The Daily Show

if I know my ilx my man will now c&p something from one of the cited satirists and ask "I don't see how that's any kind of a big deal"

lol liberal arts bias @ "basic course reading for a B.A."

ok i guess my point is: who was reading swift at the time? is there any point in comparing satire in a largely pre-urban, pre-literate, and certainly pre-democratic society, with the kind of project stewart is engaged in?

who is doing the 'regarding' of horace, in england?

i don't know if it connects with tombot's point--which i basically agree with--but you seem to savour that acid. i don't know if good satire even needs to stand up for the very special posterity conferred by eng lit reading lists -- but that takes us back to peter cook & weimar germany i guess.

haha I actually came back to this thread because I had just run across Tom Lehrer quoting that Peter Cook line, which I hadn't heard before - for those who also didn't know it:

"I don't think this kind of thing has an impact on the unconverted, frankly. It's not even preaching to the converted; it's titillating the converted... I'm fond of quoting Peter Cook, who talked about the satirical Berlin cabarets of the '30s, which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the Second World War."

life is a cabaret, old chum

the colbert character has exceeded its expected mileage on the strength of the comedian behind it. He's a funny guy. Characters are his thing

HE DOES ONE CHARACTER. The proper reaction to the O'Reillys is not to parody them, but beat em into a coma with a giant sock o' manure.

more great (forgotten) poli-satirists:

Paul Krassner
Mort Sahl

really he's an excellent improv comic settled into a single character that's working very well because the country as a whole cannot get out of this rut.

tombot otm here and i can understand being too disgusted with the rut to feel like smirking about it.

on the other hand i think the whole "oh noes ppl watching daily show/colbert instead of GETTING ENGAGED AND GETTING ANGRY" thing (as represented by that andy sullivan post, and lots of other tut-tutting chin-strokers in the last few years) is strawman bullshit.

i could take ethan's points more seriously if he wasn't the guy who spent a few hundred posts the other year explaining how funny anne coulter is.

(oops no 'e' on ann)

(also i wasn't really sure what to think when nypd commish ray kelly said on the radio the other week that ds/colbert were his favorite tv shows)

that laughing at Colbert and Stewart helps *some* people to avoid thinking about contributing to OR EVEN HOPING FOR political change seems really obvious to me.

most countries probably have this kind of show, the weird thing is the UK is able to see them now -- a pretty recent development.

they are far, far stronger than our nearest equivalents. i can see that they are cynical, but for cynicism they have nothing on the nearest UK equivalents, one of which is an impressionist show with rory bremner, the other a fake panel game, 'have i got news for you'.

xpost: i dunno morbs. that doesn't track. how do you even get jokes about, like, alberto gonzales' congressional testimony if you don't know about alberto gonzales' congressional testimony to start with? i mean, maybe these people exist, but postulating their existence as "obvious," i don't get. there's 175 cable channels of shit you can watch if you want to avoid thinking about contributing to even hoping for political change, and you're telling me the people who tune into the one cable channel where you can get jokes about alberto gonzales and warrantless wiretapping are the ones looking for escapism? the daily show/colbert fans i know are the same ones who read the papers and read talkingpointsmemo and organize petitions to recall local corrupt politicians and run for school board and work the polls on election day and all that goody-two-shoes small-d democratic activism stuff -- and they like daily show/colbert because at least those shows sometimes acknowledge the importance -- or hell just the existence -- of that entire realm of politics and civic engagement that is elsewhere reduced to msnbc commentators sneering about hillary clinton's cleavage (when it's represented at all).

i can understand not thinking stewart or colbert are funny (because "funny" is a matter of taste), or thinking they've gotten stale or repetitive (because that's what happens to performers and shticks), or preferring to read theodor adorno at bedtime, or whatever. but i think the idea that they're somehow undermining the agenda they more or less stand for is just silly. i mean, that peter cook line... ok, brecht didn't stop hitler from coming to power -- but isn't that asking an awful lot of brecht? i mean, omg, two comedians on a comedy cable channel haven't brought the downfall of corporate neo-conservatism. clearly they're part of the problem!

sometimes i feel the same way tombot does except that i don't even live there.
when the punchline has something to do with guantamino and Stewart is essentially sitting there going "lololol, we torture people", I find it impossible to laugh.
The DS is way more guilty of this than the CR.

that laughing at Colbert and Stewart helps *some* people to avoid thinking about contributing to OR EVEN HOPING FOR political change seems really obvious to me.

oh plz, do not want equivocation for breakfast.

hey, have you seen the new TMZ tv show? Riveting.

also, xpost with tipsy, who said the same thing, i think

really, the whole frickin' game is rigged to get people to avoid thinking about contributing to OR EVEN HOPING FOR political change, top to bottom

Anyone who thinks that these shows are blasé about torture or shitty government dealings is either not really watching or has already made up his/her mind to shit all over them and is just coming here to register that shit. And Kenan if you really believe your last statement then...well, God love ya, Kenan.

capn save-a-colb

tipsy, those activist types you know may watch Stewart and Colbert, but they're maybe 1% of their audience. I think most of the audience knows about Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, and thinks "What can I do? NOTHING."

I'd never say Stewart 'liking' John McCain and softball-interviewing him repeatedly is any sort of factor in the grand scheme of things, but it defangs the claims of his satire.

if you really believe your last statement then

I do. I also don't believe in god's love. I'm not saying it's hopeless, just rigged.

tipsy, those activist types you know may watch Stewart and Colbert, but they're maybe 1% of their audience.

^^^ tru

I hear that 923% of northern Africa prefers salted butter.

I heard that 74% of people make up statistics to support their arguments.

Dan what's the margin for error on that one

tipsy, those activist types you know may watch Stewart and Colbert, but they're maybe 1% of their audience.

don't confuse correlation w/ causation

I think most of the audience knows about Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, and thinks "What can I do? NOTHING."

but what are you basing this on??? this is like some ilm threads where people are like "all those other people besides me who say they like hip-hop/m.i.a./radiohead like them for the wrong reasons!" i'll grant you that the only colbert/stewart fans i know are the only colbert/stewart fans i know, and maybe they're somehow an unrepresentative sample. but i don't have any reason to think that, and i'm not going to go speculating about some strawman audience of slackjawed dolts who somehow tune into political satire in lieu of political engagement. wtf else are politically engaged people supposed to be doing at 11 p.m.? holding candlelight vigils outside samuel alito's house?

Morbs did you see the last McCain interview? They might be friends but it wasn't exactly softball as I recall.

I don't know if I saw the last one, but I think the only defensible interview he could do with McCain is one where JMcC is so angry he never returns. "Hey, nice move giving legitimacy to Bush's fake-antitorture bill through! Did the VietCong remove your spine?"

xp

tips, I'm basing it (partly) upon what Generation iPod is like. It's not a strawman; Comedy Central has a large audience, hence there are a lot of slackjawed dolts watching.

now you're just doing your grumpy old man thing.

If the audience for "The Daily Show" is the same as the audience for "Mind of Mencia" I'm gonna cry.

I'm basing it (partly) upon what Generation iPod is like. It's not a strawman

you're forgetting one thing: THE JUDD APATOW FACTOR

YOU, have a superbad birthday.

xp

it's not a thing, it's me!

this is what the kids today all look like to morbs:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v2/archives/19/19.3/images/hipster.jpg

I'm basing it (partly) upon what Generation iPod is like. It's not a strawman

I'm basing it (partly) upon what Generation iPod is like. It's not a strawman

tipsy, those activist types you know may watch CNN, but they're maybe 1% of their audience. I think most of the audience knows about Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, and thinks "What can I do? NOTHING."

morbs you were funnier the first season. you need a wisecracking sidekick to liven things up. or maybe an adopted war orphan!

remember friendster? Oh man, those were the good ol days. Life was so simple then.

put a Yankee cap on that illus and you have max.

Wait, I assumed Generation iPod was a concrete group or site or something. lololololol

those activist types you know may watch Stewart and Colbert, but they're maybe 1% of their audience. I think most of the audience knows about Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, and thinks "What can I do? NOTHING."

I don't think anyone's trying to argue that watching the Daily Show instantly confers upon the viewer automatic Uber Activist status. I think it's more like: okay, watching the Daily Show doesn't necessarily, automatically mean you're politically engaged. But it doesn't automatically mean you're not, either. If I could draw a Venn diagram, I would.

http://www.someecards.com/filestorage/spo_17.jpg

put a Mets cap on that illus and you have Morbs

that guy up there with the duct tape wallet seems pretty cool. wearing the iPod with no headphones and the broken watch is an effective statement. the camera should also have no battery, and he should also carry a prepaid cellphone that has no minutes on it.

I should start secretly working out myself

when is the ideal time for secret workouts

I wouldn't know. I prefer loud, flamboyant workouts. Out and proud, baby.

Friday late-night workouts, everybody's doin' it

calisthenics after happy hour is a threat to ligaments everywhere

i would imagine 3 am is the most secretive hour to have secret workouts.

yeah, but then you just feel dirty and ashamed

kenan you always feel like that