3 ms·

People used the "You're a comedian so just tell jokes" line against Jon Stewart for years. There's absolutely no reason someone has to adhere to some arbitrary

by zymhan 10y ago

People used the "You're a comedian so just tell jokes" line against Jon Stewart for years. There's absolutely no reason someone has to adhere to some arbitrary ratio of comedy to seriousness (edit: or preachiness, etc).

lujim 10y ago
John was smart, likable, and funny. Even my most vocal right wing buddy watched him because he was informative and entertaining. Stewart was quick on his feet and could out think anyone Fox news could pit against him. Colbert was Stewart on steroids in a verbal battle of wits and watching him repeatedly dismantle Bill O'Riley and President Bush made my jaw drop. No one has to adhere to an arbitrary ratio of anything but if you fail to at very least keep a broad audience entertained and just resort to political pandering you aren't playing in the same league as Stewart and Colbert.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  John Yoo pwned Stewart when he had him on. And what about the infamous "How are you holding up?" interview with Kerry?
  - cataphract 10y ago
    True, but John Yoo is lawyer than had been thinking about his ideas (read: rationalizations) for years, written books, taught classes and so on. You couldn't really expect Stewart to win the argument...
vasilipupkin 10y ago
He doesn't have to, but when it's a mix of serious and funny, it's easy to end up both not serious enough and not funny enough
pc86 10y ago
It's important to use the same words when discussing like this, because "preachiness" and "seriousness" mean very different things in this context. We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions. And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."
- nhangen 10y ago
  Exactly! It's more condescending and "holier than thou" than anything, with such clear bias that I don't find it fascinating or interesting at all.
- monksy 10y ago
  > he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Not completely. If there was a subculture that he didn't get along with, he'd feel completely at home with completely steam rolling them. (I.e. Dungeons and Dragons) What I liked about Colbert is that he would try to jump into the culture and make absurd jokes with the community.

by zymhan 10y ago

lujim 10y ago

John was smart, likable, and funny. Even my most vocal right wing buddy watched him because he was informative and entertaining. Stewart was quick on his feet and could out think anyone Fox news could pit against him. Colbert was Stewart on steroids in a verbal battle of wits and watching him repeatedly dismantle Bill O'Riley and President Bush made my jaw drop. No one has to adhere to an arbitrary ratio of anything but if you fail to at very least keep a broad audience entertained and just resort to political pandering you aren't playing in the same league as Stewart and Colbert.

selimthegrim 10y ago
John Yoo pwned Stewart when he had him on. And what about the infamous "How are you holding up?" interview with Kerry?
- cataphract 10y ago
  True, but John Yoo is lawyer than had been thinking about his ideas (read: rationalizations) for years, written books, taught classes and so on. You couldn't really expect Stewart to win the argument...

vasilipupkin 10y ago

He doesn't have to, but when it's a mix of serious and funny, it's easy to end up both not serious enough and not funny enough

pc86 10y ago

It's important to use the same words when discussing like this, because "preachiness" and "seriousness" mean very different things in this context. We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions. And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."

nhangen 10y ago
Exactly! It's more condescending and "holier than thou" than anything, with such clear bias that I don't find it fascinating or interesting at all.
monksy 10y ago
> he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Not completely. If there was a subculture that he didn't get along with, he'd feel completely at home with completely steam rolling them. (I.e. Dungeons and Dragons) What I liked about Colbert is that he would try to jump into the culture and make absurd jokes with the community.