This is an archive of past discussions about The Daily Show. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2006

What the mainstream media is not

If you see something that needs editing than do so. I made a couple of edits to the grammatical form. As for those who criticize seeing a bias, I don't see that with The Daily Show. In fact like with wikinews and wikipedia, The Daily Show maintains a goal of impartiality. It is too bad the mainstream media has lost that.--Tjkphilosofe 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In following your example, I edited the title of this section. You wrote "What the mainstream media not," which makes no sense whatsoever. And I agree, The Daily Show does not really have a bias - as said before, they make fun of everyone. -- MasterXiam 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo of omission. Good of you to catch the mistake.--Tjkphilosofe 10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dan Bakkedahl

I just took a quick stab at creating Dan's wiki page, which I am sure will be completely updated later. Dan is an improvisor from Chicago, and he is going to be replacing Steve Carell. I got this news from the improv community. Does anyone have any / know how to get any Official Info on when he'll start?

I think there may be a big shakeup in the works...Samantha Bee has been conspicuously absent lately, and Stephen Colbert is leaving for The Colbert Report (Yes, I know it's French Stephen). I think we may be in for up to three new people. I personally am crossing my fingers for Shaun Majumder, but I'm not holding my breath.

As noted on the Samantha Bee entry, she is out pregnant and has "corresponded" twice by "phone" that I know of during this time. During the January 19, 2006 (?) episode they even had a fake image of her breast feeding. badmonkey 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Now that I spent a little more time looking, I found you a reference to this people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1151667,00.html from people magazine. badmonkey 07:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Overseas editions

With the hasty revert of "subtitles," the last sentence now makes no sense. BabuBhatt 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Still no sense ... "It is transmitted either in its original language in Danish, Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian." BabuBhatt 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Then.... fix it. JDoorjam 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seemed fixed with "subtitles" as though that was the intended construction. But I don't know if the show airs in those places with subtitles. The current construction indicates that it airs in either one of those three languages or Norwegian. ... don't know enough to fix. Cheers. BabuBhatt 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Programmes in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) are usually subtitled whereas Central European countries like Germany tend to use dubbing.

There is no dubbing of the show in any of the nordic countries. --AiR 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The show is not neutral, it's liberal.

The show is liberally biased. This is true. But as far as that goes, it's still one smart show!

Actually it's sort of a blend, with Jon himself being, as he sometimes says, something of a lefty. (or somewhat leaning to the left, I don't recall exactly.) Since Jon is the man that reviews the writers scripts, his admitted bias may shine trough (and he makes it clear whenever anyone asks that he is SOMEWHAT biased. Still, it doesn't pull any comedic punches, and has joked a great deal about Democrats not being any better at running the goverment than the Republicans, believing them both to be equally inept/corrupt.

The whole concept of liberal/conservative/left/right is flat out stupid. It's all relative; To someone extremely right wing, this show would seem leftist. To someone extremely leftist, this show would seem right. This is true with anything, not just this show.

The only thing that matters is this shows focus, which is being funny. I think they succeed. If this show was intended as propaganda to brainwash the masses then bringing up it's slant might be worth noting, but it's not.

With all of that said, my personal opinion is that Stewart personally opposes the current administration but that he would be making a lot of the same jokes regardless of whos in power. The fact that the Republicans hold so much power makes them an easy target for a show that is relatively limited to covering current events. I'd rather see Stewart skewer Bush daily than hold a single joke for fear of not being "neutral", which is a big problem for our "real news".

--Semi 12:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, this may seem slightly POV (but so is what was said) but I really don't consider the Daily show as 'one smart show' (this maybe because im not American, although I am a socialist and liberal, left leaning myself in otherwords) because it relies heavily on explained comments and jokes that require the audience not to work one thing out in their mind. In 'The Daily Show' the ability/responsibility for an audience to 'get a joke' is lovingly removed from their shoulders before an uneccessary and patronising (to the audiences intelligence, but ofc from my POV if you choose to wish this program egularily you may be considered to have little intelligence, in my country at least, humour differs from place to place) explaanation of the joke is rammed down the audience's throat (generally accompanied by irrelavant pictures and yelling from Jon Stuart in a voice which tries, but tragically misses to amuse anyone)in a kind of way which personally I can only describe as a kind of physcological torture (or at least a grave insult to a monkey's intelligence, considering the fact that the monkey has a low IQ for a monkey). I mean I think real progress medicaly could be made if they played the Daily show to people i PVS in hospitals and could even possibly stimulate these people (though im not taking any chances, people in PVS may fidn this suggestion an insult to their receptory abilities). Yes the previous statement is trollish and written from a strong POV (though suprisingly pro-liberal, which involves having a sense of liberal humour) but I just couldn't stand the idea of someone describing the show as smart without nearly choking on some indignity stuck in my throat. Everyone of course is entiled to choose what is funny and what is not, but smart would nto be a way to describe this show, even if funny is.

I have to disagree (although the above may be a very old comment) - the humor doesn't depend on every joke being explained. Sometimes Jon explains the obvious, not because the audience wouldn't get the joke but because explaining the obvious joke is in itself funny. Maybe you don't get this because you're not from this country. I agree with you in general, I don't like humor rammed down my throat, which is why I dislike most of the ridiculous comedy movies that get made in Hollywood. But I don't see TDS falling in that catagory, not by a long shot. Perhaps the real problem is that, not being from this country, you are actually missing the jokes.

Both sides are targeted

The persons who claim The Daily Show is liberal are the far right. It could be equally argued that the show is conservative. Jon takes quite a lot of shots at democrats. He has a lot of fun showing how truly stupid they have been behaving. He focuses on Bush and the Republicans because they are the ones in power right now.

I'm a liberal. I promise. And I enjoy the fact that Jon is unabashedly one too. He makes fun of anyone, as he should, but he always does it with more "love" for the Dems. -Jcbarr 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pundits like Bill O'Reilly have accused Jon being too liberal even coming close to calling him downright unamerican. Jon will take the criticisms and fire them back at his critics. This could be the reason why the Colbert Report was created. The look of the set and Stephen's commentaries remind me of the O'Reilly Factor.--Tjkphilosofe 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Realisticaly speaking all forms of imply some form of bias. In the case of a show that deals comedicaly with the nature of government bias will always be focused at whatever party is in power and therefore does more damage through their stupidity. Furthermore The Daily Show is in fact a FAKE! news show and thereby should be free from restrictions of neutrality.

The problem with that excuse, however, is that it's not that much different from "real" news shows. There are no actual "restrictions of neutrality" on the media anymore, anyway, which partly explains this. NBS525 15:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Show is a comedy show HE MAKES FUN OF PEOPLE. Why does this article lack neutrality is beyond me? He's not a force in politics, he's a comedian. Might as well label Chapelle, Pryor, Williams, Colbert, Rock, etc etc.. liberal. Give me a break. Enough with the hypersensitive politcal crap and get your heads out of your asses.

You're kidding, right? The Daily Show is comedy with a liberal slant. It's by no means conservative. Have you even watched the show? Andre (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The show's comedy itself aims at everyone. Though Stewart himself may be liberal, the jokes come from both directions. In fact, the show constantly contradicts what "side" it seemed like it was standing on when a subject from the past is recalled. It just goes for the laugh. -- Viewdrix 23 January 2006

Although Andre does make a legitamate point that the show is not conservative. It seems difficult to justify his(her?) reference to comedy with a liberal slant as all comedy is liberal otherwise it defeats the purpose of comedy. A joke that agrees with the party in power is not 'risqe' and therefore by moden standards of observational comedy 'funny', so until popular humor changes or there is a change in the blance of power in our government all comedy inclding the Daily Show will be 'liberal'.

I don't know whether Jon is liberal or conservative but he takes more shots at the democrats. For instance their shameful speeches on MLK day. Stephen is equally hard to pin down. He plays it conservative but he may be liberal mocking conservatives or he may be something else.--Tjkphilosofe 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While Jon said that he voted for Kerry in the 2004 election, he describes himself on the show as an independent. In other words, he avoids extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Those who believe that Jon has an excessive liberal bias would do well to watch some of the shows from 1999 as well as particular shows from the 2004 election campaign. While Jon ridicules conservatives on a regular basis, he doesn't do so because they're conservative; he simply pokes fun at those in power (that's kind of the definition of satire anyways). Mysticfeline 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Mysticfeline

Jon has aimed several jokes towards Democrats. He almost always pokes fun at their ineptitude as a political party, he calls them out whenever they do something stupid (Hillary Clinton comparing the Bush White House to a plantation on MLK Day), and even created a sole segment to make fun of Ted Kennedy's facial expressions during an Alito hearing (or was it something else?). He doesn't make fun of Kennedy as much as he does Bush of course, but then again, Kennedy isn't the president. Every late night show has taken pot shots at Bush, not because they are super liberals, but because it's funny to mock the guy in charge. Clinton was always mocked in the 90's, from his McDonalds visit on SNL to god-knows-how-many Lewinsky jokes. The president is a lightning rod for jokes. - Omex 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My entire opinion about the whole "does he target left or right" is that he makes jokes about whoever seems to be screwing up the most. And since right now (2006), the Republicans have the majority of power, most of the focus is on them. When the Dems get back in major office (and anyone whose studied poli-sci knows they will, it's the natural flow of things), he'll go after them with more vigor. Once again, my opinion... Poisonouslizzie 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You people are wrong. The daily show is unbelieveably liberal. TAKE OFF YOUR ROSE TINTED GLASSES AND OPEN YOUR EYES!--Capsela 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course we're all wrong. And you're right. I think you should also open your eyes, and realise that your whole country has a definite right-wing lean. To hear an American label someone else as 'left-wing' or 'liberal' would almost be humorous, if not for the sheer hatred involved. If you want left-wing, go look at Europe. Your attack is meaningless in the wider context and only exposes your own bias. Imroy 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's undeniable that The Daily Show is slanted somewhat against the Republican Party, even if it bashes the Democrats occasionally (and I say this as someone with great antipathy towards people like Dubya). There is no point in arguing about this, however. Since apparently there are different points of view over how biased the show is, the article should simply state something like "Although The Daily Show is commonly regarded as left-leaning in American political terms, some fans have argued that Stewart and the other anchors denigrate the Democrats and other left-leaning politicians as well." (Don't forget to WP:CITE for this assertion.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The staff appears to have a strong dislike for the Republicans in power, one that apparently goes beyond simply lampooning those in power. See, for instance, the reaction to Cheney's hunting accident. However, being against that group, specifically, does not mean the show is particularly biased against conservatives, as Bush & his followers have been anything other than true conservative in their 6 years in power. They have represented ineptitude and corruption and political hackery instead, and that deserves as much pointed comedic attack as one can heap upon it. Put McCain or Specter or Snowe or Jeffords, or any other responsible conservative, on the Daily Show, and you would find a much different treatment. I know Jon is liberal w.r.t. marijuana use, mainly from his MTV days and his movie appearances, but in most aspects of policy I get no sense from the show that he's anywhere other than moderate. It's probably a by-product of the skewed state of American discourse that TDC is considered to lean heavily left.

Rob as Host

On one of those rare occasions, Jon was off Thursday night. Rob was the guest host. It was awkward watching him and he didn't do a very good job when a joke about Hitler and Ann Frank failed to get a laugh. The last time I heard that much silence was the infamous Sinead O Connor piece about the Pope on SNL. Whoa...Bomber !!! There just some people who can't anchor a fake newscast.--Tjkphilosofe 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What an incredibly pointless addition to this page. Thanks for the hyperbole about the silence and the complete lack of anything justifying you writing that. -- Viewdrix 11 February 2006

Rob Corddry with his exaggerated style was poorly suited to host the show. Ed Helms probably would have been a better replacement. Has anyone besides Stephen Colbert filled in for Jon before?

You know that is what was thinking Stephen originally filled in. It would explain what Stephen did at the end where he had his stage manager fill in for him. Considering Ed is looking for a new job according to his new year resolution piece may be able to keep him happy by making him the guest host. Rob is just too wild and crazy to be host. That is what makes him good for This Week in God.--Tjkphilosofe 11:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rob filled in with his character rather than trying to be a "good host". It was only a temporary thing, and I don't think he treated it as an "audition" since if he ever did host his own show, he wouldn't want to do it as a straight-man, the way Jon does. Perhaps I'm just being naive.--SportWagon 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jon Show?

My wife and I refer to it as simply "The Jon Show". Does anyone else do that?--SportWagon 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at previous comments, is this talk page regarded as more than just a talk page? --SportWagon 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show Going Hollywood?

This isn't directly related to his bio, just an opinion question in general. Is anyone worried that since he's gotten so popular, and the gig with the Oscars, the Daily Show is going to get a little more like Access Hollywood? Like back to the Craig days? I know, I know, it isn't directly a political show to begin with, but I still appreciate the Washington satire as opposed to jokes about Brad and Angelina. I can get that on Letterman... Poisonouslizzie 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be an irre;evant comment but one of the links near the bottom is not linking properly, you can just see the brakets and all. Someone should fix it if they can.Skuzabut

This Page is EXTREMELY Bloated

And it need some reformatting. I agree a lot more info needs to be included for the Craig years and I'd love to add it. I can't find a place to put it, though. So much of this fluff on "sexual innuendo" and other running jokes should be removed as its just overkill. I can do this myself if no one else wants to step up. --Mark 2000 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've writen a new section about the creation and early years of the show. I've reformatted some sections and deleted others. I know many will be angry that I removed sections for rucurring in jokes, but, frankly that kind of over analysis should be left for fan pages. I also deleted the "interviews section because that information seem more efficiant as part of the differnt era's sections instead of in a section of its own. I also removed many screen caps as Wikipedia rules ask for only one screenshot per page. We had four before, we have two now. This page still clocks in a lot bigger than the page for 60 Minutes, a show with litterally decades of history and greater cultural importance. If further work goes into this please let it be subtractions, not additions.--Mark 2000 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guide

Has anyone considered beginning a daily episode guide for the show, listing which topics and correspondents are featured on eahc show? It seems like it's necessary. We could just begin with new episodes as they air.

Again, too much bloat. Their are thousands of episodes. This is best left to a fan site. Make one and lick to it. --Mark 2000 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia does have an episode guide for The Colbert Report which is on just as often.

You would then have to make a case that the Colbert Report guide is a good idea considering how long running the series might be. Does Jay Leno have an episode guide? Does 60 Minutes? Conan O'brian? Even Saturday Night Live? In the long run its impossible goal.--Mark 2000 22:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper; I say, go for it. This project aims to be a repository for all human knowledge; what's wrong with an episode guide? Sounds useful to me. JDoorj a m Talk 00:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and weasel words

I've left most of your tweaks, but i complete reconstituted the criticism section. As someone who doesnt necessarily believe most of what i wrote, the fact is the criticism exists and repressing the fact is revisionist. The daily show is concidered biased by many. Jon Stewart is a self proclaimed liberal, period. What you called "weasle words" im guessing the fact that i explained the standpoint of the critics accurately instead of making it vague as you did. Please speak to me about this section before editting it again to avoid a war. Thanks.--Mark 2000 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

- from my talk page

My edits to the criticism section were not because I am trying to repress anything; I simply removed weasel words. The term sounds incivil and it's not meant to be. That's unfortunately the terminology that the Wikipedia community has chosen for the insertion of opinion in the guise of a commonly held belief. The problem with your criticism is three-fold: first, you reinserted the statement that Craig Kilborn would take on "the character of a "enlightened frat boy": handsome and privileged, but extremely liberal, in touch with his feminine side, and always willing to take a cheap shot at himself." This is just pure editorialization. Second, slightly less important, your other criticism has less to do with The Daily Show than with Jon Stewart.

But it's really the final point, that your edits incorporate unsourced claims about what "some" feel and what unsourced "critics" complain about. You complained that my edits make the section more vague, but your criticism is completely nebulous in regards to who is actually saying these things. You say that Stewart is "unapolagetically liberal"; do you have a citation for that? I'm trying to fulfill WP:V. Please look to do so as well. JDoorj a m Talk 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to disagree on this. I restored the original again. I have two examples right on the page of people criticizing stewart on not asking hard enough questions. In both their statements they saw outright or implay the show is used as a platform. I've added two sources for work but they are really unnecessary. Stewart in every interview he makes says hes a liberal against the war and against the bush admin and his personal hope is that the democrats will finally rise up. Its common knowledge and theres nothing wrong with it. Its like finding a source to say Al Franken is a liberal. I think you are asking for an unusual amount of documentation because you are try to protect the show from conservative critics. Second, the "frat boy" reference is actually from character creator winstead as well as a description by Janeane Garofalo on the show itself.

I suggest the next time you want documentation for common knowledge you help find it rather than delete the material. That isnt scholarly either. Thanks--Mark 2000 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor adding information to find sources for that information. If you want to claim something as common knowledge I suggest you find evidence of it before putting it into articles. I also hope you understand the gulf between saying "Al Franken is liberal" and "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been criticized by some because of its liberal slant." If you're going to say "by some," I'd like to know the source. Incidentally, the source you gave doesn't "criticize" him for it, and so doesn't really belong in the "criticism" section. For the sake of NPOV, I'd say that his political leanings don't belong in "criticism" regardless of who said what about him: that would be like putting a criticism section into Bill Frist's article and saying "Frist is criticized by some for being conservative." Stewart's political leanings are, at most, an attribute; you assume a priori they are a fault. (I also, incidentally, don't see how Stewart's repeated criticism that the Democratic party is flaccid on every issue is a show of support.) JDoorj a m Talk 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are miss reading the article. The "criticism" is that the show is slanted. The "evidence" is that stewart is slanted. Stewart's leaning is a fact. Whether the show is slanted or not is a topic of discussion. Second, "liberalism" is not owned by the democratic party. A citation that stewart criticises the dems for not doing enough is infact a proof of liberalism.

After looking at you edits, your language changes are fine, but liberalism is returned to the "crit" per above. The frat description removal is back. If you're allowing the "enlightened frat boy" part is left then a description of what that means is necessary. Again. Please stop merely deleting content and instead discuss first.--Mark 2000 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, the source you've provided for the "criticism" isn't criticizing him. It also states that while he's liberal, his first duty is comedy, not politics. If anything, the citation you've given is a counter-argument to the claim you've made. I left "enlightened frat boy" because I assumed that you could provide a citation for it, which you haven't. Without a citation (or hell, even with one), everything that follows it is pure editorialization -- especially that "liberal" follows from "frat boy." Most frat boys are pretty conservative, at least where I went to college. Too much of the content in question is opinion. JDoorj a m Talk 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we reading the same text? You're agreeing with me but still arguing against me. Stewart's liberalism isnt the issue. The criticism of the show is. Whether its a correct criticism is not the issue. Its what critics are saying, and a wide amount of them.--Mark 2000 04:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote for me some criticism from that article. JDoorj a m Talk 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Gorman

Dave Gorman was the "Senior New Correspondent" on lastnight's show... was this a one-time thing or is he actually a new correspondent that will appear again? Should we mention it in the article? I notice it's mentioned in his article but not this one. Shivers 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume he's at least reoccuring. Most likely a contributer like Hodgeman, not a correspondant like Helms. I did however tag Gorman with the Daily Show cat and his article has a blurb about the show. --waffle iron ^talk 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(Probable) inspiration for 'The Daily Show'

Perhaps a mention of 'The Day Today', the UK show that is a satire of the news, should be added to this main article.. as 'TDS' is practically an Americanized clone of it.

I wouldn't say that, The Day Today's stories were all fictional (some quite bizarre) rather than current events and they were a parody of news programmes, they didn't invent the style and format of 'The Day Today' . I wouldn't call it a clone by any means.--Sully 09:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the show as it stands now is different from how it used to be (as I recall). It used to have a greater emphasis on the interviews; now, it is much more of a "biting social commentary"-type show. EVula 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why Jon Stewart Isn't Funny"

Has there been any formal response by fans to this article? Omphaloscope » talk 08:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fans of The Daily Show aren't exactly an organized group that gives formal responses. There are plenty of individual fans who contribute to the page itself, but I doubt that their is an organization of them that issues such responses. Mysticfeline 23:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)mysticfeline

I wasn't suggesting a response lodged by some representative body for TDS fans, or anything like that. However, fan websites and op-ed sections publish opinions which are generally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia articles if pertinent.

So is there a Daily Show fan site with an opinion on the article "Why Jon Stewart Isn't Funny", or newspaper article in Stewart's defense? Omphaloscope » talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Show recurring elements

I've just made a new page on the show called The Daily Show recurring elements. I incorporated the running jokes section that used to be on the main article, and the new article also lists the names and descriptions of recurring segments. Naturally, I don't remember every recurring segment done on the show; so, any help is greatly appreciated. This new article will be useful for getting rid of surplus articles. There were complete articles for Back in Black, This Week in God and Baptiz'd but I've simply turned them into redirect pages and incorporated them into the recurring elements article. Thank you.

Ratings

This site needs evidence that John Stewart actually increased ratings for the show. Craig Kilborn averaged 2 million a night, John Stewart gets one million. If you have evidence, site it.

"Ratings are at their peak, averaging nearly a million viewers this year, up 18% over 2002 and nearly threefold since Stewart replaced Kilborn in January 1999. A weekly "global edition" follows real news on CNN International in dozens of foreign countries." (www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-10-06-daily-show_x.htm)
"Leblang gives Comedy Central credit for having the patience to let The Daily Show at 11 p.m. build over time, growing to become one of cable's biggest success stories in late night. He pointed out that The Daily Show (originally hosted by Craig Kilborn) debuted in 1996 with a 0.3 rating, and now seven years later averages a 0.7 or 0.8, according to Nielsen. (Stewart took over in 1999.) The Daily Show's ratings have increased every year, Giacopelli said. This summer, after some testing, Comedy Central bowed a follow-up show to Stewart, namely Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn at 11:30 p.m." (www.multichannel.com/article/CA328840.html?display=Supplement)
"[Kilborn] rarely played to more than 1 percent of the Nielsen household universe at one time." (www.icriticus.com/lsn-archive/lsn-050598.text)
"But it's also a demonstration of television done right. In the six years since Stewart took over, the audience for The Daily Show has grown almost threefold to 1.4 million viewers a night. It boasts a legion of young, smart fans who are among the most demographically desirable audiences in the industry - further collapsing the caste distinctions between networks and cable." (news.agendainc.com/mt-agenda/content/archives/media/index.html)
Mysticfeline 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Jones in Denmark?

I remember this episode pretty well. I am pretty sure that Jones was not in Denmark, as he did later appear in the studio at the desk with Jon during that same episode. I know he did actually push the passerby, but I would think it may have been shot outside the studio in New York City. I don't know, but all I can say is I'm sure he's not in Denmark. 71.252.21.89 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been to New York, but I have been to Copenhagen, and I'm pretty sure that was Nyhavn where he pushed the passerby. In other words, he's most probably in Denmark.

Dr. Schnellkopf 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that two-part segment, and yeah, they did film part in Denmark. Remember: they record their segments not in the studio (the latter are also recorded, but usually the same day). It's not too difficult to see how they were able to have him actually in Denmark for those recordings. Also, if you recall, nothing in that segment was too time-sensitive, it was just a loose report on the mindset of the Danes in light of the Muhammed cartoon flap. --Bobak 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he appeared later in the studio, but the broadcast wasn't live or anything of that sort. --Zagsa</font>]] 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

The in-line external links would be better if they were converted to footnotes using the <ref> tags. That way, the numbering would be consistent.--Esprit15d 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohio - First Section

Is it really that important that The Daily Show *might* be taping for a while in Ohio? I mean, its in the first section of the article and it might happen... does that comment really belong there?

Split needed

This article is just physically too long. I suggest moving the "History" section to a separate article, and cutting the History section in this article to one or two paragraphs, with a link to the main History article at the top. I've seen this done is several articles.

Does anyone object to my doing this? Herostratus 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)#

It certainly isn't anywhere near the longest articles we have, but is over the suggested limit and a very large proportion is taken up by history. I would, therefore, tend to agree the section be split off into History of the Daily Show (and have put a split suggestion on the history section).

However, I would suggest that each subsection of history be summarised into one or two paragraphs as opposed to the whole history section just being one or two paras (which is way too extreme). When created History of The Daily Show could also be expanded to include some summaries of individual episodes (as suggested above).

I'd wait until others respond to the tag I've put on the article, and, if there is consensus, have a look at other History of articles for ideas on how to split.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright information

Does anyone know how the The Daily Show crew obtain copyrights for the various clips? Is it under the Fair Use clause or do they have a royalty system? I am interested in knowing this, as it could be a news show as well as a comedy show.

I am also interested in knowing how the copyrights work in any other comedy show say Late Night Show or Tonight Show or the Colbert Report. Anyone?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormant25 (talk • contribs)

Everything they air is copyrighted. This applies to all the shows unless they state that they release it with a free license (which wont happen any time soon). --Cat out 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh.. no; I didn't mean the The Daily Show videos, but the clips they acquire to criticize mainly from Fox News, CNN, NBC etc. Does it qualify as fair-use? I think an encyclopedia should have some information about this, as I am racking my brains here. Not that it matters, and not that "obviously it is fair use", but where is the line drawn if there is one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfxguy (talk • contribs)

Yes, the Daily Show relies on fair use. After all, if they were required to obtain permission, they would have less than one day to do so. Lawyers don't usually work that quickly, as they are paid by the hour. ;) 71.105.98.198 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending, but what proof do you have for that fact? I know that it will be a "widely held and obvious" fact, but do you have some links or pointers to that effect?

Well Wiki's fair use page says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,... is not an infringement of copyright." So I'm guessing that since the Daily Show critiques, comments and sometimes reports news, their use of copyrighted videos is appropriate and legal. Gdo01 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tonight they referred to John_Oliver_(comedian) as the "newest" staffer.

What does that mean for Aasif_Mandvi??

Hopiakuta 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh...that he's not? Roehl Sybing 19:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry support

I believe it was the night before the election that Stewart, after having spoken about how the Bush administration's lunacy made his job all too easy, said, "Make my job difficult." So there's no need for the {{cn}}. Zerblatt 07:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Joel McHale

I heard that when Jon leaves the show Joel McHale from The Soup would become the guy to replace him. Is this true?User:alfredosolis

I hope not. The guy from The Soup is NOT funny at all.

I was wondering if any one knew the movie that they showed March 15 when Sandra Bullock was on, they where talking about Iran and 300, it was the movie clip that they showed dipicting jews. If you know could you email me at spencerjfish@yahoo.com

I believe the joke about Jon Stewart being like Willy Wonka mixed with Hitler came from Ed Helms' human interest story, not a Stephen Colbert 'interview'. Can anyone verify this? -- Mac OS X 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation 8 link dead, typos and cleanup

The citation "8. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52300 No joke! 'Daily Show' substantive as network news New study says comedy program just as informative as 'serious' TV broadcasts. WoldNetDaily (Octover 2006)." appears to be a dead link, in the section The Daily Show as a "news source". There are also some typos and such floating around in the article, I fixed some of them but probably missed a few. Null Nihils 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

UTC-5

What is 11:30 UTC-5? Unless the shows airs at the exact same time worldwide, I don't think there's really any need to define it based on a time zone. And if it does, why use an obscure time zone like UTC-5, "used in the Central Time Zone during Daylight Saving Time." Theshibboleth 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

well, wikipedia uses the "UTC" format. dposse 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

International

Since TDS is now broadcast 4 days a week on freeview channel More4 in the UK, it's probably incorrect to say that Canada's the only country that has it broadcast 4 days a week on free-to-air channels... J•A•K 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

2007

Criticism

The article seems to brush off the Criticism as being trivial.220.238.214.119 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms sound trivialized because the criticisms listed have been rebutted by "defenders of the show", so proponents have the last words. If you know any follow ups by the critics, feel free to add them so it does not sound trivialized. --Voidvector 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Edition intro

This edition is always prefaced by the following announcement, which is also displayed in written form against a Daily Show background: "The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And its opinions are not fully thought through."

I can't recall ever seeing this on More4 - is this notice actually part of the Global Edition supplied to foreign broadcasters or just added for the CNN International transmission? Timrollpickering 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with The Eleven O'Clock Show?

The line in the introduction that mentions this programme is perhaps not that well worded, as I think the Daily Show pre-dates the Eleven o'Clock show by a few years. Can anyone confirm this?

Tozznok 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spinning Globe

One subtle joke in the show which I've never seen referenced anywhere is that whenever they have the graphic on the bottom of the screen showing the name of whoever they're interviewing or the name of the "on-site" reporter giving a story, there's a little animation of a spinning globe on the lower-right corner. However, instead of spinning in the proper direction, it's spinning end-over-end, completely off-axis. I'm pretty sure this is a reference to one of the major network's news programs (I forget which one), which for years featured a globe spinning in reverse during its intro scenes before somebody pointed it out. Can anybody remember which news program that was? Lurlock 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now. With the set-redesign, they've taken away the summersaulting globe and replaced it with a larger, snazzier one that is spinning in the proper direction. Just wondering if I was the only one who noticed this... Lurlock 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging List of awards won by The Daily Show

The 22 awards this show has won should be listed in a section of this article rather than a seperate one (which ironically also includes awards lost by the show). I'm mentioning it here first if anyone wants to preserve the table format from List of awards won by The Daily Show, if not I'll just merge the awards won here. Saikokira 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's a pretty long list (and likely to get longer) to add to this already decently long article. And award nominations are still significant, so even if they didn't win, it's worth mentioning. (Just try telling Oscar nominees that it doesn't count if they don't win...) It might be acceptable to take the most important wins and mention them on the main article, but certainly not all of them, and the list of awards page should be preserved either way. It's not like this is the only show with a separate page for a list of awards. In fact, quite a few of them do, especially if they've been around for a little while. I'd say keep it. Lurlock 13:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the awards list is way too long and cumbersome to make any positive addition to the main article. Keep it as is. Wadester16 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree! Both articles are to big to fit into one article --Fantastic fred 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Issues in Criticism

This article is rife with phrases such as "some say" and "defenders of the show say." I am all for criticism sections but you gotta back it up. Further citing to another article that uses this phrasology (sp?) does not give this type of language any more force.

In the tradition of the Rick Mercer Report?

How can The Daily Show be in the tradition of the Rick Mercer Report? When The Rick Mercer report made its debut The Daily show had been on the air for eight years! If anything The Rick Mercer Report was inspired by The Daily Show. My sugestion would be to say The Daily Show came from the tradition of This Hour Has Seven Days.--Fantastic fred 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the Daily Show liberal?

The following quote is really hard to misinterpret:

CP: Some critics have accused “The Daily Show” of being overly liberal though you have mix of Democrat and Republican guests, and liberals are the butt of jokes sometimes. How do you respond to the critique?

SC: Um, we are liberal [...][1]

I do not take this to mean that Colbert is a liberal pundit, but it is clear that he has open liberal/left leanings (and by "he" I mean "he" in the context of his work on the show and not merely personally because the above quote is put to him in the context of his work at the show). I am not willing to say that he is guilty of "liberal bias", because as I have said many times he and Jon take shots at all sides. I am not willing to call the show merely "liberal". I think a compromise is in order and would like to hear some suggestions. Outright reversion of the issue, as TurtleScrubber has persistently done, is no longer appropriate and if arbitration is necessary, so be it.Yeago 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I still completely disagree with how you interpret the quote above. In addition, the quote is only has a limited use in "deciding" if the show is liberal or not. What are your suggestions for a compromise? Turtlescrubber 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree, explain how you interpret the quote, as I have asked you twice now? How can I suggest a comprimise if I don't know how anyone else thinks?Yeago 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the quote as stephen colbert calling himself and John Stewart liberals. I have said this before. Turtlescrubber 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you account for why he said this as a direct reply to the stance of their shows? Your interpretation assumes a subject change from a) the liberalness of their shows to b) their personal political sentiments.Yeago 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He never said "our show is liberal" or the "daily show is a liberal show". He said "we are liberal". This is not a sufficiently strong statement and it's ambiguous enough in it's meaning that we should have more evidence before we label the daily show. I mean, it wasn't even John Stewart who said it. It seems like this is grasping at straws. I see the daily show as a show with a liberal host and not a liberal show. If the intent of the show was to be liberal you should be able to find more thorough and convincing evidence. Turtlescrubber 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But how can you honestly interpret that statement? Especially considering the followup of "we are liberal BUT we're very respectful of conservative guests." Why the need for the caveat if he's not admitting that the show is intended to be liberal? Why answer a question that wasn't asked? And furthermore why answer a question that everyone already knows the answer to? Jon and Stephen are both very openly liberal in their personal views; asking them if they're liberal would be like asking President Bush "Some people accuse you of being conservative. How do you respond to this?" Really, the situation is more like asking "Some people accuse your administration of being conservative. How do you respond to this?" and having him say "We are conservative." Either Stephen was speaking in "the royal we" form or he was referring to "we" as the show. Even if he was totally confused and answered the wrong question, that's not something we should speculate on as fact. Pellucid 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously guys. Enough. I am not convinced. The quote is not convincing to me. I stand by my interpretation. Stephen Colbert is also not John Stewart or the producers of the show. You need better evidence. It should be easy to find. Please go find it. Right now your just wasting my time and cluttering up the talk page.Turtlescrubber 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bull-headedness is not constructive. Even after the things I said about Pellucid's stance I was able to look past my own. You're the one wasting our time by not engaging in a serious discussion. You refuse inclusion of any other perspective than your own, which is disgusting and causing problems, as it is clear to me by the constant battling on 1/2 Hour News Hour that the article needs to become more centered. Until then I guess its revert war.Yeago 18:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A revert war over one word with one "source". Please. That is ridiculous. You haven't even talked about a compromise version. I guess it's your way or no way right. Turtlescrubber 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And please be civil in all future correspondence. This is the second time you have insulted me. I do not appreciate your lack of civility and your insulting demeanor.Turtlescrubber 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't because you aren't willing to budge on your interpretation of "we".Yeago 23:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jon Stewart said that the people on the show were liberal, not that the show itself was. I would remind you that most news agencies are owned by conservatives, but are not usually accused of a conservative bias (though they did tend to gloss over the fact that the secretary said that she never wrote the rathergate document she did write documents to the same effect, a fact that I only learned because the daily show included that part of the interview). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Found a source: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/60II/main644561.shtml ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Get Rid of Foreign Editions Section??

Leaving aside the perennial debate as to whether or not the show is liberal, I don't understand why a substantial section of this article is devoted to listing its various non-US editions, complete with when they air. People should get that information from TV Guide, not Wikipedia, as I don't think its encyclopedic knowledge in nature. Cutting that section would allow the article either to be shortened or for some other section to be expanded upon. Unless there are objections, I will remove that section in a few days. Nicolasdz 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section is too long for the article, however there is clearly some interest in the various international editions. I myself am an avid Daily Show viewer, though I live in the UK, and it is of interest to me what content is available here, and I am also curious about its availability in other countries. My suggestion is to move the majority of the section to, say, List of The Daily Show broadcasts by nation.--Pipedreambomb 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think changes made for the international market, such as cutting the final "checking in" with Stephen Colbert for the UK broadcast, are of encyclopedic interest as they show how the show is seen differently around the world. Maybe a list of every single international broadcaster is a bit excessive, but information that explains why the edition seen in the UK doesn't quite match what's described here is useful content. Timrollpickering 00:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Global Edition in other countries

I would like to inform you that through CNN international, "The Daily Show" is broadcasted in Greece too. The same way as you describe for India! You can add it if you want! Goldimit 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob Corddry

Although Corddry appeared on last night's show and was listed in the credits as a correspondent, Stewart said on the show that he is no longer on payroll. There is also no mention of Corddry on the Daily Show website. As such, I suggest we move him from correspondents to alumni (or at least contributors). -- Noetic Sage 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Writer's Strike?

Does anyone know if the Daily Show is going to continue to churn out new episodes or go on reruns because of the strike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.236.133 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It and The Colbert Report are in re-runs until further notice. The New York Times has reported that they're trying to change the formats of the shows so as to not require a writing staff during the strike, but nothing has been officially stated. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) So much stuff happening - martial law in Pakistan, UK data lost, McClelland saying Bush knew about Plame. If I was a conspiracy theorist nut, I would be tempted to claim that the WGA strike was a right wing conspiracy to shut down the Daily Show and the Colbert Report! --206.230.48.50 (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to mention the strike in this article? Not necessarily all the information in 2007 Writers Guild of America strike, but it has had an impact on the Daily Show [2]. Responsible? (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of first episode with Jon Stewart as host

The History section of the page includes the following statement: "Jon Stewart took over as host on Monday, January 10, 1999." However, the first videos I can find on www.thedailyshow.com are for January 11, 1999. Furthermore, according to the calender on my computer, January 10, 1999 was actually a Sunday. Am I correct that this should be changed to read "Jon Stewart took over as host on Monday, January 11, 1999."? --Teratron 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordering the Prominent Guests list

The list is US-Centric, but it is a US show. However, non-US heads of state were relegated to a position below US Senators, which doesn't fit the neutral international POV. It also seems to me that Nobel Prize winners should be accorded a spot on the list, and that the list relies too heavily on government executive job == prominent.

Arcaheradel (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"The half-hour long show premiered" but it used to be an hour

The opening paragraph states "The half-hour long show premiered on Monday, July 22, 1996..." I'm fairly certain I remember the show premiering as an hour long show, switching to a half-hour format during its first season. I don't have a citation, just my memory. I suggest changing the wording, as it suggests that the show premiered as a half-hour show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblez (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's always been a 30 minute show. Comedy Central isn't known for producing 60 minute shows either (aside from stand-up specials, but that's different). Probably safest to find a citation to back up your memory before making a change (especially since nobody else has commented on this or argued for it).Dp76764 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

News parody as a genre and article

I will leave this to the genuine scholars amongst you, but a search for the phrase "news parody" on Wikipedia and Google showed no actual genre by this name or scholarly articles to speak of. Perhaps, due to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, it should finally be recognized as an official sub-species of parody and have a Wiki article written. Talk amongst yourselves. J.A.McCoy 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

John McCain

John McCain has been on The Daily Show several times. It has to of been at least 5 times. Should that be listed? That he is a frequent guest or something? 216.141.239.117 11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As of this comment, John McCain continues to be the most frequently appearing guest of The Daily Show, with the last appearance on 16 August 2007. I remember this episode and the jokes between Steward and McCain about this 'record.' Check the "List of Daily Show Guest" for the complete list. Spectre9 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Black and Demetri Martin

Should we make mention of Lewis Black's and Demetri Martin's upcoming shows "Red State Diaries" and "Important Things with Demetri Martin" in the spinoffs section? Diddydoobop 09:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Half hour news hour

The new half hour news hour should be mentioned somewhere.. possibly under spinoffs? It is definitely relevent to this article.

Since it has no connection to The Daily Show, it can't be a spinoff.

It still should me mentioned somewhere.

cs302b

2008

On location vs green screen

On 20 August 2007 the show began a segment called "Operation Silent Thunder: The Daily Show in Iraq" in which correspondent Rob Riggle gives a report from Iraq. The title was later changed to "Operation Fluffy Bunny" with Riggle noting that "I guess all the good adjective-noun combinations are taken." The "Operation Fluffy Bunny" segment featured a much-visited remark by Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana that Iraq is "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime" along with pop-culture references to the 1994 movie Forrest Gump. The segment was once again changed to "Operation Macho Kick-ass" which featured soldiers' opinions on the Iraqi Parliament taking vacation from their duties during the month of August. "Operation Macho Kick-ass" in turn became "Operation Thundering Cameltoe". The name was accredited to a less-suggestive Iraqi phrase that was lost in translation.

We already mention several cases where the fact it was in front of a green screen was made clear so perhaps this isn't necessary but IIRC didn't the above segment have one episode where there were 2 people supposedly reporting from Iraq whereas it was later revealed one was simply using the background of the other one's report? Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If I remember correctly, Riggle was live, and Aasif Mandvhi was using his feed as the background. -- Viewdrix (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Jones did Chasing the dragon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.12.238 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

writers strike mistake

i don't know if it is just me but after jon said that whole a daily show instead of the daily show after coming back from a commecial brack i saw the daily show instead of a daily show on the opening title comming back so you might want to watch the show's title more carfully during the show to see if they didn't change it. 71.117.30.38 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)tim dalorane71.117.30.38 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart is calling it 'A' Daily Show to show his support for the writers strike however the network it's on still recognises it a 'the' hence the commercial break titles being the same as pre strike. Hope that clears it up Agent452 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that is does not belong in the lead. The show is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Somewhere in the body, the temporary shift to A should be mentioned. Articles shouldn't have temporary leads that have to change according to what's going on at the moment.Kww (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How is he supportting the strike?? There seems to be little difference from before the strike. Who is writing the jokes etc??Macca7174 _talk 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Split

There are two separate articles for Late Night With Conan O'Brien and Late Night With David Letterman. I think that should be the case here, as well. The Daily Show With Craig Killborn has little to do with today's show and probable doesn't deserve to be called Peabody and Emmy Award-winning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.60.180.3 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you because Jon Stewart has many different segments than Kilborn. Anybody else back up on this?--Matt on Wiki (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart's start date

Tonight's show, Jan. 17, 2008, had a clip of Jon Stewart from 1998. It says his start date was 1999 on this page. Is this wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.192.31 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A Daily Show?

I think it might be important to add the A Daily Show to this article, because recently they have changed their name from "The" to "A" if anyone has a good source on why they changed their name could you please post it? Could you also post it here as well, because I would like to know myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.17.148 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

They changed it in a show of support for the writers during the writer's strike. They wanted to make clear that the only reason they're on the air is because Comedy Central forced them to return, and that what is currently airing isn't the "real" Daily Show, so to speak. As it is A Daily Show has been redirected here. Is an explanation warranted? I'm not really sure either way. Stewart explained it on the first night back. faithless (^speak) 11:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing me The show will continue to honor the strike, with neither the show's writers nor Stewart performing their normal writing duties. To acknowledge this fact, the show is currently known as A Daily Show with Jon Stewart rather than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and will be until the end of the strike.[4] who is writing the show then? Gnevin (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably scabs. faithless (^speak) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really clear how much actual writing's going into the show. They are obviously preparing the material, but they don't appear to be reading off any script. They've also been airing (eg. Our Dead Planet) or repeating (eg. Thursday's Oliver/Wilmore report) segments that were written and filmed before the beginning of the strike. Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Faithlessthewonderboy if you have an issue with unclear ,maybe use unknown or vague. This info is important and shouldn't be blanked Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included at all. Just because you and I don't know who is writing the show doesn't mean anything. I don't know how they split the atom, but that doesn't mean I should edit nuclear fission and say, "It's unclear how this works." :) faithless (^speak) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very relevant point in terms of the strike, this show stopped because or the stike and has come back midway through without explained who will write the show . Perhaps that wording is better

To acknowledge this fact, the show is currently known as A Daily Show with Jon Stewart rather than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and will be until the end of the strike.[4]. It was however not clearly explained by Stewart who would be writing the show or to what extent' Gnevin (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How can a show we preplanned video clips be ab lib? Gnevin (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How can your head be so far up your ass. Does it matter, we have sources saying stuff is ad-libbbed. therefore, its adlibbed. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles as your new i'll point you to WP:Civil and leave it at thatGnevin (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles Stewart (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)(ec)It says largely ad-libbed, not totally. More importantly, it's sourced, which is the most important thing. If you find a source which explains exactly who is doing what, then by all means include it. faithless (^speak) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we say ad-libbed around pre-planed topics ?otherwise fine Gnevin (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

makes sense. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA delist (article sweep)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 5, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Detailed comments:

Since the article was listed as a GA in 2006, the criteria have been revisited and significantly tightened up (especially with regard to referencing). With regard to the current standards:

Criterion 1 (well written): The prose generally flows well and is pleasant to read. However, the lead does not provide an adequate summary of the article (per WP:LEAD), and there are a number of short paragraphs that might be best incorporated into their surroundings. There are also a large number of lists, some of which may be better either written into the prose, trimmed, or placed into separate 'list of...' type articles. Additionally, the article contains a number of minor WP:MOS violations (eg references spaced after punctuation).

Criterion 2 (factually accurate): This is the major area that needs attention; the article contains numerous gaps in its referencing, with some sections completely uncited and others only sparsely so. On the same subject, all web cites should include a retrieval date (we recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to ensure a standard format, but this is only a preference at present).

Criterion 3 (broad in its coverage): This may seem contradictory given the criterion, but in some ways the article coverage is too broad - resulting in a loss of focus. I believe more sections could be forked off into articles of their own without losing the essential coverage of the subject.

Criterion 6 (images): The image 'Kerry on the Daily Show.jpg' lacks a detailed fair-use rationale (the template {{Non-free use rationale}} might be useful here).

As a result of the amount of work required to bring the article up to current standards, I have reluctantly delisted it as a GA. Please feel free to renominate the article when the above issues have been addressed. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

US Army Web Filtering Policy

Changed the information about the show being broadcast on AFN to reflect that (1) the ban on streaming media is only on government-owned computers; a Service Member should be able to access the site via a computer provided by the United Service Organization or at Morale, Welfare and Recreation facilities, or by using a personal computer on a commercial connection. Also added citation for Army Regulation 25-1. Kant Lavar (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Redo

I have redone this page. all erased information can be recovered from article " The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" --Matthew (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have turned that back into a redirect, there has been no consensus reached. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I started a timeline. Any help would be appreciated.--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interviews and Guests neutrality tag

Does anyone know why that neutrality tag is in the interviews and guests section. I don't see how the Seat of Heat stuff is not neutral, but if anyone finds the stuff after it to be not neutral, I don't see a reason why that stuff just can't be deleted. It doesn't seem that important anyway.--DeviantCharles (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no objections...I have removed the neutrality tag. 18.250.7.42 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Attention Needed-Self Contraindication

The Liberal bias section has Bill O'Reilly both criticizing a liberal bias, and then defending the show's equality. Something ain't right kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.94.244 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Gitmo?

Gitmo, AKA the Elmo-like puppet/Gitmo detainee, is a puppet Jon Stewart controls and uses for his "Guantanamo Baywatch" segment. This should be added to the article.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm inclined to think that's a bit trivial. If we include every amusing joke from the show's run, it's going to be a long article. Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- although Gitmo was very funny, it was simply one of hundreds of funny 'bits' Michael.Urban (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

International broadcasters

How relevant is the subsection on international broadcasts of the show? It's very long and is essentially only a list of countries and broadcasters which air The Daily Show. My feeling is that it's not particularly necessary; the small section on TDS Global Edition provides all the relevant information. And if the list is deemed that important, couldn't it be moved to a page of its own? -Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Daily Show/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show; the only thing better, in my opinion, is The Colbert Report :) Okay, on to the review!

In the References, some of the publishers link back to The Daily Show. Since it's already on that page, they then become bolded terms. Unlink them so they do not appear bold.
Remove periods at the end of image captions that are not full sentences per WP:MOS#Captions
There are quite a number of references in the lead, leading me to believe that the information covered there is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Generally, the lead does not need any references because the information there should also later be mentioned again in the body of the article. If this is not the case, please ensure that it is. If it is the case, then the references in the lead are not needed.
Make sure that punctuation marks are placed properly; for instance, in ""This Week in God,"", the punctuation mark should be outside the quote, so that it's ""This Week in God"," per WP:PUNC. The only time the punctuation goes inside the quotes is when it logically belongs in the sentence inside the quote.

Overall, excellent work on this article. The Colbert Report has been a GA for some time now and I would love to see this one be there, too. I'm a bit surprised that neither articles need to be semi-protected, considering the number of times that Stephen Colbert has mentioned Wikipedia and told his audience to vandalize it :) Gary King (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some references use {{citation}} while others use {{cite web}}. Choose one or the other.
"Craig Kilborn hosts an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." – is not a full sentence; "Craig Kilborn while hosting an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." would be a sentence. Either remove period or reword.

Gary King (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to know who is the show's announcer. I read "Each episode opens with a deep voice" and immediately wondered if it couldn't just say "Each episode opens with John Smith announcing" or something. I did quick research and found that Drew Birns is the announcer; I don't have a reliable reference, though, only his personal website. Perhaps you will have better luck?

Also, all dashes like in "correspondent - typically" need to be en dashes per WP:DASH
Incorrectly placed punctuation in "In," though" – it should be outside like "In", though" per WP:PUNC. Non-sentences have punctuation outside.
The issues in the article are mostly MOS; referencing is good, and writing is good too.

Gary King (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Shoemoney2night (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor edit by moving the name. Besides that, looks good. Passing. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :) Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I saw this article and it was in very poor shape. It's nice to see that it's up to snuff – the referencing is definitely excellent, and I learned a lot from reading the article that I didn't know before about my (second)-favorite show ;) (Again, after the Colbert Report! :) ) Gary King (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here, Gary! Same here. :) And congratulations, Shoemoney2night! You've done it, and done it well! :) --Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may not be too long before this should be nominated for FA. The article looks good.Bless sins (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"'"Craig Kilborn hosts an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." – is not a full sentence; "Craig Kilborn while hosting an episode of The Daily Show in 1997." would be a sentence. Either remove period or reword.' - Uhh, no? That's not even close to correct. Whoa2000 (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasts of TDS and TDS Global Edition

I've removed the references to specific channels in Germany, Canada, the UK and Norway that carry the show, partly because the information didn't really belong in the lead but also because I don't think it's a good idea to let this grow into another huge subsection on international broadcasters (which was deleted less than a month ago). It's perfectly understandable why people might want to include that information - but, well, once you've got one or two broadcasters listed, there are sure to be people in other countries coming upon the page and tacking on their own local broadcast details, until it gets to the point (as it was before) where people are better served either checking their local TV guide or moving the information to a separate list. My suggestion would be that any further specific international broadcast information is kept out of the article or, if there's an interested editor out there, compiled in a new page. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that the way the article looks now it implies that only the edited weekly version is broadcast internationally, when in fact the original daily edition is shown in many places. I'm not suggesting a list of them, just a mention that the Global Edition is not the only one available outside of the US/Canada /85.194.44.18 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good point, I didn't think of that. Okay, I've edited the section to read, "The Daily Show airs on various networks worldwide; in addition, an edited version of the show called The Daily Show – Global Edition was devised specifically for overseas networks in late 2002." Does that sound better? -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"

I think that, while the lead is correct in calling the show "The Daily Show", to reflect that the article does not just focus on Jon Stewart's time as host, it should nevertheless also mention that "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" is the current name of the show - rst20xx (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...Well I added it - rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spinoffs section

This may have been discussed somewhere before, but shouldn't Lewis Black's show be mentioned? Not sure about the creation/production, but Black was certainly eased into the lineup through his segments on The Daily Show. I remember the ads for the show's premieres mentioned things he was known for and included "Broadway (yes, he did Broadway)" as a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of this. Thompsontough (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I had a quick read through several news articles and I couldn't find a whooole lot of information - creation/production-wise I have no idea whether the show's linked to TDS at all, or any particular indication that it was his Daily Show segments that got him the role (after all, he's also a successful stand-up comic with several comedy albums and a couple of books under his belt). Judging from that, I don't know if I'd really call it a spin-off. I'll have a more thorough hunt around tomorrow, though... kinda falling asleep at the keyboard now! -Shoemoney2night (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Black's appearances on TDS might have been just served as a catalyst. My original thinking was that it would be worth mentioning as a subsequent show starring a TDS cast member, but it's not as if Black got his start here the way Colbert did. Maybe some day Rob Riggle will get his own show and there will be more to talk about. ;) Thompsontough (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibilities of a section about audience reaction under Criticism?

I was thinking it might be worth mentioning the fairly frequent complaints that the audience tends to cheer for left-wing comments or guests and jeer against right-wing ones. I've seen the complaints multiple times - Rob Corddry himself said that the audience drove him "fucking nuts" (read both pages), I've followed TVSquad's daily episode reviews where it's a complaint that comes up every time there's a right-wing or pro-Iraq War guest, and Tina Fey made a similar criticism in Reader's Digest (transcript here, ignore the sensationalist headline). I'm a fan of the show, but it seems like a fairly credible complaint, unless you think complaints about the audience don't belong. I'd say it does since we end up hearing the audience's response as part of the show. -- Viewdrix (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleeping/Pixelation

I watch the show in the UK on More4 - all swearing is bleeped and any onscreen vulgarity (eg Clusterf@@K (sic)) is pixelated. Who does this? Is it broadcast uncensored on Comedy Central and the local stations censor or is it censored at source? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy Central still has to comply with FCC regulations, so it is bleeped to comply. The graphics aren't pixelated though, so that is probably something local to the UK. But how is this relevant to this article? Dp76764 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Several things, such as giving 'the finger' are definitely pixellated directly by Comedy Central Michael.Urban (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant in that the swearing is a major feature of the subject of the article (the show). Obviously irrelevant to the current article as neither the swearing nor the bleeping is mentioned. Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my query. TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Over in germany the Daily Show is aired also with bleeping, although there are no regulations at all (even public service will feature nudity and swearing, often well before late night). It might be relevant to the article, that the international edition is complying with the FCC, regardless where it's broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.64.3 (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)