That South African guy was the whiniest, least funny bullshit ever. I hope he never comes back.
Never trust anyone who uses "degenerate" as an insult.He was hilarious and right on point. All of the new correspondents do the "awkward" bit when they come on; it's a Running Gag. His segment with Stewart at least managed to be topical and high on information as opposed to jokes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I liked him. Also it seems like people hate every correspondent not named Samantha Bee or Jason Jones. I think it could be interesting (also I love his accent). Also regarding preaching to the choir, that's inevitable. Unless they start showing TDS on Fox News they aren't going to watch. Also you'd be surprised to find what so-called liberals really think on some issues...I know some people who would call themselves liberal (or at least independent) that will turn around and call black people "coons".
Actually, I find Jason and Sam can often try too hard.
My favourite correspondent is Aasif.
Yeah, I find that Trevor Noah was great (and whiny? What the hell are you talking about?) and that Jason Jones and Samantha Bee are the worst of the correspondents around. "Durr Hurr Stupid American" is a gimmick that's played out a long time ago, and the newer correspondents actually tell jokes, not act like jokes.
New guy is hilarious! I love that he has a point of view, but still remembers to talk about it like a comedian. That combination is why I love Aasif so much, and why Jon Oliver is the best correspondent they ever had.
edited 6th Dec '14 2:36:16 PM by BadWolf21
Yeah, I thought the new guy was fantastic. He's gotten off to a really strong start. It was funny but intelligent, with some good points and some good jokes.
As an aside, it's kinda funny that Jones and Bee play up the "stupid American" angle so much, considering they're Canadian. Though Jones has definitely gotten fed up with it, and has become a lot more willing to just flat-out call something bullshit.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.Now that you mention it, Jason's work has been really good lately, once his character switched from "office idiot" to "put-upon reporter who's fed up with this shit".
The latter used to be Oliver's role, and Klepper does stupid so much better.
So far, I've liked every correspondent. For me, it doesn't really come down to delivery. It comes down to the content of the jokes. For example, if my first experience with, say, Jessica Williams was a report filled with innuendos, I would think she's funny, I just wouldn't like the jokes. I can't remember if that really happened. I know it did with Jason. Anyway, I like everyone.
Yeah, it happened with that one crazy woman who kept repeating meaningless talking points, I think around the time of a government shutdown. I remember Jones brought in a hostage negotiator to help him deal with the woman, and even the hostage negotiator thought she was nuts. Ever since that piece, Jones has been a lot less tolerant of bullshit. That woman broke him.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.Broke him, or broke his character? These are all comedy actors, not actual reporters, regardless of how much better they deliver facts to an audience than the actual news media.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think it kinda broke him, to the point where he couldn't keep doing the same character he'd done for so long.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.It seems more likely to me that they had Jordan waiting to start, saw that he would be similar to Jason's character, and changed Jason a bit to fill the role that Oliver left behind better.
Except Klepper's character is very different. Klepper's character is harmlessly ignorant. Jones' character was actively an asshole. Yeah, he was the stupid American, but it was a very self-centred stupid, as opposed to Klepper's more clueless stupidity.
X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.So he was too similar to Klepper, and the show lost a particular voice with Oliver, so Jason slid down the scale a bit to accommodate.
I think it's a little naive to think that he was "broken" by anything that happened in an interview. He's been doing this for years. An interview he did got a man thrown in an Iranian prison. He's too experienced to let anything unintentionally change his character.
Everybody's arguing about the new South African correspondent and all I can think is "Yes, finally another correspondent with an accent."
I swear Jason started doing the more serious stuff well before Oliver left, maybe I'm missremebering though.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI don't think he was.
Maybe while Oliver was hosting? I don't think Jason's been doing the "fed up" bit for over a year and a half yet.
Oh god. Klepper's segment last night was hilarious.
"Wait, what? What are...what are you asking me now?"
"You have that much integrity but you'll bitch about 25 cents extra for eggs."
"Why'd you bring up genocide?"
Spot-on work.
edited 10th Dec '14 3:00:14 PM by BadWolf21
Heard about the CIA Torture thing. Felt genuine moral outrage.
Then the Klepper segment was absolutely hilarious. It's kind of nice that they're willing to go after targets who aren't quite as easy as usual politicians and media outlets. The comments section certainly got upset with it.
Oh wow, yeah, I just looked at the comments and there are so many people who are pissed about how the Daily Show has "belittled the issue of religious discrimination." ...Didn't that one dude in the segment say that he got the discount just by saying "thank you" to the chef? Right after the guy from the FFRF outright said that no one in his organization had actually been to the diner?
TDS has always been obviously liberal, but it's also always been against just going by party lines. One of the things I always liked about the show was the sense that the people who make it have their beliefs because they examined them and reached actually conclusions, not because they were dogmatic liberals. It's disappointing to see that a lot of other viewers are the opposite in that regard (one comment I noticed was written by someone who seemed to think that the Daily Show had betrayed liberals everywhere).
It's funny because this guy was really just the atheist equivalent of all those religious people they've had on the show and made fun of. Even right down to the absurd and overblown analogies.
edited 10th Dec '14 8:53:54 PM by LizardBite
I'm totally with The Daily Show until they make fun of one of mine.
edited 10th Dec '14 11:21:34 PM by Pannic
People are people. I don't think anyone ever said that the left is above kneejerk partisanship. I cringed a bit when I watched that segment, partially at my own reaction (I assumed, like most people likely did, that it was another exposé of bigoted Christians), but mainly because I knew it would light up the militant atheist community.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I love that Klepper basically does an end run on that. "Look, I'm an atheist. But you can get the discount by doing this." *holds his breath for a couple seconds, looking pensive*
The problem I have is not that I already knew about these issues, it's that the way they present their argument, the only people who will listen to them most likely already agree. Hence, preaching to the choir. I'm not the entire choir, just one person in it.
The trouble with using straw men and categorically mocking those who disagree with them is that they immediately alienate virtually everyone who wasn't already on their side. With a straw man, they're not refuting the opposition's argument, they're just insulting them. Case in point, the Redskins fans interview. First of all, after reading the Washington Post article, the fans didn't strike me as flat-out racist, even though the show tried to paint them that way. The mascot and name are blatantly racist and I believe it should definitely be changed, but the interviewees seemed more like misguided fans who started their train of thought at "I don't want to see the team renamed" and were grasping at straws for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to support that position. Now consider all the vitrol that took place in the confrontation between the activists and the fans in the filming of that segment. Do you think that would convince any of the fans to change their opinion? Based on my experience, I think they're much more likely to go "ugh, those activists are jerks" and only harden their opinion more. And therefore I find this sort of preaching to the choir frustrating because it's entirely counterproductive.
Extra 1: Poochy Ain't Stupid