Skip to main content

Slightly disappointed with "The Daily Show" of late

If I have a religion, it might be Stewbertism - named after Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. While I read and write about the news on a daily basis, Stewart and Colbert typically provide me a number of laughs concerning the issues I wrote about every Monday through Thursday, which allows me to sleep a little better at night (laughter is the best medicine, along with denial, and possibly some Ny-Quil).

Over the past two to three weeks, however, I've been slightly disappointed with The Daily Show - perhaps because the show has taken on a more serious tone, with that the laughs haven't been as frequent, and the show has seemed to blend in with mainstream news networks more so than has been typical.

With regard to the three recent controversies surrounding the Obama Administration, Stewart and his writers jumped on the Benghazi-conspiracy bandwagon before it became pretty clear there wasn't a cover-up, which prompted the show to play things in a Swiss-like fashion. They also jumped on the IRS-controversy bandwagon without even looking around first to see if there was anything more to the story, and have stayed on that bandwagon to this point. Never were similar cases with liberal groups during the Bush years brought up (or with the current administration), nor was how the Citizen's United ruling impacted this situation. A fairly recent report wasn't even mentioned, which showcased that approximately two-thirds of the groups whom were reviewed due to political sounding names were not affiliated with the Tea Party. While the show's main intent is to bring about laughter, the actual reporting and commentary on the show has been fairly lazy of late. I give props to the show for getting after Eric Holder and the Department of Justice for the AP controversy, however, have been disappointed by its coverage of both Benghazi and the IRS.

Perhaps Stewart is getting a little burned out and is looking ahead to the movie he'll be shooting before long in the Middle East. In any case, I sincerely hope the show goes back to mocking politicians, celebrities, and media outlets for their hypocrisies and misreporting, as opposed to making a mockery of themselves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"