Apple teases return of 'The Problem with Jon Stewart' with new video
A teaser trailer for the return of Apple TV+ current affairs show, "The Problem with Jon Stewart," shows the host taking on topics including the stock market and Robinhood.
Following its announcement that "The Problem with Jon Stewart" series would be returning on March 3, 2022, Apple has now released a short teaser trailer.
In a press release, Apple TV+ says that the show is returning "in a new weekly format," and will be accompanied by its "official companion podcast."
Apple has not announced how many editions are in the new run of the show. However, it has said that the new season will include Stewart talking with SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, and examining the stock market.
The previous run of the show took the top spot as the most viewed unscripted series on Apple TV+ in October 2021. Although not scripted in the way a drama would be, the show is nonetheless written and has consequently earned a Writers' Guild nomination.
Read on AppleInsider
Following its announcement that "The Problem with Jon Stewart" series would be returning on March 3, 2022, Apple has now released a short teaser trailer.
In a press release, Apple TV+ says that the show is returning "in a new weekly format," and will be accompanied by its "official companion podcast."
Apple has not announced how many editions are in the new run of the show. However, it has said that the new season will include Stewart talking with SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, and examining the stock market.
The previous run of the show took the top spot as the most viewed unscripted series on Apple TV+ in October 2021. Although not scripted in the way a drama would be, the show is nonetheless written and has consequently earned a Writers' Guild nomination.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_writers
https://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/jon_stewart_almost_quit_the_daily_show_because_staff_was_insane/
https://www.vulture.com/2010/09/how_a_daily_show_segment_gets.html
These shows come across like it's the main presenter coming up with the material just like it seems actors in comedy shows come up with their lines but take the quality writers away and there's not enough material.
On his own, Jon Stewart can be insightful about topics he cares about and has thought long about. When it comes to long episodes of current affairs, there needs to be a strong team of writers to come up with a high volume of material.
John Oliver's show suffered the same problem. When he first started on his own after The Daily Show, his show was decent. Then the material started to thin out and eventually they have to resort to slapstick routines and pandering to their core audience bias.
I think the biggest problems these shows suffer from is when they just echo the feelings of their core audience. This is fine for the trained seals that want to clap along but it's empty rhetoric and people get tired of the fake sentiment. It's especially bad when they make it all about mocking the other political side and then their side gets into power because there's a lot less that they want to be critical of.
A lot of people on the Daily Show went separate ways and it diluted all of it. Trevor Noah's show is a trainwreck and the extras from the Daily Show are getting a fraction of the audience each:
https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/daily-show-ratings-plummet-trevor-noah/
The biggest draw comes from the more mainstream hosts like Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Colbert. They do celebrity interviews and this is what people tune in for:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ColbertLateShow/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
https://www.youtube.com/c/fallontonight/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
https://www.youtube.com/jkl/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
Jon Stewart's new stuff is all serious discussion, very little entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheProblemWithJonStewart/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
The trouble is, the more a show swings towards entertainment it loses credibility as a political show. Bill Maher's show is one of the best political shows and it has a strong, durable format that maintains the comedy element. If the others want more viewers, they should either consolidate or add more mainstream segments. I don't expect them to do balanced politics because it's hard to pull that off and with such tribal mentality these days, it's very easy to lose a core audience.
Good points!
Still, even Maher hits one every now and then, right George?
https://dailycaller.com/2022/02/19/bill-maher-china-human-rights-record-video-eileen-gu/
ChinaHate seems to have infected your brain. But, it's not your fault, ChinaHate seems to be more virulent than Omicron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saturday_Night_Live_episodes_(season_31%E2%80%93present)#Season_47_(2021%E2%80%9322)
Once a show can pull the audience, they can have whatever political commentary in there and have a broad reach.
Jon Stewart said he left The Daily Show because it became cyclical in sync with the mainstream news and he would rather have had a show like Joe Rogan's that was detached from the news cycle:
He made an interesting comment there about the Daily Show audience expecting the show to change things when it was setup as a comedy show.
His new show seems to be covering topics that were covered a lot on The Daily Show over the years and it looks like it's more about trying to change things than comedy but it's still just a talk show. Talk shows have been covering these topics for over 30 years and politicians have spent their entire lives talking about them but they rarely change anything.
If they are too extreme, the people who need to hear it just tune out. If they are moderate, nobody cares. If they are boring topics, people turn to the entertainers.
The single-topic shows with the audience may not be the right format for Jon Stewart. It doesn't cover enough topics in a given timeframe. He gives more meaningful commentary on the podcasts like the above video similar to how Rogan does it and it gives more freedom to cover any kind of topic that crops up.
He has said he's a libertarian a few times but he seems to mistake some qualities like being fiscally conservative and an independent voter with libertarianism. Most wealthy liberal elites (wealthy people in general) are fiscally conservative, they love social causes as long as someone else pays for them. He suggests here that the libertarian movement changed over the years but I think he just found out more about it and agreed with fewer things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpxVEiuxF0Y
Maher is a centrist who aligns most often with liberal values and will have a conversation with anyone and that's more than most people do these days. There's a totalitarian mentality today with an ever diminishing degree of tolerance over disagreement to the point that if people disagree with any of the opinions that someone holds at the present time, the relationship is over. Time to cancel and move to a safer space with more conforming opinions.
Being a centrist can of course result in holding some widely disagreeable opinions. I would say he's more vaccine skeptic than anti-vaxxer. There is a long history of officially approved products being later banned ( https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fda-approved-prescription-drugs-later-pulled-from-the-market/ ) and people who are vegan/vegetarian usually prefer natural alternatives.
Another element is risk factor. People today try to quickly make arguments binary so that they can make a decision about whether to attack or defend and label them pro/anti something. This contradicts being on the side of science. A lot of things in science are not absolutes, especially in medicine and there's a lack of information all round.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-maher-democrats-misinformed-coronavirus
If someone has a 0.6% risk of something bad happening vs 0.02% risk, it's reasonable for them to say that either way it's low risk without someone being abusive about it. But they still need to be informed that this amount of difference in risk can collapse a country's healthcare system because it's not designed to cope with so many people needing treatment at the same time. Maher has been countered on these points on his show because he gives a platform to opposing views.
Regardless of the specific topic, there needs to be more tolerance for conversation. They're just words and ideas and it's how people learn. There is unfortunately an inherent problem with modern platforms with their global scale and how they are delivered because it used to be that once ideas were debated and concluded, people moved on. That doesn't happen so much any more. When ideas are discredited, this no longer has to be acknowledged, the audience can be restricted to the people who agree and the same ideas are spread. Politicians do this all the time now. There's not an easy way to fix this but one thing that would help is to stop trying to cancel moderates because they are most likely to convince extremists on either side to compromise.
You're a Tankie. You support authoritarians and don't actually acknowledge provable facts about human rights violations and militarization.
To you, everything is "alternate facts".
https://7news.com.au/sport/winter-olympics/winter-olympians-criticise-china-over-human-rights-record-as-beijing-games-come-to-an-end-c-5768030