‘L.A. Times’ sets up another Colbert vs. Stewart title fight
By
It must be a hiatus week, because someone’s asking the question: which is better, Stephen or Jon? This time, it’s the Los Angeles Times‘ turn:
They were once comrades on “The Daily Show.” But who’s more popular now? (AP / Getty Images)
Has the student surpassed the master?
By Chris Lee, Patrick Day and Stephanie Lysaght, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 26, 20071. Interviewing technique
STEWART
Jon Stewart’s affable demeanor may lull casual viewers into thinking he’s just another celebrity shill, but his Leno-like nice-guy approach is just the cover for a fierce interviewing technique that would make Mike Wallace proud. Witness his recent pointed interviews with Sen. John McCain, Lynne Cheney and Chris Matthews as proof that Stewart’s got more on his mind than his next one-liner.COLBERT
When it comes to interviews, Stewart is notoriously sycophantic. On the flip side, sure, Stephen Colbert frequently interrupts his interviewees, makes their ideas — even the ideologically unassailable ones — sound ridiculous and prefaces his on-camera interactions by cautioning guests in the green room: “Remember, I play a character who’s a complete . . . .” But the people Colbert interviews make their points despite his conversational riffing rather than because he asked them softball questions. And he provides unimpeachable integrity in an era when fake news has stolen much of real broadcast news’ thunder.Advantage: Colbert
2. Social Relevance
STEWART
Stewart may say time and again that “The Daily Show” is just a comedy show on basic cable, but every once in a while his moral outrage at the current state of affairs in the world is barely concealed with a smirk. Keith Olbermann may be garnering recent praise by mixing media analysis with laughs, but Stewart was there first.COLBERT
He coined a neologism, “truthiness,” that was named “word of the year.” He had his viewers change Wikipedia to say that Africa’s elephant population was not endangered but, in fact, had grown. He even has a bridge in Hungary, a plane and a hockey league mascot named after him. But in his guise as a feckless Bill O’Reilly clone, he is not so much preaching to the neoconservative choir as he is being the biggest bully in the bully pulpit. Funny? Yes. Persuasive? Not so much.Advantage: Stewart
Sometimes when I see these articles, I’m tempted to ask, “Can’t we all just get along?” Pitting Stephen and Jon against one another generally amuse me to the extent that these stories recount the things each host excels at, but, honestly, I don’t think the “which is better” question is one that can be answered. These men are both incredibly talented, well-read, witty and charming. They have both given us ample reasons to like them (or not, if that’s your thing). Determining anything beyond that seems to me a matter of taste.
As ever, feel free to comment on your preference, your reasons and/or your decision not to choose.
Related posts
8 Comments
October 26th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I may not be as, er, intrigued by Jon now as I am with Stephen, but before TCR I used to think of Stephen as That Guy With the Glasses Who’s Not Those Other Guys With the Glasses, and I paid far more attention to Jon than the correspondents. They both have so many admirable qualities.
And besides, they complement each other so well! I can’t choose. Let’s just splice their DNA.
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 9:21 am
They are similar, but not the same.
Jon’s biting edge is entirely different than Stephen’s when it gets down to delivery. Jon is passionate about his progressiveness and that comes through – Stephen seems more passionate about the joke, and so the show is slightly cerebral… or maybe not less, but since its farcical, it’s delivered in a different way.
Husband and I always say we watch the news to get ticked, watch Jon to be pissed off and laugh with an edge, and watch Stephen to cap it off with some cleansing belly laughs.
It’s a cathartic daily journey that keeps me from sitting 24/7 on the capital steps with a sign that says “Why are we in this handbasket, again?”
Besides, the capital steps don’t get cable.
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I find it hard to compare them as I view their roles on TV as complete opposites, they are both equally awesome, just for different reasons :D
And i’m not being diplomatic, I honestly couldn’t choose a favourite.
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
They are both heroes saving America’s sanity with admirable comedic techniques, apples and oranges but both delicious.
“There’s no question that Colbert has much more going on off-screen than his counterpart.
Advantage: Stewart”
Shouldn’t that say Colbert?
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 10:42 am
@Gaia: Yeah, back when I just a casual TDS viewer, it took me awhile to register that Ed and Stephen were two different people! Heh.
But really, I don’t think much of these types of articles, because IMO Jon and Stephen and their shows are completely incomparable. They have different purposes and different formats, and they’re both completely necessary! I usually enjoy Jon’s interviews more, I must admit, so I’d disagree with the article on that point – there just seems to be usually more real substance to the interview when it’s not filtered through the character, though there are exceptions. And Stephen is better at selling himself, but Jon’s not really *interested* in selling himself, so that’s not a valid comparison. In terms of popularity, TDS still gets better ratings, I think, but Stephen’s fans are considerably more rabid! Stephen’s very good at what he does, which happens to be more high-profile; but that doesn’t make Jon any *less* good at the completely different thing *he’s* doing! And if you want to get technical, Stephen was on TDS before Jon was, so there. “Has the student surpassed the master?” is kind of a silly question here.
That said, they should totally have a lightsaber fight. That would be awesome.
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Time for the off week discussion, right? I’ve got to agree with the other commenters – you really can’t compare the two. They’re not there to compete with each other; the shows complement each other and each is based on a different type of mainstream news show.
Jon’s been in the spotlight for longer and though he’s not exactly sitting back and chilling out, he doesn’t need to go out and actively promote himself. Plus you have Stephen’s personality (“attention whore!”) and drive to push the envelope.
Apples and oranges, and both are indispensable. But I wouldn’t say no to them appearing on each other’s shows again!
Reply
October 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I have to agree with everyone here that you can’t compare our two guys. I’m probably (no, totally) obsessed with Stephen, but I love Jon, too. But Jon doesn’t try to talk me into getting bridges named after him, or buying a Wrist Strong bracelet, or joining 1,000,000 Strong for Jon Stewart, or donating money to classrooms in SC. I’ve done all of those things. They’re both incredibly intelligent, and witty. They’re good interviewers, and I wish I had them both as personal friends, or could work on either one’s show. Now that would be great!
Reply
October 31st, 2007 at 1:26 am
Jon Stewart
Stephen is certainly amusing, but especially now with him trying to be on every show/ product its annoying
Reply