Maybe Stephen Colbert and John Stewart should have Thought it Through?

[Seymour Flops]

Here John Stewart laments the loss of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show:



Of course, it is profanity-laced. What else? No doubt he fears that he will be next.

Here's the thing, though:

Did all of those late-night comedians really think that they could turn late night comedy into nonstop unfunny attacks on a man like Donald Trump, and there never would be consequences? These guys are not Youtubers, podcasters, or vloggers. They work for a huge corporation that has been granted free use of one of the most valuable natural resources on the planet, the publicly-owned airwaves.

In that sense, they are almost as subsidized as NPR and PBS. In fact, they make so much money with their free (and government protected) use of the people's airwaves that they would laugh if offered the money that our gov pumps into NPR and PBS.

Would it have hurt them to at least try to pretend to be apolitical? Would it have hurt them to throw in some actual humor along the "go f*** yourself!" directed over and over at members of the audience who dare to disagree with them?

I hate to say it, my Democrat and "not Democrat" fellow posters, but mess with the bull, you get the horns.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm sure you TV addicts are sad.

 

[Votto]

Here John Stewart laments the loss of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show:



Of course, it is profanity-laced. What else? No doubt he fears that he will be next.

Here's the thing, though:

Did all of those late-night comedians really think that they could turn late night comedy into nonstop unfunny attacks on a man like Donald Trump, and there never would be consequences? These guys are not Youtubers, podcasters, or vloggers. They work for a huge corporation that has been granted free use of one of the most valuable natural resources on the planet, the publicly-owned airwaves.

In that sense, they are almost as subsidized as NPR and PBS. In fact, they make so much money with their free (and government protected) use of the people's airwaves that they would laugh if offered the money that our gov pumps into NPR and PBS.

Would it have hurt them to at least try to pretend to be apolitical? Would it have hurt them to throw in some actual humor along the "go f*** yourself!" directed over and over at members of the audience who dare to disagree with them?

I hate to say it, my Democrat and "not Democrat" fellow posters, but mess with the bull, you get the horns.

For something to be funny, there needs to be the truth behind the comedy, something partisan politics is incapable of because you lose sight of your job to try and be funny rather than just trying to destroy another human being.

For the life of me, Jimmy Kimmel is the absolute worst at this and I have no idea why he still has a show. At least Jon Stewart can be funny at times and will go after the DNC when it is warranted.

Colbert started off funnier and then entered the partisan hack bitterness zone, which is where Kimmel has always been.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Here John Stewart laments the loss of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show:



Of course, it is profanity-laced. What else? No doubt he fears that he will be next.

Here's the thing, though:

Did all of those late-night comedians really think that they could turn late night comedy into nonstop unfunny attacks on a man like Donald Trump, and there never would be consequences? These guys are not Youtubers, podcasters, or vloggers. They work for a huge corporation that has been granted free use of one of the most valuable natural resources on the planet, the publicly-owned airwaves.

In that sense, they are almost as subsidized as NPR and PBS. In fact, they make so much money with their free (and government protected) use of the people's airwaves that they would laugh if offered the money that our gov pumps into NPR and PBS.

Would it have hurt them to at least try to pretend to be apolitical? Would it have hurt them to throw in some actual humor along the "go f*** yourself!" directed over and over at members of the audience who dare to disagree with them?

I hate to say it, my Democrat and "not Democrat" fellow posters, but mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Greg Guttfeld does a similar thing with Democrats. The difference is....he's funny,.

 

[pknopp]

WATCH: Jon Stewart slams Obama over the IRS scandal

The Daily Show host pillories the IRS for targeting conservative groups, then bashes Obama for validating the "tinfoil behatted"

theweek.com

 

[Votto]

Greg Guttfeld does a similar thing with Democrats. The difference is....he's funny,.

The other aspect is, research has shown that people who are funny have an intellectual advantage over people who have no sense of humor.

Maybe they are just too intellectually dim to be able to have a sense of humor.

 

[Seymour Flops]

For something to be funny, there needs to be the truth behind the comedy, something partisan politics is incapable of.

For the life of me, Jimmy Kimmel is the absolute worst at this and I have no idea why he still has a show. At least Jon Stewart can be funny at times and will go after the DNC when it is warranted.

Colbert started off funnier and then entered the partisan hack bitterness zone, which is where Kimmel has always been.

Back when Colbert was doing a running satire on a conservative talking head, I thought he was pretty funny. Once he was interviewing Beyonce, or whoever sang "The Element of Freedom," as this conservative character, and he asked "what is the element of freedom? Is it gold?" I thought he said that because he had insight into Libertarian thought. Now I wonder if he just meant that conservatives are greedy.

I haven't watched much TV since I left broadcasting in 2008. But I remember that David Letterman was funny, so was Craig Kilborn, and that Scotsman that took over for him. Rarely were politics mentioned, and they were entertaining.

 

[Seymour Flops]

WATCH: Jon Stewart slams Obama over the IRS scandal

The Daily Show host pillories the IRS for targeting conservative groups, then bashes Obama for validating the "tinfoil behatted"

theweek.com

Yes?

 

[Polishprince]

Where Colbert and Stewart get it wrong is that it is supposed to be COMEDY, IOW, funny.

Neither of these fellows meets that goal. Those who want to hear their anger would be happier listening to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, who are just as angry, but are also ridiculously funny in their own rights.

 

[martybegan]

Here John Stewart laments the loss of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show:



Of course, it is profanity-laced. What else? No doubt he fears that he will be next.

Here's the thing, though:

Did all of those late-night comedians really think that they could turn late night comedy into nonstop unfunny attacks on a man like Donald Trump, and there never would be consequences? These guys are not Youtubers, podcasters, or vloggers. They work for a huge corporation that has been granted free use of one of the most valuable natural resources on the planet, the publicly-owned airwaves.

In that sense, they are almost as subsidized as NPR and PBS. In fact, they make so much money with their free (and government protected) use of the people's airwaves that they would laugh if offered the money that our gov pumps into NPR and PBS.

Would it have hurt them to at least try to pretend to be apolitical? Would it have hurt them to throw in some actual humor along the "go f*** yourself!" directed over and over at members of the audience who dare to disagree with them?

I hate to say it, my Democrat and "not Democrat" fellow posters, but mess with the bull, you get the horns.

The daily show at least was a political hackfest from the start.

What pissed people off was turning late night which used to be about entertainment, comedy, and the interaction between the host and the celebrities in question into political theatre.

Fallon got it, at least partially.

 

[Votto]

Back when Colbert was doing a running satire on a conservative talking head, I thought he was pretty funny. Once he was interviewing Beyonce, or whoever sang "The Element of Freedom," as this conservative character, and he asked "what is the element of freedom? Is it gold?" I thought he said that because he had insight into Libertarian thought. Now I wonder if he just meant that conservatives are greedy.

I haven't watched much TV since I left broadcasting in 2008. But I remember that David Letterman was funny, so was Craig Kilborn, and that Scotsman that took over for him. Rarely were politics mentioned, and they were entertaining.

Part of it, I think, is that the powers that be that hire these "comedians" are hiring them based on their ability to give the public their political propaganda rather than their ability to be funny.

I'm not even sure if they care if it is bad for business.

Maybe they get compensated by other powers that be for their financial loses, like maybe George Soros giving them money under the table.

 

[pknopp]

Yes?

Stewart went after everyone. Some are just more butt hurt over it than others.

 

[22lcidw]

I'm sure you TV addicts are sad.

To receive their proper karma, send them overseas as slave labor pieces of shit. We will eventually get there. And your politics will cause it.

 

[pknopp]

Jon Stewart Slams Biden Team’s “Blatant Bull****,” Suggests a New Path Forward

The 'Daily Show' host criticized the White House's post-debate spin: "'Get on board or shut the f*** up' is not a particularly compelling pro-democracy bumper sticker."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Moonglow]

To receive their proper karma, send them overseas as slave labor pieces of shit. We will eventually get there. And your politics will cause it.

I am sure you think the terlit is a powerful poster on USMB.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Stewart went after everyone. Some are just more butt hurt over it than others.

Uh-huh. Another "not Democrat" huh?

Show me any clip of Stewart going after Barack Obama with anything close to the geeked-up hatred in the clip in the OP.

Don't bother to tell me to look for it. I just did and only found Stewart sucking Obama's dick (figuratively speaking).

 

[Seymour Flops]

Jon Stewart Slams Biden Team’s “Blatant Bull****,” Suggests a New Path Forward

The 'Daily Show' host criticized the White House's post-debate spin: "'Get on board or shut the f*** up' is not a particularly compelling pro-democracy bumper sticker."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

That's all you got?

Of course Stewart abandoned Biden after the debate disaster. But abandoning Biden became the new dogma after that night.

Try again, though. This is fun!

 

[pknopp]

Uh-huh. Another "not Democrat" huh?

Show me any clip of Stewart going after Barack Obama with anything close to the geeked-up hatred in the clip in the OP.

Don't bother to tell me to look for it. I just did and only found Stewart sucking Obama's dick (figuratively speaking).

With anything close. Outside of an assassination nothing would meet your standard.

I posted him slamming Obama. There are plenty of other times he did also.

Anyone that condemns the orange one should be destroyed, eh?

 

[pknopp]

That's all you got?

Of course Stewart abandoned Biden after the debate disaster. But abandoning Biden became the new dogma after that night.

Try again, though. This is fun!

There are many. I already posted where he slammed Obama.

Jon Stewart mocks 'the dance Democrats have to do' after Hunter Biden pardon

Jon Stewart said he respects President Biden for pardoning his son but mocked Democrats who framed his prior stance as their 'Mason-Dixon Line of morality.'

www.latimes.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

WATCH: Jon Stewart slams Obama over the IRS scandal

The Daily Show host pillories the IRS for targeting conservative groups, then bashes Obama for validating the "tinfoil behatted"

theweek.com

Sorry, I misread this at first.

Okay, Stewart "goes after" Obama in that clip. But for what? Giving the bad guys amunition. The bad guys, the other side, the enemy, etc. That's not going after everyone.

Nothing like "go **** yourself if you're not willing to sacrifice your business to let me and Colbert keep making childish attacks on Trump on your dime!"

Are you seriously going to argue that such programs are politically neutral?