The Problem with Jon Stewart

I remember a video by Hbomberguy about politics in video games had something like this: "People don't dislike politics in video games, it depends on the kinds of politics you put in video games and if they like it."

I'm 26 this year. I remember watching Jon's daily show back in 2007. To me, Jon didn't change that much. Still passionate about the hypocrisies and inequalities in America. Still funny in many ways, even when talking about heavy topics. The topics he talked about did changed somewhat, but not that much. From Bush to Trump and Biden, but still all the hypocrisies. From "class warfare" (que world of warcraft parody) to ... still class warfare. From white privilege to structural racism. Frankly, it is quite astonishing to see a country that couldn't even try to fix its fundamental problems for such a long time, it is almost humiliating. Jon is still illuminating in his new show, bring carefully researched heavy hitting pieces to us, albeit in a slightly different format now.

What changed, then? Why do so many people hate Jon's new show now?

The most complain I see people make is that "there is no comedy, no jokes" here. Another one might be "people don't need to know more about the fundamental problems in this country anymore."

Both criticism have some legitimacy, but to sum it all up, it is that "Time has changed."

We no longer live in a society where carefully researched and funny political commentaries are so rare. We live in a society with a Infodemic problem, where information overload happens everywhere.

Jon's core audience, from both the past (40s~50s) and the present(10s~30s) understand the fundamental problems of America. We are constantly bombarded by the spillover of these problems everyday.

Mass shooting, discrimination, democracy rollback, having boomers controlling the vast majority of political sphere, inequalities, NIMBY attitudes. We all know that, and we all know we can do nothing about that. We all know America needs a revolution, a massacre, a bloodshed to change its core. However, Jon's previous core audience is no longer in the position of doing that now. They followed jon 20 years ago, but now they are in their 40s or 50s, and are the major money maker and consumer in this country. They don't want to be reminded of the dirtiness of their country, their work, because they directly benefit from it. They no longer have the wit, or wish, to change the society.

It is not, and I quote from ryardley-73707, that "he has turned in to the exact people he used to make fun of." It is that his past audience has become the exact problem he is criticizing.

It is not Jon using the same buzz word everyone is using that is "nothing insightful", it is they don't like the buzz word Jon's using.

It is not Jon is no longer funny. It is that the audience no longer find the issue funny.

Again to reiterate my point, Jon didn't change, the time has changed. Instead of listening to his fans from 20 years ago, I suggest listening to the people in their 20s now. What do they think about "The Problem with Jon Stewart"? The answer should be clear as day.

Although to be fair, this show is not perfect for everyone (thus the 9/10).

Who are these people who are so insulted when confronted with their own privileged existence? They realize that the term "woke" is used to describe people who are fighting for rights and equality, right? But somehow, that's now a bad thing and being "woke" is an insult. LOL!

It really is quite sad.

Jon Stewart is good at what he does and he's back and better than ever, unfortunately though I couldn't enjoy the show due to the audience laughter. Live audiences ad atmosphere, I get it, but whoever if doing the sound mixing needs to turn down the audience mics, it's cringey and painful.

If they rectify the sound issues I'll be back, otherwise I just have to pass.

Jon Stewart's brief excursion into Apple before returning to the Daily Show was eagerly anticipated but never really found its feet. He did seem a bit stiff during the intro segments throughout but I admire the analytical format generally - even if the central panel discussions did tend towards the superfluous at best and downright awkward at worst. Where he really shone was interviewing the heavy hitters - his stunning wrong-footing of the Shell CEO in the first season was one of the highlights of the year for me and may be revisited in future times. Ultimately "Problem" lacked consistency and for me sits in the shadow of the far superior (and sadly cancelled) "Problem Areas With Wyatt Cenac". More to that, at the end (or mid point) of the slightly leaner second season, he ditched the long-form analysis model and briefly re-entered contemporary critique again and the vibe was palpable. That he then returned to his ideal format and excelled in the pre-election time makes this now a bit of a forgotten curio rather than anything worth seeking out particularly but there were some really bright spots.

I love what Jon Stewart and his team are trying to do here. Outline really big, tough issues, meet some of the people directly impacted and also some people with power who need to use it to make change. Season with a dash of humour. It should work, right?!

Yet....somehow it doesn't quite seem to come together. The panels with the impacted parties seems a little too fast/glib and "show me your trauma" and the segments w/ the powerful people seem a little flat - maybe they need to get them all in a room to have a civil, but frank conversation? The segments with the writers are actually quite enjoyable.'

Will I keep watching? Yes, but i no longer wait for the next episode to drop.