court that would hear and logically define not just what a 'well-regulated militia' is but what a 'militia' today actually is. Plus it is the right to bear arms.  It actually does not ever use the word 'own' does it?  It sounds hair-splitting, but if you are citing a law, you need to define whether the framers intended to protect the right of the common man to legally protect himself with a gun that previously was seen as a privilege in a King's land.

 

But legal pushback on this issue needs to go to the Supreme Court sadly.  Congress will never address it and will criminally wring their hands even as they cowardly let more blood drip on their hands.

 

I think a generation or two from now, people will look at Sandy Hook and the years of inaction as the mark of shame that so many have looked back on Western Europe and the passive response to Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. 

 

What scares me the most over all this following Texas' open carry issue and Obama's speech is that there is such a strong "not taking MY gun' to the most outspoken people I know and have heard in the media.  There truly is an almost rabid self-identity issue that seems rooted in so many who feel their days of entitlement are being taken away from them simply because straight, white and male no longer automatically lower the bar for you.  (well as much). 

 

I was kind of surprised that TDS didn't remind viewers how fervent the NRA used to be on the issue of gun control.  When it was the Black Panthers getting guns.   Or the recent attempt by Fox and other conservative mouthpieces when a fringe element had brought guns to the polling station claiming the need to protect the black voters there.  Remember how it was sold as an attempt to threaten the vote instead? 

 

The care package idea was hilarious so I sent out a packet of condoms first thing the next day.

[ganesh]

SCOTUS can't rule on the second amendment unless there's a law passed and people/groups sue to get it into the courts. There's probably not going to be a federal law passed this decade. Maybe one of the states might step up, CA or NY being most likely.

The problem is the Democrats aren't as super into finding solutions to this that much either. The "90% of Americans support background checks" keeps getting trotted out. Obamacare has been repealed nearly 70 times in congress. Where's all the congressmen introducing background check bills then? "Hey, we're trying to introduce these gun control bills, but they keep getting shot down." There's not any of that. 

[tenativelyyours]

SCOTUS can't rule on the second amendment unless there's a law passed and people/groups sue to get it into the courts. There's probably not going to be a federal law passed this decade. Maybe one of the states might step up, CA or NY being most likely.

 

 

 

 

Exactly.  We have plenty of laws on states books even before the most recent Texas one for gun control groups to push back legally on in hopes of reaching the higher courts.  There is one going though on Virginia's laws right now I believe.  Though it might have already been thrown out of a lower court.  TDS did a wonderful piece on that one not that long ago in the scheme of things.  But wishing for a hypothetical as worthy as it is doesn't require a logistical breakdown of potential to exist, does it?  I've yet to reach the stage of cynicism for what I would like and what I think can happen to have to co-exist in complete accord.  But the supreme Court is needed to get something truly changed in my opinion since even if Congress dared to do something states would challenge it.  If Affordable Care got dragged to court imagine what anything that is a so-called infringement of #2 would spark?

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm disappointed to hear about the ratings.  I didn't know about this.  It's a good show and to be perfectly honest I prefer it over Jon's.   My favourite was John Oliver, and I guess this is a distant second, but I was never like the hugest Stewart fan.

 

It should make us as humans weep hot tears of rage to think of kids that young being slaughtered in their classrooms over an amendment written when the most deadly thing on the market was a single-shot musket that would then take several minutes to reload.

 

I burst out crying just reading this!  

Edited January 8, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[DeLurker]

I found Dalia Mogahed really compelling!  I never watch the extended interviews available on any show site, but I'll watch this.

[angora]

I really liked her, too, DeLurker. I was excited when I saw that someone from the ISPU was going to be on the show, and she did not disappoint! I thought the whole interview was excellent (Trevor's really been stepping up his interview game!), but I especially appreciated what she said about her hijab and why she wears it. Her point about how "privatizing" a woman's sexuality is considered oppressing her/taking her power away was really interesting.

Great finish to an excellent week, I thought. Trump's expert controversy-baiting re: Cruz was just ludicrous, and I love that Trevor called him "patient zero" for stuff like this. The whole "you should totes go to court the pre-empt the Dems" thing and the comparison to getting a judge to rule that you DON'T murder puppies was hilarious. Trevor's delighted amazement that this sort of thing could happen to Republicans too was cute, and the Thomas Jefferson bit was goofy. (No lie - I was REALLY hoping one of the cast members from Hamilton was going to show up to rap about natural-born citizenship.)

I liked Advertisement Tonight, too - I think the line about Cruz building a wall between himself and Rubio was my favorite, but there were a lot of good jokes there. I also cracked up at Trevor's reaction when Jessica said no one likes an immigrant in a suit.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't really pay a ton of attention to ratings, so I didn't realize they were a problem either.  But then looking at several different pieces, I have to question how much of that is the outdated Nielsen system?  On demand viewership is reportedly up 44 percent, which to be honest is how I catch the show more often than not.  11 p.m. on a weeknight here usually means I'm either in bed asleep or reading.  There's a couple of shows I try to catch at least the monologues the next day since I truthfully don't much care about interviews unless it's someone I particularly like.

[peeayebee]

Another good show.

 

Yes, Trump as Patient Zero was great. Then saying that Trump's tweet was like his hair, "so many layers." BTW, I follow a lot of people on Twitter, but I don't tweet. I didn't know that putting a period before the @name would be different from just starting with @name. There's a lot about Twitter I don't understand.

 

The interview was good, too. Dalia is a terrific spokesperson. 

[ganesh]

I watch the show on hulu the morning after, so I hope that counts for ratings. Trump's passive-aggressive response was quite artful.

 

The political ad was just weird. "Oh, if they were coming in to be accountants, it would be a different story." But, they're not. They're running from who knows what terrors in their life just to get away so their kids aren't sucked into 50 years of hell. They'll do whatever job is on the table. 

[Loves2Dance]

From what I've been seeing, Trevor is down on TV ratings, but his ratings for digital consumption has jumped over 40% over Jon. I'm also one who watches this show religiously, the day after it airs, and typically from the Daily Show website itself. I loving referred to Jon as my 'old man crush' but I think Trevor is doing well in his spot. It's still taking time to adjust, but I think he's been ahead of the curve so far. 

[iMonrey]

The question is what Comedy Central is willing to put up with. They lost half of Colbert's viewers when they gave that spot to Larry Wilmore and now the same thing is happening with The Daily Show. Are they content to have edgy, smaller shows with smaller, niche audiences? I mean, the ratings are comparable to what some of their other programming gets, like Inside Amy Schumer. Bottom line are they OK with ratings falling that far for a show that used to be their "crown jewel?" Are they placated by better digital consumption, and what do their advertisers think? Would they try another host or would they cancel the show altogether? I'm not really privy to any backstage network discussions so who knows what the mood is at Comedy Central about this development.

[MrWhyt]

The question is what Comedy Central is willing to put up with. They lost half of Colbert's viewers when they gave that spot to Larry Wilmore and now the same thing is happening with The Daily Show. Are they content to have edgy, smaller shows with smaller, niche audiences? I mean, the ratings are comparable to what some of their other programming gets, like Inside Amy Schumer. Bottom line are they OK with ratings falling that far for a show that used to be their "crown jewel?" Are they placated by better digital consumption, and what do their advertisers think? Would they try another host or would they cancel the show altogether? I'm not really privy to any backstage network discussions so who knows what the mood is at Comedy Central about this development.

They'd have to expect ratings to fall with a replacement host (for both shows). It's still early in Trevor's run so I doubt they're panicking, I suspect if they do make a decision to dump him/ the show it won't be until after the election.

[gesundheit]

They'd have to expect ratings to fall with a replacement host (for both shows). It's still early in Trevor's run so I doubt they're panicking, I suspect if they do make a decision to dump him/ the show it won't be until after the election.

Yep. They've given Larry a good chunk of time to find his footing, they'll do the same for Trevor. Neither TDS nor TCR were immediate juggernauts in any way, there would be no expectation of it.

 

Another good show.

 

Yes, Trump as Patient Zero was great. Then saying that Trump's tweet was like his hair, "so many layers." BTW, I follow a lot of people on Twitter, but I don't tweet. I didn't know that putting a period before the @name would be different from just starting with @name. There's a lot about Twitter I don't understand.

 

The interview was good, too. Dalia is a terrific spokesperson. 

On Twitter if you just start with the @, only the person it's tweeted at (well, and any followers you and that person share) will see it. If you put ANY character at all before the Twitter handle, it'll appear to every single one of your followers as well as send a notification to the person mentioned. It's like (if you use it) the difference between posting something on a friend's Facebook wall or posting it on your own wall but tagging them in it.

 

Dalia was fantastic and articulate and I like that she speaks clearly and slowly so even the idiots can understand. And it was so important that instead of saying the hijab is more empowering than the way other women dress because it makes sexuality private, she just pointed out that calling it oppressive is saying sexuality is the only way a woman can be powerful. Very inclusive and not at all instructive or sanctimonious. 

[ganesh]

I don't know if this is part of the ratings, but my now cable company and some others from what I've read actually dropped CC altogether. That's one of the reasons I got Hulu. Most of the top shows air on Hulu the day after. 

[angora]

And it was so important that instead of saying the hijab is more empowering than the way other women dress because it makes sexuality private, she just pointed out that calling it oppressive is saying sexuality is the only way a woman can be powerful. Very inclusive and not at all instructive or sanctimonious. 

ITA, gesundheit.  No judgment on other women for what they do/don't wear, and, since a lot of people who'd consider her hijab oppressive are probably well-meaning, it's a gentle way to point out that there's more to this issue than they necessarily see at first glance.

 

I'm definitely coming around on some of the different formatting stuff.  The new theme song is growing on me, and after Monday, the standing/sitting/different locales have mostly been fine.  I think what threw me on Monday, with Trevor standing beside the screen and getting started with his commentary, was that it didn't really fit with general news show conventions.  Everything else felt familiar.  Advertisement Tonight, with the directors' chairs, had an obvious entertainment news set-up.  Reporters sometimes stand in front of a screen to introduce their field pieces, so I didn't mind Hasan's standing intro to his Sneaker Con story.  The militia care package bit made me think of guests on morning shows, where they show off an array of stuff on a table (healthy meals on a budget, the season's hottest gift ideas, etc.) - again, it made sense for Trevor and Jordan to be standing at the table.  But you don't see many lead anchors standing during their commentary, and I think that's why it felt weird for me.  The only comparison I was coming up with was "weather man," and that didn't fit.  It seems, though, like the show was finding its footing with that stuff this week, tightening up the format and figuring out what worked.

[dusang]

I'm definitely coming around on some of the different formatting stuff.  The new theme song is growing on me, and after Monday, the standing/sitting/different locales have mostly been fine.  I think what threw me on Monday, with Trevor standing beside the screen and getting started with his commentary, was that it didn't really fit with general news show conventions.  Everything else felt familiar.  Advertisement Tonight, with the directors' chairs, had an obvious entertainment news set-up.  Reporters sometimes stand in front of a screen to introduce their field pieces, so I didn't mind Hasan's standing intro to his Sneaker Con story.  The militia care package bit made me think of guests on morning shows, where they show off an array of stuff on a table (healthy meals on a budget, the season's hottest gift ideas, etc.) - again, it made sense for Trevor and Jordan to be standing at the table.  But you don't see many lead anchors standing during their commentary, and I think that's why it felt weird for me.  The only comparison I was coming up with was "weather man," and that didn't fit.  It seems, though, like the show was finding its footing with that stuff this week, tightening up the format and figuring out what worked.

 

I admit that I watch almost no actual TV news, just TDS and LWT, but based on my the clips of real news I've seen on those shows, the "standing in front of a screen"  reminded me of CNN.  I feel like I've seen Wolf Blitzer stand up a lot.

[Bastet]

The only thing I find awkward about this new format they're experimenting with is when Trevor first walks out and has to turn his head to the side to address the camera as he continues walking forward.  Otherwise, I like the way they're moving people around some.

 

More Jessica, please.  My only real complaint with Trevor's version of the show is that she seems to be used less. 

[Victor the Crab]

Dear Trevor, Please do not remind us good Canadian folks that Ted Cruz was born on Our Home and Native Land™. We have enough trouble distancing ourselves from Justin Bieber. Thank you.

 

I floved Dalia Mogahed last night. I let out a big laugh after she explained to Trevor why she freely wears a hijab. She would have looked better if she wore the Stars and Stripes as a hijab (of course that would have been overdoing it on her part).

 

From what I've been seeing, Trevor is down on TV ratings, but his ratings for digital consumption has jumped over 40% over Jon. I'm also one who watches this show religiously, the day after it airs, and typically from the Daily Show website itself. I loving referred to Jon as my 'old man crush' but I think Trevor is doing well in his spot. It's still taking time to adjust, but I think he's been ahead of the curve so far. 

 

Late last year, Keith Olbermann was on Real Time with Bill Maher answering Bill's question about why MSNBC's TV ratings were so poor. Olbermann answered that its wireless digital audience was blowing the competition away amongst its desired young demographics. Millenials are getting more of their news and entertainment from their smartphones and laptops, and less from television sources like cable and satellite. This is where the future is taking us, for better or for worse.

 

If Trevor's digital ratings are 40% higher than Jon's, then he should have no concerns about CC believing they made a mistake in replacing him with Jon. If those ratings were similar or worse, then he should be having a few sleepless nights.

[ganesh]

No judgment on other women for what they do/don't wear, and, since a lot of people who'd consider her hijab oppressive are probably well-meaning, it's a gentle way to point out that there's more to this issue than they necessarily see at first glance.

 

She should wear whatever she wants to wear, and no one should tell her what to wear. Or any other woman. Anyone coming over to my house wears whatever they want for whatever reasons.

 

However, 'because it's in this book that some guy wrote about 1400 years ago' just doesn't seem much of a reasoned justification to me. I think she said, 'it makes me feel closer to god', and again, your choice. But based on the reasoning put forth, had the book said 'wear feathers in your hair' she would be wearing feathers in her hair. And the bible is the same, so I'm not singling out islam. You're still basing your relationship with the divine on a book (koran/bible) that says women should be second-class. Now, maybe she's wearing it as a "taking back" type of idea. That's cool too. Maybe this was in the online content. I haven't had a chance to watch it. 

We've said similar things over on Real Time, since it was just referenced. That's what made me think of it. 

[Loves2Dance]

The question is what Comedy Central is willing to put up with. They lost half of Colbert's viewers when they gave that spot to Larry Wilmore and now the same thing is happening with The Daily Show. Are they content to have edgy, smaller shows with smaller, niche audiences? I mean, the ratings are comparable to what some of their other programming gets, like Inside Amy Schumer. Bottom line are they OK with ratings falling that far for a show that used to be their "crown jewel?" Are they placated by better digital consumption, and what do their advertisers think? Would they try another host or would they cancel the show altogether? I'm not really privy to any backstage network discussions so who knows what the mood is at Comedy Central about this development.

 

Jon Stewart had disastrous ratings when he originally took over. I'm sure they're giving it time and based on the interview I read with one of the exec's commenting, they were thrilled to see their digital consumption go up so much. 

[possibilities]

my now cable company and some others from what I've read actually dropped CC altogether.

Whoa, I didn't know that. DirecTV has it as one of the channels in its most basic package (and all the more expensive ones, too). And before that, when I lived in a city that had cable, even the super-cheap very basic option (which had I think fewer than 10 total channels in it) included CC. So I always thought of it as one of the more popular and widely available options. But things have been changing a lot in the TV distribution business in the past few years. Hmmmm.

 

I also vote for more Jessica. I feel like we see more than enough of Jordan and hardly anyone else is in the regular rotation.

[ganesh]

What does CC consider a 'successful' show? How is the show been received critically? I'm not one of those people who "grew up with Jon" so his leaving didn't really have much of an impact on me. He's very funny, and I enjoyed the show quite a great deal, but people move on in life, and seek out new challenges. I'm wondering if a dip in the ratings is more because TN is Not Jon Stewart, and when these people hear more about the good quality and content that the show is putting out, then they'll come back. 

 

Content-wise, I'm not really seeing a dip in quality. Some of the more, I guess, 'biting' segments that I enjoyed, Trump v African dictators, good guy with a gun, and the Trump panel at Las Vegas have been all in the new era. I enjoyed JS' genuine rage, but I also think this whole 'funny but not funny because it's real' direction that they're going in really fits this election cycle quite well. 

 

Honestly, JS wasn't that great of an interviewer unless he was with his friends. Which is fine. I have a new job, and I'm inviting my friends to come up too. He seriously still needs to apologize to the then HHS secretary if he hasn't already. And, I don't care about celeb interviews much at all. I'd much rather they have on people like the woman on Thursday.

Edited January 9, 2016 by ganesh

[Ottis]

I'm disappointed to hear about the ratings.

 

 

I imagine all that's left for a viewing audience is people whose views range from very left to far left.

 

Tuned in again to see if the show has returned to at least a semblance of balance. Nope. I watched TDS for more than 10 years, and loved the way it would pick on both left and right when it found BS and hypocrisy. But in Jon's last few years, and now continuing into Trevor's time, it's like watching a show produced by Bernie Saunders.

 

I'm an independent, and i agree that Fox is BS Mountain. But the left has issues as well, including the fact that it can't seem to see that any view other than it's own might have at least some value.But when TSD criticizes and mocks Republicans for years for picking at Obama's birth place, and then when the right attacks its own you make a joke that you think it wasn't possible and then join in, you've given up any high ground. This show has no interest in exploring any legitimate or consistent counter view. It goes after the most ridiculous opposing perspectives and mocks them, while ignoring the same for the left. 

 

Checking out again. Sounds like I'm not the only one.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Ottis

[shok]

I'm not quite understanding your outrage. Are you saying that the Republicans shouldn't have been mocked about their lies about Obama? And the karma of them now going after one of their own isn't delicious in its own strange way so TDS should just ignore it all? There is some high ground involved in all of this?

I'm quite sure the show would love to go after ridiculous perspectives no matter which side they're coming from but the Republican clown show is kind of using up all the oxygen in the political arena right now with Trump as the leader of the band of crazies. You must admit that there's no one on the left that could even begin to compare with him and his looney tunes friends.

[sistermagpie]

You're still basing your relationship with the divine on a book (koran/bible) that says women should be second-class. Now, maybe she's wearing it as a "taking back" type of idea. That's cool too. Maybe this was in the online content. I haven't had a chance to watch it.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't watch the extended segment but I found her reasoning really disturbing and misogynist. It's logic basically said that first, a woman not covering her hair is making sexuality somehow "public" in ways it's not if she covers her hair. (This is not true for men.) Second, that it's important that a woman's sexuality be private when a man's need not be. Then she did this flip around twisted logic where she suggested that since her beliefs say women and not men should cover their hair, and that covering your hair=making your sexuality private, therefore anyone who questions those beliefs and traditions is saying that women are only powerful through their sexuality. That seemed like using twisted logic to get around asking why there's more restrictions on women.

[ganesh]

Ok, thanks, seriously. I went on a limb with my post. I think we both are on the same page. I respect that she wants to put herself forth publicly, and say, 'I am just like everyone else. You go to church. I go to church.' 

 

But that's the problem, right? Because it doesn't matter what church you go to, the doctrine of your chosen church says, woman = lesser. That's the fundamental problem. You don't hear anything from the pope saying that women should have a legal equality in the modern church, and there's no central muslim leader calling for the same thing.

Edited January 11, 2016 by ganesh

[Miss Dee]

I don't think that's what she meant at all. I think she was pointing out that if she makes a decision to cover her hair for a private reason to do with her religion, and someone objects by saying she's having power taking away from her in doing so through repression of her sexuality due to the male gaze, then they're the ones equating what she does with her hair to the power she wields. She doesn't see it that way at all. And since she seems to be a very forthright and honest individual, we're actually insulting her by insinuating she's doing this to placate men and giving up "power" by doing so, as if the only power she can wield is in her appearance and men's judgment of it.

[sistermagpie]

I don't think that's what she meant at all. I think she was pointing out that if she makes a decision to cover her hair for a private reason to do with her religion, and someone objects by saying she's having power taking away from her in doing so through repression of her sexuality due to the male gaze, then they're the ones equating what she does with her hair to the power she wields. She doesn't see it that way at all. And since she seems to be a very forthright and honest individual, we're actually insulting her by insinuating she's doing this to placate men and giving up "power" by doing so, as if the only power she can wield is in her appearance and men's judgment of it.

 

 

I know that's what she wants to be saying, and it's why people applauded, but it still seems like she's trying to ignore the larger context in favor of making it about respecting whatever any individual woman wants to wear. She's implying that religious laws concerning women's sexuality and how they (as opposed to men) must present themselves to be respectful to God is the same as a woman deciding whether or not she wants to wear make-up or dress fashionably. That makes for a sassy soundbite but I think it's a specious argument. I think many people would defend and respect her right to choose what she wants to wear, and respect that she knows her motives better than they do, while still noting that religious laws about gender are often oppressive to women.

Edited January 17, 2016 by sistermagpie

[ganesh]

Yeah, it's the larger context as to what she's saying. I don't think anyone is insulting her. Her words were: I wear this because it makes me feel closer to god.

 

To which I say, why? Why did she choose to wear this *specific* garment that makes her feel closer to god? Because that specific garment is cited in a book that was written 1400 years ago. If the book cited feathers, then I think it's fair to assume that she would have said, "I wear feathers in my hair because it makes me feel closer to god." I find the reasoning behind that a little problematic. But it's very true that religious laws about gender are quite oppressive overall. She's taking it and 'making it hers', ok. That's great. Fundamentally, she's still basing her reasoning on a faulty premise imo. 

 

The larger picture to which I was referring was that fundamentally, the major religions consider women to be lesser and it is codified right in whatever book you're using to practice the religion. 

I think there actually needs to me more people like her speaking out, "Hey, don't be afraid of us. We're just like you." I doubt she feels like a second class citizen, and thankfully since we live under the rule of secular law in this country, she's not, and there's legal protections in place in case someone wants to put her into that box. That doesn't excuse the fact that both the koran and the bible actually do teach that women = lesser. 

If she wants to wear that to work, she should absolutely should, and there's a recent court case that provides protections for her. But there's more behind this than 'just choosing what I want to wear.'

Edited January 11, 2016 by ganesh

[possibilities]

A debate about the merits of various religions, or various aspects of particular religions, or religion in general is not really what she was talking about, though. I get that it's a complex and interesting topic, but she wasn't invited on TDS to discuss that, so she dind't really get a chance to say anything about why, or what she felt about that issue. Debating her in absentia via this forum seems unfair to me. I do know that I read a book by a woman claiming to be a Muslim feminist who actually defended the burka on the grounds that she was not interested in being available for the pleasure of random men, and that she thinks western women are delusional in that she thinks our culture has undressed us not for our own liberties but in order to make us more accessible for male exploitation.

 

But beyond this, if we want to accuse women who cover their hair of participating in a sexist religion, why are we not accusing anyone who wears a cross of the same? Why is it the burden of Muslim women to justify their choices in a way it is not so for Muslim men, or Christians of any gender? Is it worse for a Muslim woman to wear hejab than for a Jewish man to wear a yarmulke? How about Christians who wear a cross? Do we immediately target every cross-wearing Christian as a mindless follower of a sexist religion, or exempt males from protest of sexist elements within their faiths, or do we just think women need to justify our choices and prove how rebellious we are, while men get a pass despite coming from the same traditions?

 

The way that people get worked up over the hejab in this country blows my mind. I think it's way less potentially damaging to women than the secular high heel, which actually limits our mobility and damages our feet and backs and causes pain. I think that's much more oppressive to women than choosing to participate in the covering of ones hair in public. Why is the hejab such a big deal to people? There are far more sexist things in numerous religions, and far more damaging things that people wear, and in public policy in general. Who cares and why does anyone care about covering the hair?

[formerlyfreedom]

We're losing the thread in here folks - let's move on. And remember the site's Be Civil rule. Nothing has been removed at this point, but could be. Stick to the episode topic. Thanks.

[ChelseaNH]

The question is what Comedy Central is willing to put up with.

 

That's one question.  Another question is, do they have anything that they can expect to perform better?

[iMonrey]

 

Jon Stewart had disastrous ratings when he originally took over. I'm sure they're giving it time and based on the interview I read with one of the exec's commenting, they were thrilled to see their digital consumption go up so much.

 

That's not really how TV works, though. The Daily Show with Craig Kilborne was a small, modestly successful show for a fledgling cable network and had a niche audience. Under Jon Stewart it grew to be enormously popular and became an active voice in American mainstream politics. It gave the network something to crow about. The Colbert Report doubled their bragging rights. I doubt very much any TV network is OK with losing millions of viewers. From an advertising and financial aspect, they need to keep those numbers up as high as possible. If a stock lost half its value in just a few months, investors would be bailing left and right. By the same token, advertisers will balk at paying the prices they were when the show had twice as many viewers. CC can't afford to play wait and see for another ten years.

 

 

Another question is, do they have anything that they can expect to perform better?

 

Probably not. And that may be the only thing keeping both shows alive right now. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn the network is sending out feelers for replacement hosts.

[shok]

 

Under Jon Stewart it grew to be enormously popular and became an active voice in American mainstream politics

 

And this is exactly why I'm sure they're relatively pleased with how well Trevor is doing on several different platforms. They had to have known that Jon Stewart was well nigh irreplaceable and that the ratings would plunge regardless of who they chose to replace him. Trevor needs to have time to build his own show and his own audience just like Jon was and even if the ratings have gone down, the reviews for Trevor have been good, certainly better than, for instance, Colbert with his replacement show. Trevor hasn't bombed by any means and his numbers will pick up as word gets out that he's funny and the show is still pertinent to a certain audience.

[peeayebee]

The best part of last night's show was the Moment of Zen.

 

I had to FF thru Colin's interview. Was anything of interest said?

[marceline]

Roy has become one of my favorite correspondents. Honestly I like all of the new ones with the exception of Ronny Cheng (and I'm still rooting for him to turn it around.) I loved how he called out Obama for using up Hamilton tickets because I feel the same way. Stand back Bamz and let a sista get a ticket! LOL! I never watch the SOTU but I just might grab a bottle of wine and tune in for this one because, as Roy says, Bamz is well out of fucks to give. Let's see if Joe Wilson starts screaming during this one! Hee!

[iMonrey]

 

Trevor needs to have time to build his own show and his own audience just like Jon was and even if the ratings have gone down, the reviews for Trevor have been good

 

That's not a realistic comparison though. The show was nothing when Jon Stewart took over and built up the audience over the years. Just because it started at zero when Stewart took over and went up to sixty doesn't mean Comedy Central is OK with it going back to zero. Nor will the advertisers be. I'm sure they expected some fall-off but not to this extent. The drop wasn't immediate, most of Stewart's audience tuned in to check out Trevor and over the course of 3-4 months about half of them decided they didn't like him well enough to stick around. That's bad news, no matter how you spin it.

 

The reviews from the supportive, liberal media have been good but that doesn't mean jack squat to advertisers. Comedy Central can put on a brave face and point to increased viewing online but that's just more spin. It would be one thing if Trevor had retained enough of the audience in the key "advertiser friendly" demographic but those ratings have dropped considerably too, and that's bad. 

 

This change in format where he stands for the first segment strikes me as an attempt to copy Tosh.0 which has an audience that tends to skew younger. I'm guessing there's a prevailing concern that younger, "hipper" viewers are turned off by a "stuffy" news show with a guy in a suit behind a desk. It will be interesting too see if Trevor eventually sheds the suit in favor of hip casual wear. 

 

By then, of course, there will be little to distinguish The Daily Show from Tosh.0 except for the host. 

[Brandi Maxxxx]

This change in format where he stands for the first segment strikes me as an attempt to copy Tosh.0 which has an audience that tends to skew younger. I'm guessing there's a prevailing concern that younger, "hipper" viewers are turned off by a "stuffy" news show with a guy in a suit behind a desk. It will be interesting too see if Trevor eventually sheds the suit in favor of hip casual wear. 

 

By then, of course, there will be little to distinguish The Daily Show from Tosh.0 except for the host. 

Daniel Tosh of course having pioneered the concept of a TV host standing up for any length of time. Even worse, guess who else would stand while addressing an audience? Adolf Hitler! Comedy Central is obviously making Trevor pander to the Nazi demographic.

[gesundheit]

I don't understand any world in which CC execs were too stupid to expect exactly this kind of ratings drop. Of course this was anticipated! They also knew full well they had to do some re-tooling and they also know full well they have the great advantage of this being a General Election year to start to lure people back (or lure new people in, more likely). They'll be fine. They knew losing Stewart was a massive loss, and they knew hiring Trevor Noah was a risk that they're willing to stand behind for a certain amount of time. The sky is not falling. Yet.

 

That was a visibly difficult interview last night. I think Trevor was trying a little too hard to replicate Jon's rapport with Colin Quinn, which would make no sense. Also, did he really think that Colin Quinn just stands in front of a mic at his one-man show at an Off-Broadway theater? 

[iMonrey]

 

Daniel Tosh of course having pioneered the concept of a TV host standing up for any length of time.

 

Both stand next to a screen showing clips related to current news events. The point is - why the change? Who stepped in and said "We have to get him out from behind the desk?" There has to be some reasoning behind the change, someone thought this would be an improvement somehow. As I said, it's just my guess - the thinking goes "news show, guys in a suit sitting behind a desk, too stuffy for young hipsters." 

[marceline]

Both stand next to a screen showing clips related to current news events. The point is - why the change? Who stepped in and said "We have to get him out from behind the desk?" There has to be some reasoning behind the change, someone thought this would be an improvement somehow. As I said, it's just my guess - the thinking goes "news show, guys in a suit sitting behind a desk, too stuffy for young hipsters." 

 

I just assumed it was Trevor's idea. He's a young stand up comedian so perhaps he prefers...standing up. Personally I like it. It's closer to the late night aesthetic than the news aesthetic and I'm hardly a hipster. Trevor deserves the chance to make the show his own and getting rid of these familiar "Jon Stewart" sign posts bit by bit seems like a good idea. 

 

Add me to the people who figures CC knew there would be a ratings drop. I expected as much.

Edited January 13, 2016 by marceline

[fastiller]

I know that there have been mentions of Wolf Blitzer and Tosh.0 when thinking about TN's standing up at the start.  It really reminded me of BBC News, particularly the 'theme' music as he walked to his spot.

[zxy556575]

Trevor was on Seth Meyers' show last night and Seth asked him about the change. Trevor downplayed it and said he just felt like doing something different. Seth said he got a lot of questions when he decided to do his open already seated and they discussed it a bit, as in "Why would anyone care?" The clip is up on NBC, but they didn't say much other than that.

Edited January 12, 2016 by lordonia

[possibilities]

Trevor was on Seth Meyers' show last night. They joked with each other about how when Seth stopped standing at the beginning of his show, people were totally thrown by it, and the reaction was far greater than anticipated. Trevor claimed that he was used to standing to do his act, and he didn't realize it mattered so much. This may all be spin, but I still don't understand why it matters.

 

If you've ever watched Tosh.O, the content is nothing like TDS, so I don't think he's trying to imitate Tosh. Doesn't Wolf Blitzer stand up? Anderson Cooper? Didn't Glen Beck? Jon stood up for his Beck mocking.

 

I don't regularly watch CNN, but I think a lot of the bigger network people stand nowadays. The Today Show (which I don't think I've ever watched before, but I watched this morning because they were touring the White House and interviewing the Pres and VP-- and Jill Biden who I love, plus of course the Obama dogs) had their staff standing up all through the 2 hour show, including the interviews. I just don't think that standing up is necessarily a more hip-for-the-youngsters approach. But if it is, I don't care, as long as the content is still good, which so far I think it has been.

 

I have no idea what CC thinks about the ratings. I'm sure they would have loved to keep the sky high ratings they had before, but they publicly acknowledged that they knew there would be a drop and that it scared them, shortly after Jon announced he was leaving. How TDS (and TNS) compare to the ratings they get for other shows is more important, I think, than how they compare to the ratings for Stewart and Colbert as hosts. If they think they can do substantially better with other programming, then I agree they might not stick with TDS or TNS, or Noah and Wilmore. But they asked almost a dozen other people to replace Jon, before asking Trevor. I don't think it would be easy for them to find someone who would do better than he is, and I think they know that it's probably a case of cancel the show more than replace the host, if they make a change. So how do the ratings for TDS an TNS compare to other CC programming? How much do they cost to produce vs other programming on CC? I don't know. Is that info readily available? I know it is for the 5 biggest broadcast networks, but I don't know how to find that for "cable" networks or CC.

 

I do think that more attention is being paid to streaming nowadays and that it's not 100% spin. If there is a big streaming viewership, they are starting to monetize that angle more and more, and it seems like the entire industry is moving more towards taking that viewer population into account.

 

ETA: Oops! Thanks, Lordonia. I'm a slow typist and we were posting at the same time. I didn't mean to act like you hadn't spoken!

Edited January 12, 2016 by possibilities

[shok]

I enjoyed that clip lordonia. Did you watch the second one too? He talked about what it was like to have Jon Stewart come back to the show. Funny stuff. Good appearance all round and both Seth and Trevor made me laugh several times.  http://www.nbc.com/late-night-with-seth-meyers/video/trevor-noah-is-experiencing-his-first-american-election-year/2966882