I've been hearing mutterings about this appearance, so thanks for the link :-)

Damn, he's good. To me at least, Stewart seemed to be firmly in charge of that exchange and wasn't remotely troubled by the (failed) attempts to take him down. Which he needn't have been, because he was the only person at the table with a clear perspective on his role versus theirs in the media.

And ironically, it's this sense of perspective versus lack of perspective that means the Daily Show comes across with much more integrity than it's rivals on the "serious" news channels.

(It's true that Stewart HAS been saying the same thing for years; specifically 3 years, following a certain world-changing event. I think my respect for him peaked with his response to the news coverage on the day of the plane crash in Queens. Rather than focusing on the events themselves, which the networks had covered ad nauseum, he reamed the major news channels for their inane speculations, begging them to stop effectively "manufacturing" terror. I think that was the first time I heard him exclaim "You're supposed to be *helping* us!" and that's been a theme ever since.)

Perhaps I'm simply jaded after twenty hours of being awake and a somewhat dull meeting 450 miles away from home, but... sorry, I wasn't impressed. Actually, no, that's a bit strong: I was left with the same sort of nagging horror I get from Michael Moore. Namely, "Oh, shit! If this is the *best* political satire the country can muster, we're *really* screwed." I didn't think Stewart made a coherent argument. Expressed an opinion, yes, but one too easily dismissed. Notably, the bow-tie-wearing co-host dug himself a much larger hole than the one Stewart prepared for him. Sure, Stewart pushed him in, but that's not quite the same.

More interesting, in some ways, is Stewart's report on the programme in his Daily Show: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2653047. Which is funnier, considerably more biting, and carries a faint whiff of positive spin and selective/enhanced memory.

Personally, I'll take Bremner, Bird and Fortune. Or even Eddie Mair, on one of his pithier days.

Well, I can see what Jonathan means, although what was interesting to me was that he didn't present the slightly cocky persona that he has on his show, but rather that of an intelligent person who had a different point to make and who allowed his opponents, ultimately, to make it for him. Also, Tucker Carlson quite obviously is a dick, and wasn't it wonderful to have someone on-screen finally 'channel' us after years of shouting at the television (I know I'm not the only one who does that. In fact, it's got so bad in our household, due to inane North American advertising, that we've had to limit our response to adverts to a predetermined four comments, one of which, admittedly, is a loud and derisive burp). Regrettably, the only way for me to watch The Daily Show in this part of Canada is at midnight. Once upon a time, that would not have presented any difficulties ...