They forced Stewart to go back on the air, but they couldn't force him to be funny. Maybe he is trying to show his corporate masters how badly he needs his writers.

The Daily Show last night was some of the smartest television I've seen in a long time. The extra long Internet residuals bit wasn't intended as comedy, and is probably a more in-depth explanation of the situation (and certainly, more in-depth exploration of its absurdity) than most people have previously seen. He also very visibly took the side of the writers, at length, which, given the acrimony the strike has engendered, is probably important to future good relations.

The interview with professor Seeber was some of the more intelligent television I've seen lately, what with the strike and all.

Still, American Gladiators is awesome, I've got to admit that.

Colbert's show was brilliant. I laughed just as maniacally as I usually do, and Andrew Sullivan's passion was a joy to watch. Thanks for doing this write-up; I laughed all over again at your play-by-play of Colbert's show.

I think you're right, that Jon and Stephen are going to be sweating, a lot, till the strike is over. But Jon will find his stride and Stephen has got to be the most nimble entertainer I have ever seen in my life. (Literally. I think we may see some cool acrobatics and dances from him.)

I'm just thankful these two are back on, providing an hour of sanity and clarity (ironically enough).

People may not be aware of the strike yet, but they will when 85% of prime time programming is reality fare and reruns. Networks/Cable are just starting to run out of whatever canned material they had stored when the strike hit, and it's going to get real ugly from here on.

As for source material for TDS and TCS, that all depends on what goes down this year.

Garry Owen asked; 'What ever happened to Laugh In? All current events based comedy waxes and wanes with the times.'

Laugh In was my favorite show when I was a kid. I can remember watching it & laughing until my sides hurt. I caught a rerun of it a few years ago & I was astounded at how not-funny it appeared to me now. Many of the references the show made I failed to pick up on (forgot some of the reasons they were ragging on various people) & the show had a Bennie Hill quality that I guess I appreciated more when I was 12.

That dude who rode the tricycle & then fell over still cracked me up though.

It's a good thing the "real" news shows don't require writers -they only need someone to show up and jot down whatever the Bush administration tells them. And the "reporters" covering the presidential campaigns are furnished with the talking points du jour from each candidate, and dutifully repeat what they're told. (The only "analysis" provided by these reporters is by Andrea Mitchell, whose visceral hatred of her topic, Hillary Clinton, precludes a simple report - she always presents each day's new evidence of just how detestable Hillary is.)

Even without their writers, Jon & Steve are more insightful than the MSM.

I wish to express my support for the strike. I miss the late-night shows a lot but I don't think that the writers should be faulted for the situation.

In a previous post, jebldmm wrote (and the editor highlighted his comment):

"I really wish that the participants of this strike would make more of an effort to get together. I don't particularly care if television shows are being held up, but there are a lot of people suffering over what amounts to a "how much money can I keep" issue. This isn't the glory days of striking, when they were trying to get decent work hours and safe working conditions."

I disagree with this on several levels:

1. The money issue is a fair reason to strike. In light of the absurd incomes of CEOs, any worker should have the moral right to ask for an increase in wages to level the field.

2. This is not only about money, it is about fairness: If your company is making a lot of money out of your creative efforts, you should have the right to participate in the revenues and have your author's contribution honored.

3. This actually may be the very glory days of striking: There have been few strikes as of late, with unions crumbling in front of the organized big business. Recently, the Dow-Jones was soaring to record levels, but average wages stagnated and benefits dropped. As working professionals, we may in fact be all in the same boat with the writers.

Lest we forget, reality shows are the bastard children of the last writers' strike. Could we bear any more of these 15-minutes-of-fame travesties? TV is less and less of an option for entertainment these days, when the 500 channels of cable are all filled with 'reality blows' and the same 20 movies play ad nauseum on the movie channels. Netflix is looking more like my evening choice, and cable will only be useful for choosing movies on the internet.

as I recall, 'Laugh-In' used the aftermath of the hippie counterculture, the drawdown from Vietnam and the implosion of the Nixon White House as its source material; Ford, Carter, Iran-Contra and the Reagan era were the source material for 'Saturday Night Live'; the 'Shrub' White House has become its own joke

one must also remember that several of the TV shows from the 1960's drew from romantic images of World War II (Combat, Gallant Men, Rat Patrol, 12 O'Clock High, McHale's Navy); thanks in part to the exhaustive nightly news coverage of Vietnam, there was no romance associated with Vietnam, no one wanted to do a show about America wandering around in a jungle like a blind man

I was very pleased to tune in and see Stewart and Colbert trying to salvage their shows and make sense, or light, of the writer's strike. I thought both did as well a job as could be expected.

Jon Stewart's opening monologue was funny -- and a little weird. It appeared he had written his own material, such as it was, because much of it was a little "off" and yet still witty in a more off-the-cuff way. I don't understand the rules, exactly, but if Stewart writes his own jokes, is he then considered a "writer" and therefore a scab?

The graphic for one of his pieces was funny: It said, "Insert clever pun here," or something, since the Daily Show usually has some of the best pun-based and reference-based titles. I was a little sorry to see no presence of any of Stewart's accomplices, but I suppose they're working on something. (If a piece is done ad-lib and then edited together, that's not writing, is it?)

Honestly I won't mind if Stewart's show goes on for a while like this; I am just glad it's back. His show has been sorely missed and is exactly what's needed during the torturous presidential primaries. There's so much material available, and there has been no show to exploit it. I hope Stewart and Colbert had a good, long vacation. Both of them made reference to playing "Guitar Hero" (as well as the Wii console)...

Colbert's show was funny too. He extended his opening applause-mongering for as long as possible, while looking at his watch as if trying to fill time. Colbert is a terrific ad-libber, and he's proven that even without writers he can hold his own very well, with one of the quickest wits in entertainment. (I'm a fan of Colbert's dating back to his days on the short-lived Dana Carvey Show, which I strongly urge fans to look up on YouTube -- it was viciously funny and also featured the early talents of Robert Smigel and Steve Carrell.)

There are two things that Stewart and Colbert are going to be relying heavily on until the writer's strike is over: (1) segments built entirely around edited footage, and (2) interviews.

We saw a glimpse of the edited pieces when Stewart presented a montage of Hillary Clinton, Obama and Edwards saying the word "change" over and over, with a final, hilarious punchline of Bill Richardson saying something with the word "change." It made all the candidates look a bit ridiculous trying to claim they could effect change. Colbert's edited bits drew more from his own show, presenting a montage of all the times he has ripped on unions (both of them have a rich back-log of material to draw from, but if they use it too much it will start to come across as "best of" filler).

I am looking forward to more interviews from both shows, though there seem to be some negative business-politics issues associated with appearing on the program during the writer's strike, so they probably will get some unusual and lower-tiered guests. Stewart's weak point has often been his interviews, so perhaps he'll get a chance to hone his skills and let people talk more now (I noticed him abruptly interrupting his guest just as he was about to say something interesting....Stewart is too hyper sometimes). Colbert is a terrific interviewer who gets excellent reactions out of his guests. It was amusing to see Andrew Sullivan laugh so much, and I think Colbert nearly made his other guest (the guy with the hat) lose it at one point.

Stewart/Colbert are the best combinations of entertainment and politics, as far as I'm concerned, and if they don't overcome this mess then U.S. culture has lost something very worthwhile.