Jon Stewart vs. Craig Kilborn

Over and over, Stewart asserts that politics are a comedic matter. His show is comedy. And their show is comedy, the only difference being that one is intentional. So when politicians come on his show, all they end up doing is branding their comedy in a different way. The message the politicians are trying to send to viewers is, "Hey, we get this humor and we get young people, and we'd be delighted to get your vote." The message they really send is, "It's true: It really is all a show. We're phony to the core. And even though this show's host knows it, he won't call us on it because his show isn't really about that."

And, hey, it is on Comedy Central. Is it really Stewart's job to be a tough interviewer? Anyone who saw the show before Stewart arrived (yes, that's right, there was a Daily Show without Stewart for two years) knows pretty damn well the roots of the show are not the most serious. And in many ways, very little has changed. To demonstrate, I've made a handy ten-point comparison between him and the former host, Craig Kilborn.


5'6"	Approximately 11-feet tall.
Sometimes pompous.	Could have been the only man on TV more pompous than the author of this comparison.
Natural gray hair.	Possibly the vainest man on Earth, actually held segments celebrating the condition of his hair that particular day (see above).
Prior Experience: Starred in the film, "Half Baked."	Prior Experience: Worked as an anchor of SportsCenter on ESPN.
Was guest on The Daily Show w/ Craig Kilborn.	Was host on The Daily Show w/ Craig Kilborn.
Takes a friendly, joking approach to interviewing, and occasionally can't bring himself to do it, becoming not really angry so much as indignant.	Administered "5 Questions" segment, attempting to determine the factual basis of hard-hitting matters such as, "Better the next day: Cold pizza or cold Chinese food?"
Can't seem to let a week pass without making a Jerry Lewis impression.	Probably incapable of taking his attention off himself long enough to do any impression.
Interaction with the show's creator, Lizz Winstead: She criticized, "When you are interviewing a Richard Perle or a Kissinger, if you give them a pass, then you become what you are satirizing."	Interaction with the show's creator, Lizz Winstead: Kilborn publicly stated "...to be honest, Lizz does find me very attractive. If I wanted her to blow me, she would."
Too many NAMBLA jokes.	Just enough self-aggrandizing image worship to have you wondering whether he means it.
Probably a pretty nice guy off-camera.	No fucking way.

Most of the differences are in their personalities. It's a comedy show and it always was. And to state an unpopular opinion, I always thought the show was much funnier with Kilborn. There was something magical about his mocking politics one minute, and then segueing into a bit about how well he could disco dance.

When I watch Stewart, I feel he really is pissed off that his job is so easy, that there is so much to make fun of. He leaves me wanting to believe in his protestation. I want to see more of what he did on Crossfire. I want to see him do what Stephen Colbert did at the white house correspondents' dinner and on The O'Reilly Factor. And, unlike Kilborn, Stewart leads me to believe he really wants to do it and that he can do it.

But I don't see him doing it. Lizz Winstead's criticism that he needs to ask tougher questions of political guests seems perfectly valid. The fact is, what he did on Crossfire got lots of laughs. It was a very serious criticism, but it was delivered in a funny way. So his defense that it isn't his job to take politicians, corporations, and the media to task (despite his doing it in all parts of the show except the interview) doesn't really hold up. It's his job to make a funny show that is popular as possible. And the Crossfire clip was not only a funny showing. It was massively forwarded. It was covered by other news programs. It was, in a word, phenomenal.

It also appeared to be very taxing. It's not easy to stare someone down and call him to accompt for his misdeeds. To ask Stewart to seriously scrutinize his guests four nights a week is asking a lot. It would probably drain him of his ability to be funny, and it's hard to believe he would be able to keep it up and keep getting interviewees. And yet he keeps leading me to believe that's what he wants to do. I keep hearing him expressing righteous contempt for politicians' lies and stupidity, repetitive acts of corporate corruption, and the media's ineptitude in reporting it all.

I'm tired of hearing about how the show is "Emmy-award winning," or how "more young people are getting their news from Jon Stewart than from traditional news sources." Or how he's become a symbol that the "disaffected youth" can identify with. I don't care. It's been said that the show only reinforces/encourages apathy in young viewers. Well, I think I speak for males aged 18-34 when I say, it doesn't take much to be apathetic these days.

And really, it isn't quite apathy so much as an acknowledgement of profound powerlessness, that none of the candidates who might actually be elected seem poised to stand up to the corruption I see. It's not that it's Stewart's responsibility to ask tougher questions. It's just that if he could do that more often, it would be a much more entertaining show. If he continues to take a chummy, non-confrontational approach to interviewing war criminals, then soon he'll need to start satirizing himself. For my money, I'd rather not be led on. When Stewart isn't tough on guests, he leaves me missing the humor of the sometimes obnoxious, but always unambiguously superficial, Craig Kilborn.