# Daily Show



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Anyone watch last night? 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...8/Obama-on-Daily-Show-Did-he-best-Jon-Stewart


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

smiddy said:


> Anyone watch last night?
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...8/Obama-on-Daily-Show-Did-he-best-Jon-Stewart


Yes ... the entire show from credits beyond the end credits was the interview. For some reason instead of trimming the interview to fit time and sending people to the website they aired it all (bumping back Colbert). I don't blame them ... since this was a major "get".

Some complained at even the thought of a sitting president lowering himself to be on a show like Stewart's. But I see it as part of the "new media". Direct to the viewer without going through the traditional news networks.

I felt the interview was respectful. Opinions will vary on whether or not it was "hard hitting" but one must remember that this is a comedy show. Poke a little fun but don't set out to get your guests/targets fired (like Sanchez was). 

BTW: I believe it would be nice if the other side got "equal time".


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

smiddy said:


> Anyone watch last night?
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...8/Obama-on-Daily-Show-Did-he-best-Jon-Stewart


 No. Was in too good a mood after watching the Giants beat the Rangers in game one of the World Series! Didn't want to depress myself.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> BTW: I believe it would be nice if the other side got "equal time".


There's no other side for a president in office. If it were a presidential election year, then I could see the need.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I think staying away from politics altogether would be a grand plan.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> There's no other side for a president in office. If it were a presidential election year, then I could see the need.


More importantly... the Daily Show is a comedy show that picks on all sides... so there is no "other side" to that.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Apart from any political slant, it was just plain very pained and awkward for both Obama and Stewart. Neither came off well at all. Painful to watch. Obama was defensive and snippy, Stewart pulled all his punches and had no idea what to say.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Dude....  :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> More importantly... the Daily Show is a comedy show that picks on all sides... so there is no "other side" to that.


The Daily Show gave an entire episode ... extended length ... to a single guest who represents one side of the political spectrum. If the conversation were purely on non-political topics (for example, an appearance on Mythbusters to promote active science experiments for children) it could be considered benign. But they spoke on political issues and Mr Stewart didn't offer any serious rebuttal.

When other important guests have been on the show at best they get half the show ... with heavy edits and "the full interview" available only on the Internet. Not an extended length show where the guest is given full freedom to speak.

That being said since he's not running for office (at the moment) so legally the show is off the hook. They make no claim of being balanced ... so just consider it a fun interview. BTW: The issue was raised in the article quoted.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Well you would have thought that Obama coming on a comedy show would be armed with a few more jokes. That deal where Obama angrily pushed the coffee cup away from him set the whole cold, confrontative tone. Comedy is not pretty sometimes.

While the above is all true, Obama aggressively turned it into a highly politicized defense of his policies. Bill Maher could have handled last night masterfully. Stewart was left stammering. And I like him, but he was just out of his element last night.

That's why Obama wouldn't go on the Maher show. Maher's not afraid of anybody.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

While some may (right or wrong) have distain for Mr. Obama...he is typically referred to as Mr. President, as opposed to "Dude".


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The Daily Show is a comedy show... airing on Comedy Central... and shouldn't be taken seriously even if every once in a while they can't help but talk about serious things.

It wasn't as funny as it could have been... but it wasn't something I expected to be a hard-hitting interview. I am continually amazed by people (especially some of the other NEWS networks) who criticize Jon Stewart and company for not hitting guests hard...

It is a COMEDY show!

When CNN or FOX or MSNBC or (fill in your news show) has a guest, then I expect (but am always disappointed) them to tackle serious things. I don't have that expectation for a comedy show on a comedy network.

The fact that the Daily Show and Jon Stewart ever get criticized for not being serious enough is almost comedy in and of itself! Seriously.

I'm not sure why anyone would even remotely expect it. We've had political people appear on Saturday Night Live, but no one expects them to tackle serious issues or be grilled there... It's the same thing.

I guess the Daily Show does such a good job at parodying the news that some people no longer get that they are parodying the news.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It wasn't as funny as it could have been... but it wasn't something I expected to be a hard-hitting interview. I am continually amazed by people (especially some of the other NEWS networks) who criticize Jon Stewart and company for not hitting guests hard...
> 
> It is a COMEDY show!


As noted, he's had other interviews where he hit very hard and did not air the full interview. With some it seemed like he was barely able to make it through the interview due to his disagreement with their position. Politely sitting back and letting someone talk isn't funny.

It IS a comedy show ... so make it funny. Falling back on the excuse of "I'm not supposed to be fair" is cheap when they put themselves forward on a serious note.

Use Saturday Night Live as an example ... they rip people to shreds with their jokes and never forget that they are a comedy show when politicians stop by for a visit. They don't have the identity crisis.

Which newscaster was Jon parodying when he sat back and let the guest talk for the entire show? There was no parody.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Amazingly, though, I see Jon Stewart and his comedy show ripped and held to a higher standard than the supposed serious news channels and interviewers.

That's what bugs me.

Why is an inexperienced interviewer on a comedy show being held to a higher standard of professionalism than pretty much every serious news network and their corresponding shows & hosts?

Frankly, IF I worked for one of the serious news networks I wouldn't even dare criticize Stewart and his show for not asking hard-hitting questions when all my ducks clearly aren't on the same page, much less in a row!

IF Jon Stewart ever did a completely fair and unbiased serious interview it would be exactly 1 more than I've seen on any of the news networks do in my adult life... and that's very sad, considering those cable news networks are supposed to be doing just that on a daily basis.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I enjoyed the show. The whole purpose of the show was to get the younger viewers out to vote. Those same younger voters who got Obama elected. Obama knows this, Stewart knows this. I didnt see any talking points that havent already been covered on mainstream media The viewers who watch the Daily Show, but spurn watching mainstream media were the target, and it was a bullseye. We will see if it worked Nov 2nd.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF Jon Stewart ever did a completely fair and unbiased serious interview it would be exactly 1 more than I've seen on any of the news networks do in my adult life... and that's very sad, considering those cable news networks are supposed to be doing just that on a daily basis.


That is a bit harsh. I know that each network seems to have it's overall biases but not ONE unbiased serious interview? Not even from an interviewer who bucked the mold of their network?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I guess I just saw the interview as the president acknowledging the fact that there is a huge rally in Washington this weekend. It is a big elephant in the room right now and without endorsing it or snubbing it politically, he did a guest appearance on the show instead.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I guess the Daily Show does such a good job at parodying the news that some people no longer get that they are parodying the news.


You hit the nail on the head.

"A parody is a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation" according to Wikipedia.

The Daily Show does that well each and every day. Most every day they offer parody on all the 24/7 news channels which clearly deserve it. Fewer days they offer parody on the broadcast network news. And, of course, they offer parody on the subjects of the news including the Obama Administration.

Wikipedia also notes: "Often, the most satisfying element of a good parody is seeing others mistake it for the genuine article."

Indeed, The Daily Show is very satisfying because others see it as a genuine news/talking heads show. That's why for us it is the one show we never miss. With that said....


armophob said:


> I guess I just saw the interview as the president acknowledging the fact that there is a huge rally in Washington this weekend. It is a big elephant in the room right now and without endorsing it or snubbing it politically, he did a guest appearance on the show instead.


The problem with that theory is to my knowledge he didn't offer to appear on Glen Beck's show prior to that other rally.

IMHO because of the October 30 "happening" the President almost had to appear on The Daily Show to acknowledge a core group crucial in the 2008 election, members of which also happen to make up the vast majority of Stewart's audience - people under 30, particularly college students. Many are disillusioned with politics after becoming excited in 2008, a letdown which happens to every generation.

The "Rally to Restore Sanity (or Fear)" is in itself a kind of parody, but one in which they can participate in. They know parody is a subtle form of criticism.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The point is, when Stewart has other serious guests on his brief interview segments, he can get pretty tough and specific with his questions and follow ups, in between the quips. He totally softballed Obama except the one time about Geitner where he nailed him pretty good. But he didn't follow up on it the way he would have with anybody else.

Bill Maher would have mopped the floor with Obama. No prisoners.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

phrelin said:


> With that said....The problem with that theory is to my knowledge he didn't offer to appear on Glen Beck's show prior to that other rally.


The only time I have ever watched Glen Beck, funny enough, has been from Daily Show clips. But I take from that, his show is not really a guest appearance type show. Not that it would have happened anyway.



phrelin said:


> IMHO because of the October 30 "happening" the President almost had to appear on The Daily Show to acknowledge a core group crucial in the 2008 election, members of which also happen to make up the vast majority of Stewart's audience - people under 30, particularly college students. Many are disillusioned with politics after becoming excited in 2008, a letdown which happens to every generation.
> 
> The "Rally to Restore Sanity (or Fear)" is in itself a kind of parody, but one in which they can participate in. They know parody is a subtle form of criticism.


That's my point. It was the only way to connect without hijacking the whole event with a speech or appearance. I think he knows how it would look if he did.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

armophob said:


> That's my point. It was the only way to connect without hijacking the whole event with a speech or appearance. I think he knows how it would look if he did.


It is a comedy show. The President does not need to "connect" with it ... other than to steal the concept for his own agenda. Hundreds of rallys take place on the mall. Few have been acknowledged and Jon's comedy show could have been acknowledged (as the others have been) in a comment. No presidential appearance was needed to promote the rally. It isn't his, is it?

The president wasn't there to promote the rally. He was there to get out the vote for next Tuesday. He made his pitch then asked for the order.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The only issue is the lack of respect towards ANY president. "Dude" will never be an acceptable greeting, and shows gross *disrespect*.

Forget the specific President in this case for the moment - this fits ANY situation like this for ANY President. Amazed this wasn't seen as a scandal and require a public apology.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> It is a comedy show. The President does not need to "connect" with it ... other than to steal the concept for his own agenda. Hundreds of rallys take place on the mall. Few have been acknowledged and Jon's comedy show could have been acknowledged (as the others have been) in a comment. No presidential appearance was needed to promote the rally. It isn't his, is it?
> 
> The president wasn't there to promote the rally. He was there to get out the vote for next Tuesday. He made his pitch then asked for the order.


I wouldn't put it past Obama to go on "The Jerry Springer Show" to get out the vote as you say.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> I wouldn't put it past Obama to go on "The Jerry Springer Show" to get out the vote as you say.


If that happened...and I bet in never would..."Dude" is back in play.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If that happened...and I bet in never would..."Dude" is back in play.


Never say never.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Never say never.


Never.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The way I saw it, Jon Stewart was trying to be respectful and still ask the questions he wanted to ask. The back-and-forth about Obama being 'timid' was an example of that.

I mean, if I were in Jon's shoes, I certainly would not treat the sitting President of the United States the way I had treated Jim Cramer (who he sliced, diced and served as julienne potatoes).


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Maruuk said:


> The point is, when Stewart has other serious guests on his brief interview segments, he can get pretty tough and specific with his questions and follow ups, in between the quips.


That's definitely true of "no-name" people, but it seems like he always gets a bit "starstruck" when interviewing a very well-known political person, and ends up pulling his punches.

Obama has been on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" as a sitting president, so I don't see how this was much different (of course, he was criticized for that, too).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

trainman said:


> That's definitely true of "no-name" people, but it seems like he always gets a bit "starstruck" when interviewing a very well-known political person, and ends up pulling his punches.
> 
> Obama has been on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" as a sitting president, so *I don't see how this was much different *(of course, he was criticized for that, too).


...except, of course...Jay never called him "Dude"...


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

trainman said:


> That's definitely true of "no-name" people, but it seems like he always gets a bit "starstruck" when interviewing a very well-known political person, and ends up pulling his punches.


I don't think he was pulling his punches because he was "starstruck". I think the reason is more like "Here are the things you cannot bring up......" It's no different than any other interview or debate that has happened in the past, If you want (insert politition/actor here) you will do or not do this.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> That is a bit harsh. I know that each network seems to have it's overall biases but not ONE unbiased serious interview? Not even from an interviewer who bucked the mold of their network?


It probably was harsh... and it is possible someone has done a good interview that I just missed.

I have just sadly found that there isn't any non-entertainment news I can rely on anymore. Every channel and personality these days seems to be about the ratings, which makes them no more reliable than a random internet search.

I'd be happy to be wrong and find a fair and balanced interview.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

You'd be surprised by how many people get most of their political and governmental news from programs like this one though. That's just sad. I like the show for what it is, but some take it far too seriously.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> You'd be surprised by how many people get most of their political and governmental news from programs like this one though. That's just sad. I like the show for what it is, but some take it far too seriously.


 Network news and Cable news are both jokes. I would find it sad if that's the only place people got their news from.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...except, of course...Jay never called him "Dude"...


Are you going to keep sounding like a broken record? It was an off the cuff response. Nothing more to it.

I think they both did a fine job and I'm very happy with the interview as it went.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

lee78221 said:


> Network news and Cable news are both jokes. I would find it sad if that's the only place people got their news from.


Less of a joke than a comedy program.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Less of a joke than a comedy program.


Not really.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

lee78221 said:


> :Are you going to keep sounding like a broken record? It was an off the cuff response. Nothing more to it.


...and yet....plenty of folks in this thread don't get it... 

Their comments of acceptability for Stewart's behavior in that interview are a broken record on steroids. Deal with it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Would "Mr Dude" be more acceptable?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Would "Mr Dude" be more acceptable?


Obviously looking at the demographics published for that show, its obvious that the younger crowd has a different definition for the word "respect" than those over 30. Pretty sad, but explains why many things are deteriorating in society as they have been for a number of years.

Mr. President was the salutation considered acceptable for 200+ years...seems it would still fit now.

Note: I have little admiration for the current and a number of previous folks holding the position, but that doesn't preclude me from showing some respect.

In today's world with what has recently has resulted in broadcaster firings....Stewart should be out on the street right now.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Obviously looking at the demographics published for that show, its obvious that the younger crowd has a different definition for the word "respect" than those over 30. Pretty sad, but explains why many things are deteriorating in society as they have been for a number of years.
> 
> Mr. President was the salutation considered acceptable for 200+ years...seems it would still fit now.
> 
> ...


I agree with you about today's youth redefining words. I hold their parents and politicians responsible. When I was a boy my father taught me respect is earned, never given. The Army taught me we salute the rank, not the man. Given that the office of the president should always be regarded with the highest respect, no exceptions!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm old. I have respect for the office. But the person in the position is just a person, particularly when he/she is explaining things in a public appearance.

The current usage of "dude" hit the scene in 1982 from _Fast Times at Ridgemont High_. It's a term of art for those born in the early '60's like Obama and Stewart.

In the context where it was used, I have no problem with "dude." Someone who isn't jockeying for his/her next political position needs to center the guy, now and then. Except for Michelle and the kids, I'm not sure anyone else in the country could get away from doing it in public. And among all that carefully crafted language designed to defend his administration's record... well, Obama using "heck of a job" threw me off as much as it did Stewart.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Obviously looking at the demographics published for that show, its obvious that the younger crowd has a different definition for the word "respect" than those over 30. Pretty sad, but explains why many things are deteriorating in society as they have been for a number of years.
> 
> Mr. President was the salutation considered acceptable for 200+ years...seems it would still fit now.
> 
> ...


Agreed. You show respect for the office and address the person holding it accordingly. Members of the opposing party even adhere to this no matter how much they dislike the person in question, others should as well.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Members of the opposing party even adhere to this no matter how much they dislike the person in question,


:hurah:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Agreed. You show respect for the office and address the person holding it accordingly. Members of the opposing party even adhere to this no matter how much they dislike the person in question, others should as well.


And members of the opposing party need to remember that even when they are the opposing parry. Both parties have a problem with that (as Mr Stewart has pointed out on his show).

BTW: The rally seemed to go pretty good. Slow in spots but "10 million" in attendance according to Jon (jokingly) and 150k according to the Mythbusters.

Fox News Coverage CNN Coverage MSNBC Coverage (AP)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> BTW: The rally seemed to go pretty good. Slow in spots but "10 million" in attendance according to Jon (jokingly) and 150k according to the Mythbusters.


Even Comedy Central's permit was only for 60,000...and I've read about other estimates below that number for the crowd.

Having seen the interviews on site...this was more of an outdoor comedy concert than anything else....dude. :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WSJ Article [link]
How many people are on the National Mall for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? The final answer? We don't know.

The National Park Service does not provide attendance figures, at the direction of Congress. The numbers we got before the event were contradictory: Comedy Central said on its permit for the event that it was expecting 60,000 people, but also that it was ordering 500 port-a-potties, which, at a recommended ratio of 1 for every 300 attendees, suggests that they wanted to be ready for 150,000.

Buses from New York were ordered for 10,000 people by the Huffington Post. And by last night, 229,000 had RSVP'd as attending on Facebook. (There were also 111,261 "maybe attending," 243,040 "not attending" and 10,000 who hadn't answered yet.)​


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> You'd be surprised by how many people get most of their political and governmental news from programs like this one though. That's just sad. I like the show for what it is, but some take it far too seriously.


Although I do not take it very seriously, I do get most of my political and governmental news from the Daily show. It is the only way I can stomach it. 
I like my bad news crushed up on a spoon with honey.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Lots of stuff here:

Re: Comedy show... 2 comments-- 1) so what? Comedies can cover serious topics. Many espisodes of M*A*S*H have very serious topics and moments.

2) In reality Jon has become a humorist. Using comedy to make people think.

Re: Fair and balanced? To what degree? Jon is generally very thoughtful. He might not be as fair and balanced as Tim Russert appeared to be--but Jon can be very close. He often uses the same techniques--referring to how someone's opponents might describe the interviewee.

Re: Inexperienced? Jon Stewart is not inexperienced.  He's been doing this four nights a week, 30 weeks a year (or so it seems) for 11 years. He's been extremely fortunate in getting world leaders recently, albeit nothing as prominent as the current US President. 

Re: Pulled punches... Partly, I can agree. Another phrase might be respectful. One technique Jon can use is another Tim Russert special--let the interviewee answer fully without cutting him/her off. Again, Jon has been known to cut people off and hit harder; but I'm satisfied with how Jon approached President Obama. Somewhat because of how President Obama approached Jon's questions.

Re: Dude! It was a joke! Da president got it. It was fun and funny.

Re: Da mug! It was a couple of jokes! Da president gave as good as he got. I loved it. 

Re: Equal time. Several times I've thought it would be better if Jon would edit out segments to give more time on the show rather than rely on the "check out the whole interview on the Internets." I'm hopeful this is a sign that not just "the other side" but more guests from both sides will be given more time. (Then again, until we see someone get more time, I realize my hope might just be hope.)

Re: The Rally. Jon's monologue at the end was incredible. An absolute masterpiece. Worth way, way more than the price of admission. (Free, but still would have been worth it at twice, even three times that...) (Humorist humor.)  

Obviously I like Jon's shtick. He uses comedy to get people to think. He uses comedy to entertain--and still cover serious topics. Or to counter people who "...amplify everything (so) we can't hear anything." 

Any fan of George Carlin knows how humorists can get very serious topics covered in a comedic fashion. Sure, not everyone will appreciate that technique--yet it is still a very useful method for many people. (Though it is a very difficult means to enlighten!)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Re: The Rally. Jon's monologue at the end was incredible. An absolute masterpiece. Worth way, way more than the price of admission. (Free, but still would have been worth it at twice, even three times that...) (Humorist humor.)


That was the word I was looking for - "masterpiece."

I will admit that the Daily Show is my only source of news from the TV. Newspapers and magazines, also. But from the TV it is the only place I can get just the dose of all the 24/7 talking head stations I need to remind me why I can no longer rely on TV for any information.

And some good interviews, like the Dude-in-Chief.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Attendance








CBS News: 215,000 (Story)
CTV (Canada): 250,000 (Story)
(Must be the exchange rate.)


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Attendance
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought that was a old photograph of Secret Service agents looking for Jimmy Carter's "misplaced" biscuit!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Re: Dude! It was a joke! Da president got it. It was fun and funny.


I've read plenty in blogs and reports that didn't see it as either a joke or funny. Comedy is in the eyes of the beholder.

I love comedy...I watch comedy more than any other kind of genre...and folks...this was not a comedy moment.

Try calling the President of your employer "Dude" some time...would love to know how that turns out. It was seen by alot of people as gross disrespect for the office of the President of the United States.

It was a watercooler topic at work, and there wasn't a single person who felt it is was appropriate or acceptable - not one out of over 20. What if Obama had gotten up and walked off the set feeling that he was insulted? Then you'd have a major scandal. It's not about the person, its about the office. Some folks felt Obamba himself disrespected the office by tolerating the comment without saying anything in return - not even a "pardon me?".

I guess we continue to see this kind of de-sensitizing and dumbing down of America's values every day - this was just one more example.

Jon Stewart can indeed be a very funny guy - he has alot of talent. But in this case, he crossed the line.

TV "personalities" have been fired for a whole lot less (especially lately).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chill dude. You may disagree with Jon Stewart, but he isn't Hitler.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Chill dude. You may disagree with Jon Stewart, but he isn't Hitler.


That's over the top.

No one even remotely said that.

Chill dude back at ya.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a joke ... referencing the demonizing of someone you disagree with. One of the suggested rally signs when the Rally to Restore Sanity was announced was "I disagree with you, but I don't think you're Hitler."

Yes, "dude" is a four letter word. But it isn't one of _those_ four letter words.

There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate.
Jon Stewart - October 30th, 2010​


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> It is a joke ... referencing the demonizing of someone you disagree with. One of the suggested rally signs when the Rally to Restore Sanity was announced was "I disagree with you, but I don't think you're Hitler."
> 
> Yes, "dude" is a four letter word. But it isn't one of _those_ four letter words.
> 
> ...


OK...now this is even further over the top.

Now you're bing waaaay too serious.

Dude is wrong - its that simple. Don't make it more complicated.

No political or other complexities involved - its common sense etiquette and respect for a top position.

Shirley you can be serious...


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

The two things I enjoyed the most about the rally on tv were;
1. The running with scissors award being presented to a 7 year old girl in place of NPR for forbidding attendance.
2. The camera perspective of the stage that would pan across the crowd stretching for what seemed like miles, and then turn back to the stage which had the lawn behind with a few people milling about like at a picnic.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Wish I had known it was going to be on TV. I missed it. Doesnt appear to be any reruns either. Guess Ill check Comedy Centrals site.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK...now this is even further over the top.


I believe you're being way over sensitive about Jon calling President Obama a four letter word ("dude"). The president wasn't offended, not even phased. Righteous indignation seems out of place.

There is no need to "Sanchez" Jon over one word. Embrace the sanity.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Obama uses casual language all the time. He told Leno, "If folks don't think I did a good job, they'll call me a bum and vote me out next time. That's just how it works." He uses hip-hop language when he's around basketball guys and rappers. "Dude" is exactly in line with Obama's own lingo when he's playing around with folks. He's not King, he's just a manager we hired to run stuff for a while.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Apparently folks just don't "keep up" with history.

Quick. Which President was the first to return the salute from military personnel by using the military salute though not in uniform? Washington. Jackson. Grant. Eisenhower. Or who?


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I was expecting a lot more focus and better comedy from the rally. It had a few funny moments, but nobody seemed to know what it was about. I thought at least they were gonna encourage people to go vote, but they didn't even do that. Guess it was just a big promo for the the Comedy Channel. I expected far better from geniuses like Colbert and Stewart.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Maruuk said:


> Obama uses casual language all the time. He told Leno, "If folks don't think I did a good job, they'll call me a bum and vote me out next time. That's just how it works." He uses hip-hop language when he's around basketball guys and rappers. "Dude" is exactly in line with Obama's own lingo when he's playing around with folks. He's not King, he's just a manager we hired to run stuff for a while.


Which means he is as bad as Stewart in disrespecting the position as well.

Embracing the insanity or dumbing down the lingo doesn't make it right or acceptable.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Which means he is as bad as Stewart in disrespecting the position as well.
> 
> Embracing the insanity or dumbing down the lingo doesn't make it right or acceptable.


Say what???? Let me repeat:


phrelin said:


> Apparently folks just don't "keep up" with history.
> 
> Quick. Which President was the first to return the salute from military personnel by using the military salute though not in uniform? Washington. Jackson. Grant. Eisenhower. Or who?


The point of this question has to do with the fear of an Imperial President that drove Washington to insist on not being addressed as "Your Excellency" and only reluctantly agreeing to Mr. President.

It was only in the latter half of the 20th Century that someone in the Office was imperious enough to assume "Commander-in-Chief" allowed the President to be symbolically more military than civilian in relationship to the military.

For the first 200 years of our nation's existence, people tended to prefer the understated position as described in Wikipedia:


> This new Chief Executive role no longer bore the duties of presiding over Congress in a supervisory role, but the title "President" was carried over nevertheless. This title was a major understatement of the actual role empowered to the office by the Constitution, and this choice of words can be seen as a deliberate effort by the Founding Fathers to prevent the head of state position from evolving toward becoming a monarchical position, with the accompanying potential for abuse of such power.


IMHO Presidents have needed people regularly reminding them that they are one of us and that's the way we like it. IMHO the potential problem of an "Imperial Presidency" is best kept in check by a context of humility. That's why I have no problem with President Obama being considered "Dude-in-Chief" - just "one of the guys" but whose job is very important.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Embracing the insanity or dumbing down the lingo doesn't make it right or acceptable.


I think any 18th century person would say the same about you. Language has changed since the dawn of time. Time for you to stop embracing the insanity.(My guess is you won't because that's who you are)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Which means he is as bad as Stewart in disrespecting the position as well.
> 
> Embracing the insanity or dumbing down the lingo doesn't make it right or acceptable.


I'm less concerned about "respect for the office" and more concerned with how the president runs the country. Jacket and tie or "wife beater" in the oval office isn't a presidential decision that really matters beyond the pundits and those who would oppose the president regardless of what he chooses to do. It is side show clutter ... and the type of crap that Jon Stewart was speaking against in his rally.
The country's 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.
Jon Stewart - October 30th, 2010​
Don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> I'm less concerned about "respect for the office" and more concerned with how the president runs the country.


Both are important.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Being realistic here...

Spending this much time on debating whether or not calling the President "dude" was offensive... is EXTREMELY indicative of most people's misplaced priorities and tilting at windmills over insignificant stuff.

IF the worst thing that ever happens to the President is being jokingly referred to as "dude" by a comedian in an informal setting on a comedy show... then President Obama will have a good life indeed.

I'm amazed that the "dude" discussion has lasted this long... seriously.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Being realistic here...
> 
> Spending this much time on debating whether or not calling the President "dude" was offensive... is EXTREMELY indicative of most people's misplaced priorities and tilting at windmills over insignificant stuff.
> 
> ...


Then again....it speaks to the weak thinking of many folks who simply have no respect left for much of anything, explaining why so much today is a mess.

Shame to see that some people have no self-respecting principles left.

If you have no prinicples, you have nothing.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hdtvfan,
Do you feel the same about many news outlets and talking heads referring to our President by last name, Obama, more so than calling him President Obama? 

IMO, it seems to be happening more this term than others.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Shame to see that some people have no self-respecting principles left.
> 
> If you have no prinicples, you have nothing.


Plenty of principles --- and plenty of perspective. Don't sweat the small stuff. It makes one look small minded.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's get some jobs, healthcare, food for hungry kids and shelter our homeless first. Then we can play PC Emily Post games later.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Plenty of principles --- and plenty of perspective. Don't sweat the *small stuff*. It makes one look small minded.


Words are powerful things. Respect is bigger than words.

Maybe if he omitted a vowel...

That response speaks volumes.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Doubts if Jon Stewart had interviewed President Reagan he would have refered to him as "Dude"! In my youth America was a nation that was respected and looked up to. The reason being we were a nation of high "morals", "values" and "ethics". Not any more. And because of that we are a mere shadow of what we once were.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> Chill dude. You may disagree with Jon Stewart, but he isn't Hitler.


Foreign heads of state are and have been interviewed by members of our media both domestically and abroad. I don't recall any of them refering to their guest as "Dude"!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Foreign heads of state are and have been interviewed by members of our media both domestically and abroad. I don't recall any of them refering to their guest as "Dude"!


Overseas...that kind of comment gets you in jail.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If you have no prinicples, you have nothing.


I thought it was health?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

armophob said:


> I thought it was health?


Healthy mind, healthy principles.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Apparently folks just don't "keep up" with history.
> 
> Quick. Which President was the first to return the salute from military personnel by using the military salute though not in uniform? Washington. Jackson. Grant. Eisenhower. Or who?


Gee, I knew someone would come up with the answer as to which of our Presidents thought he should break a protocol that was honored by Eisenhower and other former Generals who became President.


MysteryMan said:


> Doubts if Jon Stewart had interviewed President Reagan he would have refered to him as "Dude"! In my youth America was a nation that was respected and looked up to. The reason being we were a nation of high "morals", "values" and "ethics". Not any more. And because of that we are a mere shadow of what we once were.


Yep, it was Ronald Reagan who thought it would be better if he saluted even though it violated all protocol. See his heartwarming explanation here as to why he thought a Five Star General like Ike was obviously stupid for following a tradition that clearly defined the President as a civilian.

And since my youth was earlier than yours, I can assure you that during the time you refer to, if not before, our nation of high "morals", "values" and "ethics", as well as long standing traditions, seemed to me to disappear. Or was it during Prohibition? My memory is a little fuzzy.:sure:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

armophob said:


> I thought it was health?


 :lol:


MysteryMan said:


> Healthy mind, healthy principles.


Yup.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

phrelin said:


> Gee, I knew someone would come up with the answer as to which of our Presidents thought he should break a protocol that was honored by Eisenhower and other former Generals who became President.Yep, it was Ronald Reagan who thought it would be better if he saluted even though it violated all protocol. See his heartwarming explanation here as to why he thought a Five Star General like Ike was obviously stupid for following a tradition that clearly defined the President as a civilian.
> 
> And since my youth was earlier than yours, I can assure you that during the time you refer to, if not before, our nation of high "morals", "values" and "ethics", as well as long standing traditions, seemed to me to disappear. Or was it during Prohibition? My memory is a little fuzzy.:sure:


Actually sir you are my seinor by only a few years. Yes it was President Ronald Reagan who started the tradition of our presidents returning a salute. And I totally agree with his reason for doing so. If you look back I think you'll agree that you and I have sadly witnessed the "slow" decline of our nation's morals, values, ethics and long standing traditions turn into a "rapid" decline. You and I are what today's youth call "old school". With the way things are now I shutter to thing of what the youth of tommorow will be calling them should they reach our years.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I don't care what these damn whippersnappers do just as long as they stay the hell off my lawn!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

:lol: This thread has turned in to this:


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I don't care what these damn whippersnappers do just as long as they stay the hell off my lawn!


Give yourself a few years, you will.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The President appeared on a non-news show, an entertainment show, a comedy show, in a very informal setting. I expect that off-camera and back-stage the President was treated with the utmost respect... but on camera, for the entertainment program... the President was looser than he normally would be, and no doubt the host of such a show is allowed to be loose in that scenario as well.

I'm sure Jon Stewart didn't address the President as "dude" backstage... but in the moment, on camera, when both are behaving like PEOPLE... they related to each other as people.

I actually kind of find it refreshing to see someone not being stuffy all the time...and I do have respect for the office.

Do the rules of addressing the President as "Mr President" extend to his immediate family too? How about his extended family? And how about old friends? I'm sure there are people in his family and circle of friends that would call him "dude" if they felt like it... and I wouldn't see that as disrespectful either.

I think it is actually healthy to be relaxed in some environments while being respectful in others. There is a time and a place for everything.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The President appeared on a non-news show, an entertainment show, a comedy show, in a very informal setting. I expect that off-camera and back-stage the President was treated with the utmost respect... but on camera, for the entertainment program... the President was looser than he normally would be, and no doubt the host of such a show is allowed to be loose in that scenario as well.
> 
> I'm sure Jon Stewart didn't address the President as "dude" backstage... but in the moment, on camera, when both are behaving like PEOPLE... they related to each other as people.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree. Whenever a President appears in public proper protocol is in order. What he does in private with family and friends is another matter. I read once Elenor Roosevelt payed President Kennedy a private visit at the White House. As he was escorting her to a room and being a gentlemen he jestered she enter first. Her reply was "Oh no. You must never forget that you are the president"!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes ... back in the good old days when a certain Mr President would whip out his genitalia to the press and others when he wanted to emphasize a point. Interestingly enough, the organ had already received the nickname "Johnson" long before that. A good example of president's showing respect for the office?

If you disagree with how Mr Stewart addressed President Obama on the show stop watching. If you didn't watch before then it shouldn't be hard to stop watching. If you're watching the show just to find things to find fault with seek therapy. There are more important issues in the world. Stop frying ants.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> Yes ... back in the good old days when a certain Mr President would whip out his genitalia to the press and others when he wanted to emphasize a point. Interestingly enough, the organ had already received the nickname "Johnson" long before that. A good example of president's showing respect for the office?
> 
> If you disagree with how Mr Stewart addressed President Obama on the show stop watching. If you didn't watch before then it shouldn't be hard to stop watching. If you're watching the show just to find things to find fault with seek therapy. There are more important issues in the world. Stop frying ants.


Speaking for myself when I want your opinion I'll give it to you!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> Speaking for myself when I want your opinion I'll give it to you!


Well... since you are reading an Internet forum, of your own free will, I'm guessing you actually want others' opinions.

At least that is my opinion of why someone would read the Best Internet forum there is...


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Anyone wanting to watch the rally: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/rally_to_restore_sanity_and_or_fear/index.jhtml


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Actually sir you are my seinor by only a few years. Yes it was President Ronald Reagan who started the tradition of our presidents returning a salute. And I totally agree with his reason for doing so. If you look back I think you'll agree that you and I have sadly witnessed the "slow" decline of our nation's morals, values, ethics and long standing traditions turn into a "rapid" decline. You and I are what today's youth call "old school". With the way things are now I shutter to thing of what the youth of tommorow will be calling them should they reach our years.


I don't think I have witnessed a decline in anything. I've witnessed change. I've seen the end of segregation and terrible societal restrictions against women. I've seen, albeit via TV, man reach the moon. In fact, I lived through the advent of a TV in every home. The list of changes could go on forever.

Do I agree with all the changes in mores, a term that according to Dictionary.com means "folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodying the fundamental moral views of a group"? No. Some things just seem better the way they were.

The change President Reagan made in saluting was one of those changes that symbolically alters Presidency in a way I don't like. You don't like "dude" being used in a chat with the current President.

But, I don't think the country or the world is "going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket", to use an old saying. We have to keep this quote in mind:


> The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.


It was attributed by Plato to Socrates (469-399 B.C.). Of course, I have trouble remembering that, just like I have considerable trouble following the Serenity Prayer:


> God grant me the serenity
> to accept the things I cannot change;
> courage to change the things I can;
> and wisdom to know the difference.


So I do yell at the clouds of change when I think they will make American life less rewarding for my grandkids.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

From a 5000 year old clay tablet found in Sumer. Fathers and sons haven't changed much.

The father begins by asking his son:

"Where did you go?"

"I did not go anywhere."

"If you did not go anywhere, why do you idle about? Go to school, stand before your 'school-father,' recite your assignment, open your schoolbag, write your tablet, let your 'big brother' write your new tablet for you. After you have finished your assignment and reported to your moni*tor, come to me, and do not wander about in the street. Come now, do you know what I said?"
"Come now, be a man. Don't stand about in the public square, or wander about the boulevard. When walking in the street, don't look all around. Be humble and show fear before your monitor.
"I, night and day am I tortured because of you. Night and day you waste in pleasures. You have accumulated much wealth, have expanded far and wide, have become fat, big, broad, powerful, and puffed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

phrelin said:


> I don't think I have witnessed a decline in anything. I've witnessed change.


I didn't know Kool Aid was sold by the 55 gallon drum.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I didn't know Kool Aid was sold by the 55 gallon drum.


It's not, but like many things--you can make it up... 

Phrelin is talking from a perspective of history. Some he's lived, some he's learned. (I don't think he's [quite] old enough to have lived with Plato...) 

There are always signs of the Apocalypse. Sometimes people dig hard to see them, yet they are always there.

Thank you, Phrelin, for the reminders of desegregation, man on the moon, and balanced treatment of women. Those really_ are_ signs of change. And good change.

There are also signs that some things almost never change--greed and power hungry people. Thankfully there are also always people who are not controlled by those desires.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> It's not, but like many things--you can make it up...
> 
> Phrelin is talking from a perspective of history. Some he's lived, some he's learned. (I don't think he's [quite] old enough to have lived with Plato...)
> 
> ...


Somebody know a good translator... 

Change is change and deterioration is deterioration. Some of us can recognize the difference.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

My point was you can always find "signs of deterioration" if you look hard enough--and then amplify it enough.

Yet by amplifying the small stuff to the level of "_It's the Apocalypse_", one can easily miss the truly big stuff that Phrelin has lived thru. The great stuff that clearly indicate things really are getting better overall.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So is Jon Stewart and his show a sign of the apocalypse now or has the topic of this TV Show Talk thread been forgotten?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> My point was you can always find "signs of deterioration" if you look hard enough--and then amplify it enough.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Of course yours is a fully true statement. Then again...these days, some of those signs pop up in front of faces, not requiring telescopes or microscopes to view them. 


James Long said:


> So is Jon Stewart and his show a sign of the apocalypse now or has the topic of this TV Show Talk thread been forgotten?


Not concerned about the 2012 predictions...and Jon is a funny guy as I've said before. My whole point is that in this case, and in the intent to likely try to be a 'cool guy interviewing the President of the United States"...he stepped over the line with non-professionalism and without common courtesy with his choice of words. He may not have had any bad intentions, but his execution was outside the box of how Presidents have been addressed forever...so questioning the wisdom of it is also in play.

I wouldn't be surprised if a quiet 'apology of sorts" was exchanged off camera, and everyone moved on. That said, perhaps we should follow in path and move on. I know of plenty of folks who lost alot of respect for Mr. Stewart, not as a comedian, and entertainer, etc....rather, as a person.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> It's not, but like many things--you can make it up...
> 
> Phrelin is talking from a perspective of history. Some he's lived, some he's learned. (I don't think he's [quite] old enough to have lived with Plato...)
> 
> ...


Thanks for supporting the optimistic view, Tom. Obviously, I think it's justified.

There have always been "bad" people or "good" people doing bad things just as there are now. But good things are happening.

When I take the time to look, I see a positive change from the internet, despite all the garbage that people being people generate on the web or tweet or whatever.

IMHO more people under 30 are accepting of "the others." Tribalism (and its big brother nationalism) seems to be having less effect at the beginning of this millennium than the last. It's not that more young people are rejecting racial, ethnic, and other meaningless differences. They seem to be ignoring them.

It feels like in a hundred years there will be a noticeably smaller percentage of people in the world systematically killing other people.

Yes, there is decline in a very narrow sense. Folks suffered the decline of the buggy whip industry. That is because people lost the advantages of having a good horse. That harmed the hay growers. And, despite everyone's best intentions, apparently it seems that choosing the internal combustion engine to power vehicles was a poor choice which has led to global environmental effects (wring your hands here).

Folks will correct that choice over the next couple of decades. But people will have to live with the relatively short-term (compared to a millennium) consequences.

But optimism aside, in these forums I will continue to complain and bemoan trends like paying for OTA TV stations that will cause irreparable harm to the very fabric of the multiverse.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Gentlemen we've gone far enough with the politics. Let's stay focused on Jon Stewart and his show and stay away from comparing, contrasting and perhaps even insulting presidents.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Back to Jon Stewart, I think he's built an amazing resume of world leaders he's interviewed on what is ostensibly a comedy show. Even before President Obama. He's doing something right. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Back to Jon Stewart, I think he's built an amazing resume of world leaders he's interviewed on what is ostensibly a comedy show. Even before President Obama. He's doing something right.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Depends who you ask...  :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Depends who you ask...  :lol:


How about asking the people he's had on...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> How about asking the people he's had on...


I'll have to wait until their parole comes up again to do that...  :lol:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> Back to Jon Stewart, I think he's built an amazing resume...He's doing something right.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Must be because Stewart treats all his guests with respect, _Dude_. :lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I thought Stewart did pretty well Saturday. In his speech he stated the same point "The Daily Show" most frequently makes night-after-night:


> ...We can have animus, and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke.
> 
> The country's 24-hour, political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder.


 Pundits on both sides will have problems with that. It doesn't matter that he's correct.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Stewart was at his best when confronting the Crossfire folks. One of the most articulate and powerful indictments of what passes for "journalism" today: Two partisan gangs throwing feces at each other. Stewart's appearance was the closest we've ever come to the classic "Network" meltdown of the corrupt media system. Big props for that. Took a lot of guts.

Unfortunately, that format gets the best ratings so it's still thriving today.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"The Daily Show" is, above all else, a TV show which means the most important fact about it is ratings. The Obama interview pulled in 2.8 million viewers versus the show's typical 1.9 million. And, of course, 1.7 million were between the ages of 18 and 49. The regular audience is heavy with Adults 18-34, Men 18-34 And Men 18-24. Not bad for a late night cable show. And the ratings are competitive with cable news.

Ironically, this was the third most watched "Daily Show" the other two being in October 2008 — one that featured then-candidate Obama and another that featured his wife, Michelle. Obviously, being a sitting President doesn't improve your ratings.:sure:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

phrelin said:


> "The Daily Show" is, above all else, a TV show which means the most important fact about it is ratings. The Obama interview pulled in 2.8 million viewers versus the show's typical 1.9 million. And, of course, 1.7 million were between the ages of 18 and 49. The regular audience is heavy with Adults 18-34, Men 18-34 And Men 18-24. Not bad for a late night cable show. And the ratings are competitive with cable news.
> 
> Ironically, this was the third most watched "Daily Show" the other two being in October 2008 - one that featured then-candidate Obama and another that featured his wife, Michelle. Obviously, being a sitting President doesn't improve your ratings.:sure:


Interesting stats...hmmmm...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

More at the HuffingtonPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/the-funniest-signs-at-the_n_776490.html


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> More at the HuffingtonPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/the-funniest-signs-at-the_n_776490.html


Funny stuff there...


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

"Make awkward sexual advances, not war":lol:

These need to be on t-shirts right away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There were a lot of funny signs. There were also some non-funny ones, but when a quarter million people get together there are bound to be a few who are off message (some intentionally using the opportunity for their own purposes - just like other rallys).


----------

