The Daily Show: The Creation of Critique

Notes

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:56:48 +0000

Baym, Geoffrey. The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the
Reinvention of Political Journalism. Political Communication. 22:259–276. 2005. Taylor & Francis Inc.

Dowd, Maureen. “America’s Anchors”. Rolling Stone Magazine. November 2006. Real Networks Inc. 2006. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/1

“About The Show”. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Comedy Central.com. 2006. http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/about_the_show.jhtml

“Biography”. Jon Stewart Intelligence Agency. Dreamhost. October 10 2006. http://www.jonstewart.net/bio/index.html

“It’s No Joke.” Meida Relations. Indiana University. October 9 2006. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html

“Jon Stewart’s Bio.” Press Central. Comedy Central Press. Comedy Central Inc. New York. 2006. http://www.comedycentral.com/press/series/thedailyshowwithjonstewart.jhtml

“Such A Tease.” Guardian Unlimited. Guardian News and Media Limited. 2006. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1582009,00.html

“The Daily Show”. Culture. Rotten.com. rotten dot com Inc. http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/daily-show/

“The Daily Show”. Jump The Shark.com. Jump the Shark Inc. 2006. http://www.jumptheshark.com/d/dailyshow.htm

The Daily Show. Indecision 2000. Comedy Central, Inc. September, October, November 2000.
“Laugh Track”
“Undecided”

The Daily Show. Indecision 2004. Comedy Central, Inc. September, October, November 2004.
“Debate Rebound”
“Mess O Potamia”
“Crowd Control”

Hall, Alex. Daily Show Interview. 7 November, 2008

“Jon Stewart on Crossfire”. “Crossfire”. CNN. April 2004. Youtube.com. August 14, 2006. 12 November, 2008.

A Transformation

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:52:22 +0000

The world in which we live is no short of critiques. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Yet a part of this dichotomy, Newton did not foresee. What happens when sometimes, for some action the reaction is neither equal, nor opposite, but playing by an entirely different set of rules? Say, all of the sudden, the rules don’t even follow the rules. Or even, the reaction doesn’t play by any rules at all, “unburdened by objectivity… integrity or even accuracy.” (About the Show.) Whether this situation can apply to metaphysics or not, our political and social cultures are gauged by a set of rules (or not), a certain reaction we rarely acknowledge. This standard allows us to see our cultures through a lens of broader perspective and critical analysis, exposing the absurdities of our systems and dissecting the follies of our time. This standard, this anomaly, this game…is comedy; and in contemporary society, comedy has become more than just entertainment. In some respects, it remains the last remnant of a 4th-Estate the media claims to be. Comedy alone still takes an outside, unburdened, uncompromising view of society, and comments as it sees fit. Comedy’s sole purpose is to expose, to examine, to analyze, to put in perspective….and then and ONLY then…joke; and while comedy programs continue in this intrinsic formula, the aforementioned are skills seemingly and ironically lost on the rest of the mainstream media. Keeping us in check seems to be left to the observation of humor and the sting of satire. In this arena, one program has unquestionably risen to the top.

A Contrast: Indecisions

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:51:48 +0000

“I don’t know how anyone can consider jokes about this stuff worse than it actually is…Our show is based in a frustration over reality,” (Rolling Stone). By the year 2000, Jon Stewart had spent one calendar year at the Daily Show, and was beginning to prepare for the 2000 election year. At the end of 2004, Stewart and The Daily Show had one a multitude of awards, including 3 Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award for Indecision 2004’s” election coverage. In four years, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart went from a relatively low profile show following the tradition of SNL’s “Weekend Update” to one of the most popular, unique and recognized shows on television. The follwing will explore how The Daily Show changed in that time. Specifically, this paper/project/digital comparison will examine the differences between The Daily Show’s content, model and program framing in the election years of 2000 and 2004. Focusing on Indecision 2000 and Indecision 2004, and their respective prominence in the months leading up to the United States Presidential Election, I will contrast the program against itself to explore whether or not the humor, perspective on politics and social issues, and/or overall model of The Daily Show programming changed in these pivotal years. In effect, I will use The Daily Show on The Daily Show. As it has pegged so many before with the contrast of time, I imagine it would only be proud.
Indecision 2000: Observation and Absurdity

The 2000 Election came at a time (comparatively) without much controversy. The United States was by necessity ending the two-term Clinton era that had seen relative economic prosperity and international security. Clinton’s Vice-President Al Gore became the Democratic nominee for President, while a Governor from Texas, George W. Bush was named for the Republican ticket. These two were the near absolute focus of the Daily Show in Indecision 2000, and their personalities more or less maintained the political atmosphere (and material) The Daily Show examined.
In 2000, The Daily Show’s model was one following the style of Saturday Night Lives’ “Weekend Update.” A collection of “suggestive pictures and headlines,” the Weekend Update featured a “late-night monologue” where “the ‘anchor’ offers a brief explanation of the image and then the punch-line. Again, like the one-liners of late-night talk, the focus of the Weekend Update joke rarely falls on substantive political issues and often turns to the surreal to find its humor,” (Baym). This model made up Indecision 2000, as Stewart’s material was primarily observational. It focused on the quirks and indosyncracies of the candidates and their respective campagins.

The model here is realatively basic, surface, observational humor where the “focus usually falls on the personal foibles and character flaws of the primary political actors,” (Baym). Stewart characterizes Gore and Bush, Gore the robotic mannequin with the numerical complexity to match, and Bush the…bumbling idiot. Stewart satirizes what he sees as the hilarity of the entire process, and the somewhat ironically pathetic nature of the Presidential Candidates. But that is about as far as it goes. Throughout Indecision 2000, Stewart continues to utilize this model. He satirizes everything from the over-complexity of voting-technology, to the counter-intuitive and confusing set-up of a town hall debate, and finally back again to the characters themselves.

Indecision 2000 – Laugh Track | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:50:19 +0000

George W. Bush credits Al Gore with inventing not only the internet but also the calculator.

more about "Indecision 2000 – Laugh Track | The D…", posted with vodpod

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:49:58 +0000

Again, the show satirizes the process, comically summarizing what seemingly happened, following along, pointing out the weird or unorthodox, and creating an analysis of the absurdity in Bush’s advocation of “hot button issues” like a “safter society”. However, it predominately it relied on the “personal foibles and character flaws” of the two candidates. Near the end of the race, The Daily Show cap-stoned its coverage summarizing the dynamics and characterizations.

Undecided | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:49:02 +0000

Does George W. Bush ever know what he’s going to say next?

more about "Undecided | The Daily Show | Comedy C…", posted with vodpod

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:48:23 +0000

When it came down to it for Indecision 2000, The Daily Show seemed to ultimately utilize a wide breadth of material that communicated the surface and observational hilarity of the two candidates. It was satire of the political process, and though Stewart seems pessimistic with the two candidates and their poor-to-the-point-of-comical performances, there doesn’t seem to be an underlying criticism or overriding cynicism in what material is used and how it is presented. Even the amount of material isn’t overly prominent. Indecision 2000 started roughly in late July/early August, and showed up in maybe half the shows a month at most. Even near the end of October, the programming is still balanced with The Mets, or other random, unrelated segments. In the end, they’re just looking for a good laugh.

Indecision 2004: They called it “The Daily Show.” They too had grown desensitized with the media of the day, and the “hollow” characteristics of the “infotainment laden television news programs,” (Rotten).

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:47:39 +0000

In four years, by the 2004 Election year, the political landscape was entirely different. Bush’s presidency had been riddled with controversy since even before he took office. Gore v. Bush questioned its legitimacy. September 11th had rocked the nation, yet 3 years later an administration official appeared on The Daily Show joking about the investigation and asking Stewart for pointers. The U.S. was a year into a very controversial war in Iraq, and the Bush administration by then had established a “questionable” reputation.

Meanwhile, The Daily Show was gaining esteemed prominence. The staff had come out with a best selling book, America: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction, and garnered 3 Emmy awards. Stewart and the show itself over the last three years had begun to criticize the media, thoroughly disappointed with it’s sensationalism, partisanship and theatricality. Karlin (the show’s co-producer) and Stewart were desensitized with the media of the day, and the “hollow” characteristics of the “infotainment laden television news programs,” (Rotten). Stewart himself had, and continues to claim that The Daily Show is “based in a frustration over reality.” In mid-April, Stewart decided to take that frustration one step further.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:45:16 +0000

more about “Jon Stewart on Crossfire.“, posted with vodpod

heimacwz — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:44:12 +0000

The now infamous “Crossfire” episode laid The Daily Show’s philosophy out for all to see. Rather than play by “Crossfire’s” rules, Stewart confronted the hosts directly, live on their own show. He said he wanted an “honest conversation”… “Pppllleeaaassssseeeee”. He claimed shows like “Crossfire” were part of the problem, encouraging the politicians’ strategies, manipulating the partisanship and sensationalism to their own benefit, and leaving the viewers with nothing but theater and “spin”. Stewart claimed the discussion on the show was dishonest and that the media was failing the American public miserably. It became a microcosm of the critique The Daily Show epitomized. The analysis, and ultimately cancellation of “Crossfire” two weeks later, proved the legitimacy of The Daily Show’s point, and the influence of that the critical voice. The critique had gone from pointing out the absurdity and unorthodox of the process to a disillusionment with the entire system.

Indecision 2000 started in mid-July. Indecision 2004 began in January. 2004’s coverage spanned the entire process, from primary to election, with a close eye monitoring the entire time. Whereas Indecision 200 gained momentum in mid-October, Indecision 2004 began inundation in mid-August. The programming schedule itself changed. The Daily Show clearly had more to say about the dynamics of this election.