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

2003 - 04

Old comments

Is that video really public domain? Or is it just promotional material from their website? --128.235.242.52 12:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The show's theme seems to have changed in December 2003 or January 2004 (at least for lead-in and lead-out to and from commercials). It may just be sped up, but I'm curious if anyone knows if it's now done by someone different. —Mulad 18:43, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Now that I just made The Weekly Daily Show appear in bold, I see that the edition.cnn.com/CNNI/schedules/schedule.4.html CNN International schedule says the show is named The Daily Show: Global Edition. Maybe someone across the pond can figure that out —Mulad 01:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interview section name changes

I think it's a bad idea to list the formal names of the interviewees. I think instead we should list them by their common, everyday names - the ones we see and hear about on the news. Example: Bill Clinton (good) vs. William J. Clinton (needlessly pedantic). User:Danielt 04:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Notable guests?

Something might need to be done about this. All of these people are political, and just because Gephart and Kucinich were two of nine democratic candidates doesn't make them more notable than Michael Moore, Tom Cruise, or Tom Hanks does it. You can say those three were just there to hawk their movies, but I think we know that Kucinich and Gephart were there for basically the same reason. And should we mention somewhere on here that he interviews a lot more authors and political types than Leno or Letterman? —User:Signor Giuseppe 23:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The list of guest section of this article appears off balance in precisely the way Singor Giuseppe notes, with anecdotes included that do not expand our understanding of The Daily Show, but rather include content that, if notable, should be included within separate articles.

With the upcoming United States presidential elections, it makes sense to pare out these anecdotes now to prevent this page from losing a Neutral Point of View.

The most recent edit of this section brings up some POV questions and was enough to prompt me to remove much of the guest trivia. Spectre9 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I ended up just adding a POV and Importance-Sect tag to the guests section. I intend to move most of the guest content to the list of guest pages. The recent Sen. Obama and Pres. Bill Clinton related guest content I intend to remove as the language appears biased and WP:COI is likely involved. Spectre9 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberal?

Don't know what you mean by liberal, if its things like anti-slavery and womens rights or other things that make common sense like not starting a war, then it would seem like a good thing. At least use another word. -- Alex User:209.197.154.240 05:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal as in anti-conservative and anti-gun rights, for starters, no to mention opposition to a war 3/4 of the American public supported. No word is more appropriate. Oh, and not to mention his latest show, when he launched a vicious, all-out assault on the good Senator Zell Miller. User:142.166.102.33 03:14, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Haha, that good old Zell, shame on Stewart. Seriously however, the word liberal is overused, left-wing is more to the point. --Alex User:209.197.155.44 00:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Another recent edit added left wing in the description of the show; hasn't this been settled? cde 05:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please take it elsewhere. Pyrop 04:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well done sir. The tab is even called "discussion." And the discussion was certainly relevant. Good to see this comment has been ignored.--Signor Giuseppe 21:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you saw the recent episode featuring Zell Miller promoting his book Deficit of Decency, Jon was very cordial and Zell looked like he was having a good time, even cracking a joke or two. This is not meant to stir the fires of political debate but rather to point out a new development in the Stewart-Miller saga. I don't think either man dislikes the other, they just disagree as Jon pointed out.--El Slameron 03:48, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I know really, the guy who caalled it a "all-out assault on the good Senator Zell Miller" Is clearly a right-winged nut.

the description of the show should definitely be changed to "half-hour, left-wing, satirical "fake news" program". the shows left-wing bias should be stated and really, no fan of show should object to it, unless they are somehow in a state of denial. Elchup4cabra 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC) elchup4cabra

Too bad that, you know, they existed as a show before Bush's Presidency and skewered Democrats as much as is understandable considering they're not in power currently. They especially took to bashing Democrats during the elction campaigns and Democratic National Convention of 2004, just as much as they did Republicans during the time. While individual members of the show, including Jon Stewart himself, may indicate themselves and their beliefs to be left-wing or at least anti-Bush, the show takes a bite out of both sides, though it's much easier to target the highest power, which they do. The Republicans are the ones making the decisions that creates the fodder for comedy, and if the Democrats were in power today, you know the show would do the same to them. Labelling the show as left-wing in an encyclopedic description is clearly POV of the editor who would carry out such an action and more biased than the show has ever been. Viewdrix January 6th, 2005

A friendly word of advice: Saying that those who disagree with you must be in a state of denial helps your argument about as much as singing a duet with Ashlee Simpson would help a singing career. --Poochy 08:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Poochy. I think it would be more accurate to say something like "Some consider the show to be slanted in favor of the left, especially since the recent rise of The Right in both the Executive and Legislative branches." or something to that effect. Whether or not the show is definitely slanted one way or the other will always be subjective. They did indeed attack the left ruthlessly before the Bush era; they are just attacking the most prominent and public idiocy they can find. --YtfeLdrawkcaB 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look i dislike the word 'liberal' being used in this article. it has different meaning outside the US. ‘Liberal’ in the US seems to mean 'hippy' (sorry i can't think of any other word to use) but milder and more politically correct. my point is it is sometimes used insultingly. in the rest of the world the word has no negative connotation. it would be nice if it was replaced with a definition.

I say we axe it at least until after the next presidential election.

Neither liberal nor conservative

I don't see the show as strictly liberal or strictly conservative. The attitude is more like, make fun of the absurdities of both. It's like that scene from Full Metal Jacket: "I do not look down on negroes, kikes, wops, or greasers; here you are all equally worthless!"

Just because he makes fun of Senator Miller doesn't mean he's a liberal. He makes fun of the Clintons all the time.

I think you'll find that his personal viewpoint is more libertarian than anything else. User:Danielt 04:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

He may poke fun at Democrats but it is rarely (if ever) because of their political stances or their policies, as is the case with Republicans and right-wingers in general. The difference between the basis of the shows satire/criticism of Republicans and Democrats is what places it firmly on the left. Elchup4cabra 04:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) elchup4cabra

Elchup4cabra, you're clearly wrong. He's hardest on people in power who are either ignorant or flat-out greedy - whether Democratic or Republican. For the last 6 years now, the Republicans have been the ones running the politics so it's only natural for The Daily Show to poke fun at them, becoming mostly corrupt from being in power for so long. Therefore, the show is placed firmly in the middle. It's a centrist show, and it always has been.

If you truly dont see this show is blatantly liberal then you are (no offense) obviously extremely ignorant of politics or liberal yourself and cant identify this because yours ideals match.

I think you're right in saying that the show is blatantly liberal. This is a statement of fact. Likewise, another statement of fact is that Fox News is blatantly conservative. Wouldn't you agree?

But The Daily Show is not blatantly anything, if anything it is subtly liberal, if that.Macdaddy5539 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was saying that in jest to the person. I don't believe The Daily Show is "blatantly" liberal. Even if it was subtly liberal, that's a meaningless label that's been thrown around far too long. These days, anyone who sees the Bush administration for what it is - the worst in history - is labelled as a liberal by braindead Bushbots. Ericster08 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please keep the topic constrained to things that have to do with this page and not accusations towards other people. The topic started off as promising and completely pertaining to the article but you are steering the article towards topics that will likely cause flame wars and trolling. Gdo01 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that better? Ericster08 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to sign your comments on discussion pages. Gdo01 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Ericster08 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as liberal per say, it's more 'anti-conservative'. It doesn't really advocate liberal viewpoints so much as present strawman conglomeration versions of conservative viewpoints and then attack them. For instance, they'll often use cleverly edited videos of right-wing figures that make them appear stupid. It's exactly what Rush Limbaugh used to do to Democrats and Liberals on his TV show. Now it might be argued that it's because Republicans have held everything these past several years. Time will prove that right or wrong shortly. --208.204.155.241 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote to remove the block in question.

Not to mention that the whole block is an opinion. The phrase beginning with "It is clear that..." is not justified for inclusion in an objective work. The political stance of the show may be clear to that particular contributor, in which case he or she should be free to put the phrase on his or her personal page; however, regular articles are not soapboxes for contributors' opinions. User:Danielt 04:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) I second the recommendation. The daily show article is neutral--Tjkphilosofe 07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Writ of Douchebaggery

I have merged the article Writ of Douchebaggery into this article (as requested in the October 5th edit). The following was the content of the talk page on that article before it was redirected (it's still there too). Apart from indenting it in a bit it has not been changed from the original talk page. Jxan3000 13:28, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm deleting this...

Too my knowledge he has only referenced this one time.

This does nothing other than to ridicule the Attorney General.

Rather than blank the article (an action that will only be reverted), you may wish to list this on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (but you may also want to log in first). -- Hadal 04:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous blanking aside, is this something Stewart does regularly, and is there anything more to say about it than what's here? The simple fact that a late night comic uses the word "douchebag" frequently does not strike me as encylopedic. RadicalSubversiv E 08:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do not mess with THE WRIT OF DOUCHEBAGGERY! --John Ashcroft66.108.105.34 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

?

Not really pertaining to the article itself, but does anyone happen to know where I can get a mp3 of the Daily Show theme (the intro mainly). I was looking for it for a school project. Thanks, Hoekenheef 22:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good question, If you find the answer, please let me know! I heard it's called "Dog on Fire" by They Might Be Giants, but I have no way to substanciate this... iTunes and Windows Media Player don't seem to have it.Macdaddy5539 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Signifigance?

"and about half an hour before most other late-night programs begin to go on the air."

I don't see the signifigance of it being a halfout before late night shows.

Reub2000 22:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nor do I, but neither do I see any reason to remove it. --BDD 22:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well,the significance may be that it doesn't have to compete with Jay Leno, David Letterman, etc., for a comedy audience.

Bubba73 14:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe the significance is that TDS competes with the local news for time and that most of the other late comedy shows don't.

2005

Media Celebrities

There's no reason for this new section. The political guest section is already a little out of hand (seperate page anyone?) but I'd say 35% of the guests are political and 65% are media/entertainment, meaning these two lists could encompass everyone who's even been on the show except the token number of authors that come thru every now and then. Let's chuck 'em (and maybe their political friends) before dutiful wikipedians start to remember everyone who's been on the show since Kermit the Frog.--Signor Giuseppe 20:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It does seem like someone comes along and adds a little something--either a guest or a joke--from almost every episode. While I can definitely empathize with enthusiasm over this show, I think we sacrifice the real meat of this article--recurrent and original themes--when we turn it into a repository of mere lists.

Now, the interview with Colin Powell certainly deserves mention, but as a mere list item it is pretty well useless. If this article aspires to reflect the show, we ought to spend less time adding tidbits to this article and more time summarizing classic moments.

Guests of the Daily Show article, anyone?Yeago 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just get rid of the entire guest list, it is all here anyway List of The Daily Show guests. MechBrowman 20:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get carried away here fellas. As the one who seperated the political guests list into its various categories, I think it still has some merit. If it does get entirely deleted (which I still support) I think the text should go still-organized over to the list of all guests, as that definitely has merit.--Signor Giuseppe 15:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoëver added Kermit the Frog: I deserved that. Anyway, does anyöne want to keep the mediä celebrities list? I'm itchin' to get rid of it...--Signor Giuseppe 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a very comprehensive (and, far as i can tell, very accurate) list of Daily Show guests at this address shuntv.net/tdslist.html . I would add the information, but I don't have enough time and energy. On a side note, if this info is added, we would definitely need to make a separate page for daily show guests. User: ixat

Signor Giuseppe, I love the umlaut in the word "whoever". Is that your own original joke? Peter Johnson (04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

Notable story?

How is the Rufus Pfükke joke a notable story? It was one joke in one episode. This section should only be reserved for long-running jokes. Remy B 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

werd.

I mean, look, I know Jon Stewert is The Second Messiah, but let's not go running to wikipedia about every little thing that happens. Although, I do think the Pfukke joke and those like it may deserve mention _in time_....Yeago 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another one, the Karl Rove Affair entry -- it's not even close to a 'notable story'. Plus, it's written in a horribly confusing and poorly styled manner. I'm taking it down unless there are objections. - Tyler Somes

Agreed. I say we cut both of them....User:getaaron

I have to disagree about cutting Karl Rove Affair. I agree it is badly written, but that does not warrant removal, only cleanup. The presentation which the Daily Show did about current situation with Karl Rove was a piece of genius. It went through a very sequential and detailed timeline of events, and sparsed it with humor, making this typically drab political content accessible to many others. Good, thorough presentations on current matters is why persons like myself watch the Daily Show, and I'd like to see the show be given credit, and these presentations some attention on Wikipedia.

As for Pfukke.... ax it.Yeago 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rufus Pfükke

Rufus Pfükke is a fake Supreme Court nominee created by the Daily Show for its expose on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts.

As a joke, they reflected on failed nominees in the past. One nominee was Robert Bork (nominated by Ronald Reagan), who was rejected by the Senate because of his extreme views. "Getting borked," became a sexually-themed joke on the show. Then, Senior Legal Analyst Rob Corddry, one of the show's "correspondents", introduced the false nominee Rufus Pfükke. The syllogism obviously lends itself to the phrase, "getting pfükked," a sexually-themed joke in the vein of the real candidate, Bork.

Corddry claimed that Pfükke, a judge of supposedly-Dutch origin, was one of Woodrow Wilson's presidential nominees. In reality, Wilson did not have any rejected nominees.

Steve Carrell

Can someone confirm that Steve Carrell indeed said that he is done with TDS? I believe he said that on August 15, 2005 when Jon was talking to him about the film The 40-Year-Old Virgin. For now, he has been moved to the "former" section of correspondents and contributors.

i say if he comes back he comes back

Steve Carrell is no longer on The Daily Show, he is now full-time on The Office

tds_rps

The lj community tds_rps has been linked to numerous times on this page, and they've expressed concerns about being made "public." So please stop linking to them. Or they'll slash you. Seriously. Mysticfeline 16:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Mysticfeline

Heading toward featured article

Thanks to everyone who has worked to improve this article. I think it is becoming very close to featured article quality, and hope that it may be nominated shortly. It would be great to dig up some more references, create some of the related articles that are currently red links, generally tweak things where flow is inconsistent, and add a list of notable writers for the program since they deserve credit for making the show what it is. Details relating to the show's creation and early history would be helpful too. Other suggestions are welcome. —User:Mulad (talk) 22:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

There's a new (May 4, 2005) article about the TDS spin-off, The Colbert Report posted today. I was trying to figure out a good place to incorporate a comment about that here. Thinking either in the introductory blurb, or in Section 7 "Other info". Any suggestions? Sarah 03:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Carrell

Regarding the few sentences about Steve Carell, perhaps there should be a mention of the "Produce Pete with Steve Carell" segment that still airs occasionally. There should also be a mention of his wife, Nancy Walls, who is also a former TDS commentator. Any thoughts?--El Slameron 02:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You know I never thought "Produce Pete" was funny. If I was Steve I wouldn't put that in my portfolio.--Tjkphilosofe 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Macdaddy5539 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)=="Are you OK" link==

70.26.13.17 removed the link to the "Are you ok?" monologue, which Yeago later reverted. I am re-removing it, as it is a dead link. If anyone knows of a live link to the monologue, feel free to re-replace it. MrItty 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would anitasdailyshowpage.tripod.com/transcripts/2001okay.htm or www.andreacaroline.com/stewartspeech.html or anitasdailyshowpage.tripod.com/2001comeback.htm be okay? (Some of the top results www.google.com/search?q=daily+show+%22are+you+okay%22+monologue from www.google.com/search?q=%22there+is+really+no+other+way+to+start+the+show+then+to+ask+you+at+home%22 Google ;D ) --Peng 03:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw all those too. However, the original link was to an actual video clip of the show, not a simple transcript. I was hoping someone's Google skills were better than mine and would be able to find the clip again. MrItty 23:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Well, the second one does link to a video, though I haven't watched it to see if it's any good... --Peng 07:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nor have you actually clicked on that link, to determine that it's also a dead link. MrItty 10:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and Firefox, at least, determins it to be a perfectly fine link, and I can download a 293 byte file, though I don't feel like bothering to attempt to watch it or something in XMMS. *Shrug* --Peng 11:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.... and you didn't see anything suspicious about a supposed real-audio file being only 293 bytes? There's no video there. If you allow it to actually load, Real Player will give you an error. MrItty 10:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A 293 byte real media file probably contains a stream link to a real media server to stream the video. It's rather common to not directly put real media stuff on HTTP servers. Cburnett 15:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

How goes the search for a video? The transcript just doesn't do the real thing justice. SFont 04:55, Aug 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of that video on my computer that I can upload, but I can't host anything permanently... Mysticfeline 15:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Thank you, Mysticfeline. A stable link has been added since this discussion concluded. -Scm83x 16:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever said this discussion was concluded? Oh, snap! In yo Face!

Dick Cheney appearance

Can anyone confirm http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.73.18.60 24.73.18.60's latest edit? I don't recall seeing Dick Cheney on TDS, and I can't find any reference to his appearance on the web. Mr2001 10:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Dick Cheney from the list, pending some source for his appearance, or at least an air date. As the article says, when Colin Powell was on the show, they called him the closest they'd ever get to the White House. I'm quite sure Cheney hasn't been a guest since Powell was. Mr2001 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It was an obvious--albeit unusually clever--vandal.Yeago 16:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dick Cheney only appears as a ghostly image behind Jon. And Jon would say "did it just get really cold in here"--Tjkphilosofe 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Crossfire debate

The following appears in the article:

The "Crossfire" appearance became the most blogged item of 2004, according to automated blog tracker BlogPulse, and a video clip circulated widely on the world wide web has been downloaded more than 3,200,000 times from online media repository ifilm.com. Such was the influence of Stewart's criticism of the program that CNN president Jonathan Klein cited him in an interview explaining the decision to cancel "Crossfire" in January, 2005.

I don't think this section should be in this article. Because it has nothing to do with "The Daily Show." So I figure i should delete it. Hope there are no objections :-) Akamad 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object. The Crossfire appearance has become the manifesto for the show's main purpose/intention/thesis/what have you, and goes a long way both to explaining the nature and execution of the show, and its significance in modern culture. Ario 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, User:Ario that the Crossfire appearance is important in relation to "The Daily Show" (which is why I didn't delete that part). But the bit that I thought was irrelevant is the part regarding how much the clip was downloaded and what not :-) Akamad 13:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't actually check the article, just assumed you'd removed it. That sounds like a reasonable edit. Ario 16:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Someone removed the NAMBLA section of the article.

I reseurrected the NAMBLA section. It was removed by 199.181.174.146 with no explanaition. A Whois lookup on that IP address says it's at the New York Times! It even resolves to nytgate05.nytimes.com. The same person appears to have also removed other sections and all but the NAMBLA section had been replaced. Imroy 13:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution Schmevolution

Is this going to be added to the notable stories section? Decessus 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that special very notable. Jon himself said on the air that he doesn't see doing that evolution special again. It wasn't all that funny in fact was a little stupid. It wasn't one of their better reports.--Tjkphilosofe 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New Correspondents?

Okay, first we got Dan Bakkedahl, then we see Sammy Bee's hubby Jason Jones, and now we've got a more hirsute version of Rob Corddry on October 4th, Nate Corddry if I heard correctly! So who is REALLY in and who is REALLY out?? --J L C Leung 08:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though they needed some new blood, with Colbert getting his own show, Carell off doing TV and movies, Bee on the verge of maternity leave. At this point, Corddry is taking over the Colbert status as the main correspondent. Jlove1982 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, Dan Bakkedahl is a correspondent and Jason Jones and Nate Corddry are just "contributors". Mysticfeline 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Actually Ed Helms is the senior correspondent replacing Stephen. Rob just took over the "This Week in God". Rob does a better job than Stephen in fact.--Tjkphilosofe 12:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada

I was just wondering, why is there so much information about the show in Canada? Not to sound anti-Canadian, but I think that more emphasis should be given to the US ratings and programming and less emphasis on Canada.

The Canadian connexion is significant for several reasons:

1. The high ratings are an indication of the show's success at marketing itself outside the U.S.

2. Canadian news is dominated by nationalist-slanted, Canadian-centric news, so perhaps Canadians are just bored by their own newscasts.

Peter Johnson (12 November 2005 (UTC))

Have you ever seen Candadian news? One could argue that it is too dominated by American-centric stories. Thus it is no surprise that The Daily Show is popular in Canada, when considering the widespread knowledge of American news (political and otherwise) and the popularity of other American shows seen in Canada.

One of the reasons for its popularity in Canada is that it offers a similar thoughts ans ideas in which a poular American show looks at the U.S. with the sardonic view that Canadians usually save for themselves.

Plus Samantha Bee and another Correspondent (I can't remember who) is Canadian.Macdaddy5539 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More Craig

I think this article does not have enough coverage of the Craig Kilborn years, including the perception that during that time, the remote pieces were mostly about being snotty towards harmless eccentrics. Also his bits, like 5 questions, the head getting karate chopped clip, "this just in", which he took with him to the late late show. I agree with most that TDS is better with Stewart, but at the same time you shouldnt just gloss over the first few years...Also there is little mention of the show's co-creators Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead. Rotten.com, of all places has a juicy article here www.rotten.com/library/culture/daily-show/

National Annenberg Foundation Link

In the Daily Show As News Source section there is a link to the National Annenberg Election Survey, a non-existent article, I tried to link it to the National Annenberg Foundation instead but that article doesn't exist either (a travesty). For the time being, until those articles are made (I don't know that much about the NAF so I'm not very qualified, perhaps I'll do some research) I pointed the link to the founder of the NAF Moses Annenberg, which is the only article relating to the NAF at present. Once these articles exist I hope somebody will notice and relink them if I forget. --Brentt 08:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Guest list

There is currently a very long guest list on this page. But is it necessary considering the existence of a List of The Daily Show guests page? Akamad 15:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Edited info on the Colbert Report to reflect present tense.

Stewart destroys Right Wing Spin

You should have seen him tonight he destroyed the Right-wing spin on Scooter Libby, Somehow the Right-wing spin is that the indictment is good for the white house. Jack Cox 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some mention of liberalism should be added

At least from an American point of view, maybe not a European one, The Daily Show tends to be left-wing. They often criticize the war in Iraq, and at one point during the election a actor ( I forget which one) filling in for Jon Stewart specifically stated he was against Bush. Some mention of this should be written into the article

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Jacqui^★ 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I said good day!

I think that Willy Wonka is by far the most likely pop-culture reference here -- but does anyone think that this could be specifically a reference to Wilmer Valderrama's take-off on Gene Wilder in That 70's Show? It's certainly what I think of, and I'd suspect that there's a decent demographic overlap between that show and TDS.

I'm certain I recall a scene from otherwise forgetable 1982 movie "Tootsie" with a humourously overwrought "I said GOOD DAY, sir!" line. ...spoken to Ron Carlisle by "Dorothy Michaels". - J. -4.181.77.195 9:42 1 December 2005 (UTC) (signature added by Scm83x 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

From www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=7041 Moviequotes.com, the quote is "Good day Dr. Brewster. I said Good Day!". Also, I would not write off Tootsie as otherwise forgettable. The movie was #62 on American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Movies and #2 on its 100 Years, 100 Laughs, and has been deemed "culturally significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. -Scm83x 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Tootsie received an academy nomination for Best Picture in 1982, competing against Gandhi, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and The Verdict. That's some rough competition. Not to mention nominations for Best Screenwriting, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Editing and Best Music. If that's forgetable, I want more of it! Gotta give it up for Tootsie. dpotter 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2005 Emmy Awards

From Peter Johnson [20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)] Can anyone quote Jon Stewart’s very funny, brief speech — really just a one-liner — from the recent Emmy Awards?

Are you referring to the speech in which he said "George Bush hates Black Sabbath"? Mysticfeline 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)mysticfeline

Are you OK? link removal

Recently a link to the "Are You OK?" clip was removed from the article. The link does work (it's not obsolete). I am not really familiar with whether or not linking to this file hosted on another site is copyright infringement. It's not our business what goes on on other sites. Just wondering. Thanks. -Scm83x 09:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

added criticisms

I added them. --Capsela 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Notable stories, events, and shticks" consolidation/move

I've contributed sections of the "Notable stories, events, and shticks" but I think it's getting too long and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article about the daily show. However, I certainly don't think it merits removal--I think it should be shortened to a paragraph and made into its own article. If a complete list of Daily Show guests gets its own article (and has survived a deletion vote), I think a "Daily show running jokes/references" or "Notable stories, events, and shticks" is worthy of its own article. And I certainly think it would be much better to have it as a separate article so it could be more complete. Anybody agree/disagree? Sorry if this was supposed to go at the bottom, I haven't added a new section to a talk page before. Ario 06:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved this section to the bottom of the talk page. If there are no objections to this, I'm going to do it in a week or so. Ario 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Incredibly unencyclopedic tone of writing

This article is amazingly unencyclopedic in its tone. Many of its sections are probably not compliant with our NPOV policy, and recent additions to the article are only piling on more not very cleverly hidden praise of the show. About a week ago before I went on vacation, I had to completely rewrite the most glaringly POV subsection, but there's a lot more work to be done. While TDS is of course a great TV show, this doesn't excuse its article from you know, being actually neutral and not heaping praise on TDS. Thoughts? Johnleemk | Talk 03:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone over the article again and it still stinks. For instance, "The results include some of the most pointed political satire broadcast in the United States." Or "For years, Stewart and the correspondents of The Daily Show have crafted a unique form of humor around sexual innuendo." The occasional reference to Stewart as "Jon" doesn't help with the unencyclopedic writing tone either. I've tagged this article with the NPOV template. Johnleemk | Talk 05:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

- goodcall.ytmnd.com Good call. Danny Lilithborne 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, god forbid we have some fucking criticism of the liberal darling daily show. "JON" my sweet prince, i worship the ground you walk on. I'm only fit to lick your shoes and edit your wiki article. --Capsela 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Up until you stepped in, it was all valid criticism. What you said is certainly valid, but way past professional. -- user:zanimum

Perhaps the Neutrality Dispute should be labeled more clearly in this talk page considering its size... --71.33.83.184 22:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the tone of this article.--Tjkphilosofe 09:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, God forbid anyone have a sense of humor. It's amazing how people feel the need to be over-sensitive to an admitedly satirical show, who expreses opinions and view points that differ from the mainstream. It's like the Dailey Show is exercising there 1st Amendment, how dare they... I never once saw someone call Stewart a "prince" or kiss his butt in this article. If you can point out where the show is at fault, by all means edit the story. I don't think the show is liberal or any other political label since they can make fun of everyone, and the fact that America is ran by Republicans will mean that that is who will be made fun of more, since they make our policies and choose if we go to war and how we handle disasters, not the minority Dems/Libs. I have no doubt that if it were the other way around then this show would be labeled anti-liberal... 68.254.111.102 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)