Pajiba

Tucker who?

I still laugh my ass of every night, well the next day thanks to TIVO...I am old I can't stay up until 11 pm. I appreciate the intelligence and wit he brings to the program. I like my satire with sincerity. Otherwise, what's the point?

I think Jon Stewart has evolved somewhat, but he's still very funny, and he and Colbert are the only news shows I can stomach.

HuffPo also has a transcript of a talk show following the whole kerfluffle and the Carlson piece from TGB, which gives him a little more room to expound on the above-mentioned point. Not a fan of the TC myself, but always seems worth it to keep other viewpoints in mind. Interesting read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/tucker-carlson-rips-jon-s_n_175078.html

Of course he's still funny. I'm not even an American and I find his coverage of your news, politics, etc, excellent and frankly very informing. I find him educational damn it!!
Educational and hilarious, I laugh out loud AS I cheer, is Carlson and His Bow Tie not aware that cheering and laughter are not exclusive expressions of support?

Carlson, dude, they can go hand in hand.

I dont think Stewart has stopped being funny, he's just like anyone who's funny enough to make jokes, and clever enough to make clever jokes; He knows when it stops being a 'fucking game'

He's shown that he can be as deadly serious as any one, his first post 9/11 appearance is one of themost emotional pieces of television I've ever watched, his quietly contained, tearful joy and awe when he announced Barack's win had me standing and cheering FOR STEWART almost as much as for Barack. Let's face it, he could have gone the nutty route and whooped and cheered and run around like a comic, but he didnt, he gave the moment the dignity it so rightly deserved.

To me, in that interview with Cramer, Stewart WAS funny, he managed to keep the atmosphere light for as long as he could, he was smiling and laughing and keeping it as equal an interview as such an imbalanced scenario could be. When he DID get serious, he was, rightly IMO, like the fun headmaster, the cool headmaster who lets you get away with stuff,who teases you about misbehaving with gentle jibes and corrections, showing that at the end of the day, you HAVE done wrong. You HAVE screwed up and have to accept responsibility. It wasn't unfunny, it was sharp, cutting, totally honest and yeah, like you said, showed that Stewart really gives a serious shit about this. He's not using politics as fodder for comedy just because its an easy target, he's pointing out the massive flaws and mistakes and errors, but doing it in a way that makes it less terrifying and likely to leave you quivering on the floor in the foetal position waiting for WW3 to start in one country while in your own the people take to the streets and revolt.
Carlson comes off like a whiny, needy, jealous brat, like the kid who thought he was so cool being knocked off his self built pedastal by a really cool kid, and running around telling everyone how uncool this new guy is. He sounds like an eight year old. An eight year old in a bow tie.
What a dick.

Also, in the clip where Carlson openly slammed Stewart about a zillion times even as his own co hosts disagreed, they disagreed by showing evidence of him ripping on Obama, admittedly not as severely as on Bush but lets be honest, Bush damn near made an effort to keep Stewart in jokes whereas Obama is a competent human being and leader.

Stewart is still funny. Real humor comes from real issues, and he has a wealth of material at his hands in our current cultural climate, regardless of who sits in the oval office. Before, he was relegated to a certain level of bathroom humor, but now he has a distinct audience that will stay with him if he strays into the uncomfortable realms of politics, religion, and corruption.

We have to laugh to avoid crying, to avoid crying for the innocent people who died in 9-11, for the soldiers fighting and dying for a rich man's war, for a country that has alienated itself from the world, for the grandparents that can no longer afford their already meager lifestyle, for the people losing their homes, their jobs, their life because of a few people with a lot of money in corporate America, for the future leaders of America that can't afford an education today. We have to fucking laugh so we don't fucking cry.

And when fuckwads like Tucker ignore the "what" of what Stewart is saying to focus on things that don't really matter (is he funny? what the FUCK do you care??), they are avoiding the issues that we should all be talking about, the issues the Stewart is still talking about. The issues that Stewart is intelligent enough to present in a way that makes them seem not so overwhelming, and something we can all share a laugh about. The media avoids those issues because, firstly, most outlets aren't smart enough to make it funny or even approachable, and mostly because people don't spend money when they are scared. Because ratings plummet when you don't distract the mental midgets with fluff and false outrage.

Fuck you, Tucker Carlson. You are a tiny, tiny man without a banner of your own. You have nothing to fight FOR. Only an urge to find an enemy anywhere you can. And that is the easy way out.

Fuck.

"...or did his monologue in German, a response that over time is a threat to any man’s soul."

Mr. Carlson, the German language can be as beautiful or authoritative as any other foreign language. There's people who make their native tongue sound pretty, and those who make it sound like...Bill O'Reilly engaging their hindquarters in vigorous ravagery. Take a guess where you stand there, buck-o. Butt-sore indeed, (Commander)Rykker

Is Stewart still funny?

Oh come on, do we really need to ask this question? Tucker is just sore because Stewart called him out and he got fired for it. It ain't self-righteous if it's actually right is it? Fact of the matter is, with that dumbass little bowtie he's rocking, Tucker Carlson both looks AND sounds like he has someone's hand up his ass. Fucker needs a good ol' fashioned slap upside the head so he can realize just where exactly the fuck he stands here.

Basically Carlson is mad that Stewart is more popular. There might be an argument about Stewart's views from a populism angle, but this isn't it. Stewart has no obligation to be unbiased; he's not running a public service. You might be able to use that argument about NPR, or against the existence of NPR, but not against a private enterprise. If he believes that, then he better believe in nonsense like the fairness doctrine.

Does everybody here remember when he made the cover of Time magazine a few years back, and seemingly gained acknowledgment from a much larger audience? It was around then that something bad happened to the show. I hate to say it, because Tucker Carlson is a jackass, but Stewart did start to take himself too seriously, and that's when I lost interest. Still like him, but I find it harder to enjoy. So I switched my loyalties to Colbert. Same great taste, but half the ego inflating calories.

Let's face it, whether or not you consider Stewart "funny" on the daily show depends almost entirely on your political perspective. If you are slightly left or right of center, you think he is mildly amusing at times. if you are any further left than that, you think he is the smartest and funniest thing since (insert favorite comedian / political satarist here). However, even a far-right conservative like myself can find him humorous on occassion. After all, even SNL has a funny skit once in awhile.

Stewart isn't so much "funny" as he is loved and admired by his liberal audience. If I were liberal, I'm sure I would feel the same way about him, but he is not funny in the sense of making people laugh. He is funny to his audience in the sense of "boy, he sure is sticking it to the republicans and telling it like it is."

But, then again, I never though Stewart was very funny, even before he was on the Daily Show. Even his none-political stuff was never funny so much as mildly amusing.

But, he is successful at what he does and knows the the audience he is performing for, and no amount of stating he is no longer funny will diminish his audience's love for him.

In the end, this is just the usual - a less successful person attacking a more successful person in an attempt to drum up controversy and attention. This is like a pre-senate race Al Frankin calling Rush Limbaugh names. It is done to get attention.

Even as a far-right conservative, I've never thought much of Tucker Carlson. He's not that smart, not that witty, not very entertaining, and not a good debater. And the bow-tie does not help. I'm not sure how he ever got on TV in the first place.

Has Self-Righteousness Killed His Sense of Humor?

No. My god, why isn't the question "Why hasn't anyone else demanded answers from these empty talking heads?"

Again, Tucker Carlson, Jon Stewart is not your monkey. As Rykker up there so eloquently put it, you just sound butt-sore.

And really, as someone who only deals in unintentional comedy (your commentary and your bowtie), I don't really consider you qualified to comment on what is and is not funny.

Hah. Bravo.

Rowles once again I must call you out, I don’t like to but I must, I do so only to make sure you are above board. The fuck you mean you don’t know if Stewart is still funny? Of course he’s funny, stop giving me these two bit columns and start giving me the columns that made me fall in love with you, not in a homo way of course, but in a he-man sort of way.

And remember, Cramer is not a "news" person. He is a guy giving his opinion about stocks, bonds, and whatnot.

I don't watch Cramer and wouldn't listen to his advice, but blaming the problems of AIG on him is pretty stupid.

Where was the NYT, the Washington Post, the WSJ, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.? Why does Cramer take the heat? Where was 60 Minutes?

the idea that a cable television show, w/ about 1/10th the viewers (if that) of ABC, CBS, or NBC news, is to blame for people not learning the problems of AIG, is pretty idiotic.

If Stewart was truly brave and wanted to speak truth-to-power, he'd take on the big boys, not some small-time cable guy w/ a tiny audience. Stewart's not being brave here or talking truth-to-power. He is going after a guy that is easy to go after b/c there will be no backlash from anyone important while it makes Stewart look good.

And again, I don't care whether or not Stewart is funny. Funny is almost completely subjective.

Nadine and Boo said what I was going to say, only better, so in response to your question, I say -- see Nadine and Boo.

Why thank you Tira =)

And Boo, we do seem to have the same sensibilities quite often( I was trawling old posts a few days ago...because I am sad)

B/c the left has never done this.

Political tactics are political tactics, and will be employed by party hacks until they stop being useful.

And WE can make them unuseful, by NOT BUYING INTO IT, not giving it credence, no matter what side it comes from.

Every time I hear that stupid ass bullshit about Obama not being American, I want to slap the nose off the dickwipe who repeated it. It does NOBODY any favors, least of all the mouthbreather himself, because now ALL his statements are suspect.

I can't think of anything quite as egregious as that (off the top of my head) being spun by the left -- though I'm certain there are examples that others can readily cite -- but it would piss me off even more if I were to hear it from my own side of the fence.

And, there is a difference between amusing and funny. Amusing can be entertaining but not make you laugh. I would put Stewart more into that category.

I also think age is probably part of it. the whole, I'm so intelligent and hip and cynical thing works really well for younger people. I suppose if I were 10 years younger, I might find him funnier, the same way that people found Dennis Miller to be hilarious 15 years ago (before he came out as a conservative, liberals absolutely adored Miller - who had the same exact schtick as Stewart has now). I didn't really think Miller was funny then, it was mostly ego-boosting yourself if you could catch all the hip and deep referances.

It's interesting that the same type of people who love Stewart now used to love Dennis Miller. I had a ton of liberal friends who thought Dennis Miller was the funniest guy of all time. Once Miller came out as a conservative and started making jokes at liberals' expense, suddenly Miller was no longer funny or popular. I think that right there kind of proves my point regarding whether or not Stewart is "funny" in the sense of making people laugh absent agreeing with his politics.

"And remember, Cramer is not a "news" person. He is a guy giving his opinion about stocks, bonds, and whatnot."

Keep in mind Stewart clarified his position when he channeled Carly Simon, "This song ain't about you."

Stewart said flat out that his beef wasn't with Cramer but rather with the network. Tucker got that wrong too.

Cramer is as much an entertainer as Stewart. However, Cramer is also in a position of responsibility (as opposed to a comedian who's job it is not to be taken seriously.) The criticism of Cramer comes about because Cramer is doling out information that presumably people will consider when making a financial decision. Cramer is an authority in this field and is being promoted as an authority. So when Cramer - who told Stewart he is the one calling for oversight, calling to fix the "problems" - has a CEO lie to his face on his program and Cramer not only doesn't question the dude, but promotes everything the CEO is saying, that is irresponsible. And Cramer essentially admitted that.

And Google Goggle, it's true that some on the left may use the same techniques toward disinformation, but they're not nearly as organized or as good at it as the neocons.

In my opinion, political opinions aren't the sole determining factor of enjoyment of his work. A lack of self-awareness and an abundance of political seriousness, regardless of left or right views, will prevent you from understanding.

So, if I don't think Stewart is funny, I am dumb? Who has a lack of self-awareness and an abundance of political seriousness here?

I agree that political opinions are not the sole determining factor of whether or not he's funny. As I said, he's not funny on non-political stuff. But, the fact that his audience of overwhelmingly very liberal tends to suggest that people like him more for his politics than his humor.

I guaruntee you that if a comedian did a set that was 90% about how absurd and stupid the left is, including about Obama, most of the commentators here would hate it and would not find it funny at all. Personal biases do effect what we think is funny.

I don't watch Cramer and wouldn't listen to his advice, but blaming the problems of AIG on him is pretty stupid.

Can somebody get me a picture standing next to this strawman? It's huge!

google google -

I back you and agree. Stewart can have his moments, as any comedian can, but to say he's THAT consistantly funny and on the mark means you're too willing to suck his junk like oxygen's coming out of it and you're stranded on the moon.

When/IF he ever turns that supposedly keen eye on Obama and his cronies - then let's see how funny all his supporters find him. The Big O has screwed this country up even more in his first 100 days and deserves bashing for it. But where are those jokes? Whose making fun of Obama and his lack of ability to pick cabinet members who aren't either tax cheats or ex-lobbists (something he swore he wouldn't do). The Obama honeymoon hasn't ended yet.

A year or two years from now, Stewart and co. can't keep blaming Republicans for the mess were in. ALL mainstream politicans need equal treatment for people like Stewart, even if it does next to nothing besides keeping the trained seals in the audience clapping while those same politicans screw us over and over and over again.

I don't expect any entertainer to be cutting edge hysterical all the time. But I still think Stewart is funny, even his banal stuff makes me chuckle. And I appreciate his relative humility. When, at the end of his Cramer interview, he said, "I hope this was as uncomfortable to watch as it was to do," I found great respect for him, in his ability to acknowledge that yes, it was uncomfortable to watch: I don't like to see a person be humiliated in public, even if they deserve it. And that he felt discomfort in doing so.

But that's my interpretation.

And Google Goggle, it's true that some on the left may use the same techniques toward disinformation, but they're not nearly as organized or as good at it as the neocons.

Well, now that you say that I must agree. After all, the neocons are evil and secretly rule the world and meet on a regular basis to perfect their nefarious message, so it's possible you are correct that we are better at it then the left, who are just poor, noble souls who are valiently trying to get the truth out to the hard-pressed people above the roar of the neocons constant lies and smear.

As to the underlying dispute between Cramer and Stewart, I did not watch the interview, so I know nothing about it. It's fine if he is going after CNBC for not asking the tough questions, or if was defending himself against Cramer.

He has every right to do those things and I have no problem with it. I was just pointing out that CNBC has about 10 viewers altogether, so going after them for failing to ask the tough questions is like going after my H.S. Newspaper for failing to go ask the tough questions. If Stewart were serious about this issue, he would go after the networks and the network stars.

I guess if you never found Stewart's brand of comedy/political views funny in the first place it renders your opinion of him STILL being funny or not rather irrelevent.

I say he's still funny. And, actually making a difference in the media by taking them to task for not doing their fucking jobs (on the left or right). It's pretty sad when a comedian from a satire program about the news steps up and does the job better than those actually reporting the news.

Is Stewart still funny?

Yes.

The real questions for Tucker and all the NBC folk are 1) Bitter much? and 2) Would you even recognize funny if it came and bit you in the ass? Stewart still has a very popular show that is probably more informative that Carlson's show ever was and is entertaining to boot. The louder he protests, the more people will have to think back and remember that Carlson was just a ridiculous man in a bow tie on CNN some years ago that contributed nothing to any discussion and actually lost an argument to a comedian. If I were him, I'd shut up and hope people forgot how unserious and humorless I really am, rather than remind people that I was a waste of air time for years.

And if Tucker doesn't understand the relationship between good satire and earnestness, maybe someone should give him a copy of Swift's works. If that that proves too earnest for him, he can always watch Dane Cook or Dennis Miller.

Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire was stupid, annoying, uncomfortable, sanctimonious "can't we all get along" drivel. That he was able to cause the demise of that program is a testament to how unbeliveably moronic Crossfire was, not how relevant or biting Stewart was. It was a low point in his career, where he threatened to do exactly what Carlson is accusing him of.

Stewart 's CNBC feud tread far too close to that line again. His show is about mockery and grains of truth showing that the emperor has no clothes. His CNBC rant was very fun to watch, but on the facts it was mostly overblown and over-exaggerated. By engaging in a war with Cramer, he came really close to the same uncomfortable grounds I thought he had left behind after his Crossfire appearance.

Nonetheless, Stewart remains funny, entertaining, and a master of hard-hitting mockery -- the sdame things that have generated well-earned plaudits for his show (a show that, while occasionally it has a liberal bent, isn't Maddow-like in that bent and is an equal opportunity mocker).

Carlson, on the other hand, is a bitter closet case whose tumble down the celebrity pundit ladder is well-earned, thanks in part to Stewart's surprise skewering of him and his inability to respond. That column has been stewing inside of him ever since Stewart ended his career; he couldn't publish it until his personal stake in the issue had long faded from people's memories.

"Whose [sic] making fun of Obama and his lack of ability to pick cabinet members who aren't either tax cheats or ex-lobbists (something he swore he wouldn't do)."

I have seen Stewart makes jokes about this at least five times, and I don't even have cable anymore. I only catch TDS when I'm at friends houses.

Others have done a more than adequate job defending Stewart and damning Carlson, so let me just comment on this:

"No one this earnest can remain an effective satirist."

Tucker Carlson could not be more wrong. The heart of satire is sincere, EARNEST anger and disgust at pride, folly, and hypocrisy. Stewart is at his best when he takes evidence of hypocrisy and NAILS IT TO THE FUCKING WALL. Why? Because he CARES about it. Because it MATTERS. And people say, repeatedly, that he seems like the only person in the media who acts like the truth matters.

It's sort of "through the looking glass," the way Carlson writes as though Stewart, who actually KEEPS CARING--even when the cameras are off!--is the nutcase, and the fatuous Carlson, who had to "make a dinner" (with whom, I wonder), is the one with his head on straight. Imagine! Powerful media figures wasting their OWN TIME talking about their work like it matters!

People like Tucker Carlson could treat politics and character assassination like a goddamn game in the '90s, but the past 8 years have shown all of us that treating politics like a personality contest has serious, serious consequences. Thanks to people like him, we have to laugh to keep from crying.

It is only with great effort that I restrain myself from typing the gratuitous and profane expressions of rage I keep shouting at Tucker Carlson. Boy, am I PISSED right now.

Unless you were being ironic, in which case I just proved your point.

Tucker Carlson's comments should not be legitimized by any outlet. He's still sore from the fact that Stewart went on his own show and tore it down.

Partisan hack? Stewart levied that one against him also in 2004 on his own show (Crossfire).

Stewart satirizes politicians of all stripes. For people to say otherwise means they're doing the cherry-picking, not him.

Additionally, people's one-dimensional reading of Stewart prevents them from seeing him as anything other than a "comedian". Americans need to get over their labels and categories and behold a concerned American when they see one.

Stewart has clarified all of his positions before the media misrepresentation began. And although those media outlets have his clarifications word-for-word, they still choose to misrepresent.

If you don't think CNBC is in damage control now and trying to salvage their entire network's credibility, then we haven't been watching the same spectacle. CNBC put Cramer up as their scapegoat when it was Stewart himself who said Cramer and CNBC were only symptoms of a larger problem. When the source says it, why ignore it?

But media outlets chose to ignore his statements and interpret it their own way.

Most people have likened Stewart to a court jester in the old mode. He pokes fun, makes laughs, but also is not afraid of calling bullshit when he sees it. Why are others afraid to say CNBC and its ilk are full of shit? They fucking are. Stewart said it; he has a public forum and people agree with his position because there are no other public outlets for this outrage without being marginalized as a fringe discontent.

What Stewart did was basically state the obvious, then the media machine went into self-preservation mode, to make it seem as if they aren't all duplicitous bastards trying to pull wool over people's eyes so they can rifle their pockets in the process. Tell me they don't come from the P.T. Barnum branch of the American entrepreneurial spirit.

If you don't think this is operative go back to your fucking cave and pretend everything is OK.

Whither all the accusations that Stewart never takes on Obama? Any time the Obama administration has hit a speed bump he points it out and laughs at it. Just to name a couple of examples: Cabinet nominees and their tax issues; and the weirdo and kind of embarrassing gifts the administration has seen fit to bestow on foreign leaders.

I think one of Jon Stewart's main approaches to humor is to point out where stated policy and observable reality conflict with each other. The Bush administration was -- and indeed, the entire conservative movement still is -- a bonanza of such conflict. That is why it remains the primary target, and will for as long as it continues down its current path.

The other point to remember about Stewart's success is that he doesn't do it alone - his writing team should actually be the one's getting the props for keeping the show as funny as some claim it to be. Stewart's just the muppet.

wait wait... why should anyone take Carlson's piece seriously, considering that Stewart ended his 'Crossfire' career? Does no one else just view it as a petty revenge piece because they were still hurting to throw a punch in?

The Bush administration was -- and indeed, the entire conservative movement still is -- a bonanza of such conflict. That is why it remains the primary target, and will for as long as it continues down its current path.

That comment supports the whole point I am trying to make. I really am trying to avoid an argument about the merits of political thought, but the idea that the Obama administration or the liberal movement has any less such conflict is pretty funny in and of itself.

that is the whole point I am trying to make. when one is a liberal, one sees all jokes at conservative's expense as funny and entertaining. But, are the jokes truly funny, or do you like them becuase of the target? People generally do not see the same humor (or even believe the potential for such humor exists to the same extent) from one's own side. I'm willing to be that nobody here thinks Rush Limbaugh is ever funny. Yet, he has a huge audience and I would guess that a good many of them think Rush is very funny.

Ergo, such argument support my thesis that whether or not you believe Stewart is funny depends to a large degree on your political affiliation. And yes, I realize that a lot of people have said that they know X number of real conservatives who think Stewart is the funniest man alive in the comments above. And, I'm sure there are right-leaning people who do think Stewart is really funny. I don't buy that it is a very large percentage of his audience though. Indeed, at a guess I would bet that the vast majority of Stewart's audience skews fairly far left of center.

Google goggle, can you point to anyone on the right who you find would be a counterfoil to Stewart? I would really like to know.

Also, just as a complete aside to anything... I've been reading a lot of politifact.com, b/c there, everyone gets put under the same microscope.
Finally, I firmly believe that any 'news' organization should invest in that rare commodity - investigative journalism. Where are our financial Bob Woodward's?? Why are the Markopolos' of the world being ignored for so long? Why are they not running SEC? or FDA for that matter?

I think Stewart is still funny. I enjoyed the Cramer interview. I don't think it'll make much difference in coverage of financial issues. And I'm sure he knows that. I believe he is honestly dismayed that he, nighttime cable comedy show guy, seems to be the only person on TV who cares that TV news is shit. I stopped watching TV news long ago for this very reason.

"Funny," of course, is subjective. Apparently, some people think Larry the Cable Guy and Rush Limbaugh are funny, and they're not. Seriously, Limbaugh isn't funny. Mean spirited and hateful can be funny, ie, Dr. Cox and Jordan on "Scrubs," and also Daniel Tosh. Just saying mean shit about people, anyone can do that. "Mean" and "funny" aren't the same thing.

If comedians rip on Republicans more so than Democrats, it's because Republicans try to make everything a stark black/white issue, and take the stupid side of most of them. Homos. Teen pregnancy. Race relations. The "drug war." The War On Terror. It's always easier to portray uptight people as assholes, usually you just step aside and let them speak for themselves. But don't worry, Democrats, you're just as stupid.

I'm sure Stewart would love to have the head honcho at CNBC on his show and ask him the same questions he asked Cramer, but we all know there's no fucking way that's gonna happen.

Yes, everyone who is a conservative hates everything and everyone, and all liberals are pure as the driven snow.

I can point out many, many, many very successful liberal commentators who are nastier than Rush Limbaugh has ever been. Olberman, Frankin, just for starters.

The idea that liberals are good, kind people and conservatives are evil, mean people is about as childish as it gets. I disagree with you on policy, on what is the best thing for the country as a whole to allow the most people to be successful and happy. I disagree with liberals philosophically on what the role of government should be and what powers government should have. In your mind that makes me evil and mean and means I hate everyone.

Just making that statement really seems to identify you as someone who hates people who are different then you - anyone who thinks diffently than you. Sure, maybe you idolize cosmetic differences in people, color, ethnicity, etc. But think differently than you? Must be some kind of monster.

I'm amazed that, after all this time, Tucker Carlson has not realized that his saying something does not make it so. I still laugh my ass off at Stewart every night, and I still respect him in the morning.

Man, how dare you even ATTEMPT to suggest he may not be funny!

You're rockin' the establishment here at Pajiba! Dozens of hipster readers will rise to smite you for even thinking such a heretical thought!

I can't wait for the hard hittin follow up piece, "Is Tina Fey Talented?". Radical thoughts on a radical web page! You goofy libs!

goggle, why so bitter?

Are you here to instigate?

Let me say that I am neither liberal nor conservative, but that i do lean more so towards the left.
Now, at what time exactly did slash call you evil(or anyone at all)?
He did say that conservatives can look at things in black and white(not always true) and you interpreted(twisted) it into an entirely different type of arguement, of good versus evil, which is one of the most supreme examples of (black and white) simple thinking.

In effect you validated his point(slightly).What might surprise you is that despite the fact that i love tds, i agree that the audience is,(knowingly or not) being spoonfed news with a liberal slant, but please dont make broad(black and white) generalizations about the popularity of this show being based on that slant.

Attempting to force wounded vets to have pay for their injuries through private insurers?

Funny you should mention that, Some Guy. Perhaps you should watch even, say, the first 5 minutes of The Daily Show from this past Tuesday. It's almost as if Jon Stewart immediately, and effectively, called out the Obama administration on the idiocy (not to mention unfairness) of that exact plan.

Eh. I can't help but think he's a little bit right. I haven't really laughed at all at the Daily Show lately. It's still interesting, but the humor is waning. And yeah, the audience is a bit ridiculous in its infatuation with him.

ROFLMAO

A douce-bag who got torn to shreds and is an avid conservative doesn't find it funny that despite Democrats being in charge the Republicans are still the best source of humor?

Tucker's post is trolling at it's finest; let's not give it any credence by re-posting it here as if Tucker's head was anywhere but 6-feet up his own ass.

I hate the argument of "self-righteousness" because it loses it's base if the "righteousness" is not based on self but on fact.

Jon Stewart is "fact-righteous," meaning he will fight in favor of truth and facts; he doesn't believe things simply because that's how he feels (i.e. Bush, Limbaugh, any conservative opinion whatsoever), he belives in things because of vast amounts of empirical evidence that thave been presented in an intelligent matter.

Fuck Tucker Carlson.

"Is Tucker Carlson's vagina still smarting because he was the first star eliminated from Season Three of Dancing With The Stars?"

That's way to easy a question to answer...

No, John Stewart isn't funny anymore. His co-anchors are funny (John Oliver, Wyatt Cenac, Larry Wilmore), his staff and photoshop artist's are funny, but no, he isn't nearly as funny as he used to be. Sometime ago he went from being funny and insightful to being a terrible impressionist who mugs at the camera non-stop and insightful. If you've actually been watching the program for the past few years, you'll have noticed that the best parts of the show have been the correspondent pieces, which for the most part have ended in the correspondent telling Stewart that he's not cool, or smart, or funny because he's not. And that's funny, because it's true. I do agree with his opinions, I'll certainly not take that away from him, but if it was just John Stewart by himself for a half an hour going from high voice to crappy Bush impression to the ever grating "Cheyney Waaagh" (FOR FUCK'S SAKE, ACTUALLY STUDY BURGESS MEREDITH'S PENGUIN FOR A FEW HOURS AT LEAST, YOU FUCKING HACK!!!) you'd basically be watching the equally unfunny Keith Olberman. The Daily Show has produced a slew of excellent comedians and put them in their rightful place, which is a much bigger audiance, and it does serve to call attention to the great hypocrisy in our politics and media, but is John Stewart still funny?

No.

No prob, slash.
I know what you mean , and I'm sorry to call you a "he".

I just can't stand when someone instigates pointless arguements like that, it annoys me........

....with maybe the exception of pookie.

Does this seem coherent, by the way? I'm "typing" from a wii browser; basically a watered down cell phone browser with shitty flash.

Tucker is a entertainer at this point. He has lost all credibility and is just another sore loser shouting at anyone who will listen. It's a bit sad.

the answer is: Yes. He is still damn funny.

And as for self-righteousness--Stewart would be the first to mock any self-righteousness on his part. Being sincerely angry and outraged does not make him self-righteous. It just makes him righteous.

Furthermore, trying to have a legitimate discussion with an actual d-bag (Mr. Cramer, here), who pretends to acquiesce when he had been going on every NBC network to slag off on Jon, and becoming frustrated at the false innocence that Cramer put forth do not make him a pontificating d-bag without a sense of humor.

"I think Jon Stewart has evolved somewhat, but he's still very funny, and he and Colbert are the only news shows I can stomach."

Really? News? THIS is what is scary to me. That people actually consider this news. Wow.

Tucker Carlson is a dolt...Jon Stewart is a comedian...and Jim Cramer is like any other jackass spouting his opinion. NONE report news. Only opinions.

Yes, Some Guy, he has. In fact, he's taken the administration to task quite a few times.

I have no problem with this thread as a free exchange of opinion, but I absolutely do not understand all this negativity aimed at the Daily Show by people who clearly aren't even familiar with the show's current focus. Making the assumption that Jon Stewart is only going after republicans based on how he treated the election coverage is specious. The show continues to evolve whether or not you're watching.

Moreover, Jon Stewart is not personally responsible for the idiocy of his fans. He seems as uncomfortable as I am with the blind devotion they give him. If he were as self-righteous as people here are claiming, he wouldn't have mocked his own Cramer interview (as he did on Wednesday, "Tucker Carlson was right about you!"). The reason I tune in to TDS when I can, is that his gentle self-deprecation has managed to keep him likeable for me. I don't get my news from the Daily Show; I get it from NEWS outlets, but I certainly enjoy his version of it more than theirs.

I always confuse Tucker Carlson with Mo Rocca

Is Stewart still funny?

Yes.

And anyone who thinks he hasn't gone after Obama hasn't watched the fucking show in three months.