On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Stewart and Colbert Losing their 'Cool'
by: Scott Martin posted: 2009-06-16 16:15:00
Viewed 437 times. 5 Comments.
Forbes notes that the average viewer age of the Comedy Central stars has gone up by five years.
On their late night talk shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert love to refer to their audiences as dorm-living, pot-smoking couch potatoes. But the reality is that their average viewer is more likely to be a hard-working Dad or even a retiree.So while Stewart's show grabbed big buzz this week for skewering The New York Times' for being the kind of news a "grandmother" would love, in May the median age of The Daily Show viewers crept up five years to 41.4, and the median age of The Colbert Report viewers was up five years to 38.3 , according to Nielsen.
This dramatic change is since May of 2008. What has changed since last year? A couple things. First off, no election cycle. It can be argued that younger viewers are less likely than older viewers to seek out political knowledge absent an upcoming battle.
More significantly, I suspect, is the content of the two shows. A year ago, both shows regularly skewered a Republican administration, while fawning over the young hipster, Barack Obama. Now that Obama is in power, both shows have dealt with the new administration's ongoing gaffes and leadership failures. Perhaps those "dorm-living, pot-smoking couch potatoes" don't much enjoy having their beliefs challenged and their President mocked.
Compared to May 2008, the number of people between the ages of 18 and 34 (the most coveted demographic) watching The Daily Show fell 14%, 15% for The Colbert Report. At the same time, the number of people older than 55 watching The Daily Show rose by 25%, 22% for The Colbert Report.
But older viewers are on the rise. I doubt this is in the form of more conservatives tuning in, but rather an increase in viewership among the generally older and more moderate Hillary Clinton-voters, ie, the PUMAs. Many of these voters are appalled at the growth of government and destruction of business currently ongoing. Not ready to start listening to a Rush or a Hannity, they instead look for an occasionally critical point of view coming from the left - and Stewart and Colbert are all that they can find.
Despite the overall increase in audience, Comedy Central sees no humor in it.
"When you start to see the age creep up on a show like that, you wonder whether the show is sustainable," says Laura Caraccioli-Davis, head of entertainment at Starcom... "It's systematic of the fact that at Comedy Central they need to continue developing shows for younger viewers."
If Stewart and Colbert fail, what next? Perhaps then it will be time for a conservative voice on Comedy Central, who will have the opportunity to expose young minds to the wisdom and commonsense of the right.
Remember Rush's old late-night show? Something like that could be huge in the next couple years. We can only hope.
Related Articles
- Contest: Win a pre-release copy of John Yoo's 'Crisis and Command' in time for Christmas delivery!
- Dems Said The Class Act “Ponzi Scheme” Strip It, But It Is Included In Final Health Care Bill
- Novel idea: It is Time for Republican Leaders to Step Down - on Principle
- Excellent one-click tweet and contact page for important Senators - Please RT
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/stewart-and-colbert-losing-their-cool-/trackback
Comments 5
Whether or not that is true, if so I would assume they were boring and not funny a year ago. So what happened to their audience?
The daily show has been on a long time so this makes sense. They have decent skit humor. I liked Craig Kilborn as host. The format of the show has changed radically. At the start they emphasized skit comedy and fake news but it has shifted away from this since the beginning to news and mockery. I have not watched the show continuously since the very beginning, but the good clips (NYT) show up in the swarm. Some small percentage of Colbert survives. He can be clever, but his improvisational abilities are poor and his act fails him.
When comedians are more like news people and news people are more like comedians it must be a sure sign judgment day is coming soon...
It's not that the younger group prefer the Republican bashing. It's just that it was much more funny that way, because Bush brought such easy material to rip on. I don't watch Colbert anymore because I'm tired of the bit he's doing. It's funny, but it has a ceiling. That doesn't mean its not funny anymore, or that I don't enjoy it, its just that I would much rather watch something else because I can see it coming from a mile away.
I watched these guys during the Bush administration, because I was just so frustrated with the terrible leadership and decisions they brought. As soon as Obama was voted in, Stewart said something like "we did it!" For me, it felt like my duty as a "fake news" fan was done. Making fun of Bush was literally comedic justice, and it seemed to be the only way we could get it. And lucky for these guys it was way too easy and it made for good entertainment.
It may sound hard to believe, but I don't think Jon Stewart is biased. He wants fairness and sensibility in news coverage and from his government. If Obama went out today and got busted for marijuana possession (or something similar to what Clinton did) , you can bet on it he would be ripping on him the next day. The audience has changed because the political environment has changed. I hope a different demographic can find something in the Daily Show, because it has so much to offer.
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the My...
Direct hit: "It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion." "Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."Views: 64 Comments: 0
-
One last trick up Boehner's sleeve?
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill. The concern is based on the fear of GOP attack ads painting Democrats who vote against a motion to recommit that includes Stupak’s favored language on abortion as “flip-floppers” on the issue…Views: 265 Comments: 0
-
Crocodile tears: Pro-abortion House livid that ...
Members of the pro-choice caucus are livid after the White House released the Executive Order on abortion to the media without showing it to them. According to members who spoke on the condition of anonymity, at the end of the Stupak press conference today they were still waiting to see the language of the Executive Order. The first they saw of it was after the White House released it with a statement to the media.Views: 73 Comments: 0
-
The Hill factors in Stupak: Defeat still within...
They count 37 dem "no" votes. Makes Kanjorski (PA-11) dang important.Views: 181 Comments: 0
-
New issue? Senate cannot take up expedited reco...
From Drudge - FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....Views: 155 Comments: 0
-
Stupak News Conference at 4PM
From FDL: 3:28 pm – CNN is reporting that a Stupak press conference will take place at 4 pm. If Stupak’s bloc decides to vote in mass for the bill it will pass baring a large revolt from pro-choice Democrats.Views: 87 Comments: 1
-
If Barack Forces Passage of Health Care “Reform...
Great Analysis. Begins here: Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.Views: 110 Comments: 8
-
Conference of Bishops: It is the unanimous view...
Do we really need to state the obvious? Laws are made and changed in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. Only in dictatorships are laws made by the Executive Branch.According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
Views: 80 Comments: 0
-
Breaking: Hoyer - We don't have the votes yet
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) predicted Sunday that Democrats will have the votes to pass the massive health care bill later in the day, but he suggested a number of crucial Members were still undecided. “There are still Members looking at it and trying to make up their minds, but we think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll,” Hoyer said on NBC’s "Meet the Press.” He added, "We’re going to pass this bill.” Hoyer said the remaining votes the Democrats need are “in the low single digits, certainly.”Views: 96 Comments: 0
-
Senate bill requires 67 vote supermajority to k...
So the Dems now want to decide who lives and who dies so badly, they have rigged the rules to require 67 votes to kill the death panels. Keep in mind this is the same number of votes needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.[Democrats] have inserted . . . a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." . . . The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
Views: 87 Comments: 1
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Scott Martin
- Census Reminder: You're an American
on 2010-03-16 with 122 views - Congressional Phone Lines Maxing Out on Capitol Hill
on 2010-03-16 with 120 views - Enthusiasm Gap Widens
on 2010-03-16 with 73 views - Remember Reagan Billboard
on 2010-03-16 with 132 views - Kucinich to announce his vote on health care Wednesday morning
on 2010-03-16 with 90 views - Obama's 2nd-Cousin: Americans deserve answers before Congress votes
on 2010-03-16 with 84 views - Virginia: McDonnell claims an 80% success rate in assembly
on 2010-03-16 with 77 views - Keynesian Economics, Exposed
on 2010-03-16 with 75 views - White House Announces Unemployment Will Remain High For Rest of Year
on 2010-03-16 with 92 views - 'I'm a Bill, I've Been Deemed, and I'm Even Worse Than You Dreamed'
on 2010-03-16 with 101 views
Hey, it is not they are losing their cool - they are boring to the nth degree and oh so not funny. (No, I do not watch because they are boring and not funny.)