Stewart did almost all original material, talking to the camera.

Colbert was much more heavily clips for earlier shows.

Obviously one of those was going to be more affected by the lack of writers.

Colbert is an improvisor with major improvisor chops playing a character he invented. He can riff on that for a looooong time without ever putting pen to paper.

Stewart is a stand-up comic and a heck of a writer. His road to the funny is very different and nearly impossible to maintain solo.

For the past two years I have often found myself thinking, "what would Colbert say?" whenever I stumbled upon a particularly juicy news item. Yet, at 11:30 pm every night (Monday through Thursday) for the past two months, I remained as wretchedly lost and unsatisfied as a republican senator's wife on her wedding night.

This unfortunate writer's strike has generated many victims, but rarely are we fans ever mentioned among them. I can read, go outside to play, enjoy the company of tangible people in my real life but none of these things bring me as much joy as the warmth of Stephen's virtual friendship in the form of the Report.

Stephen can do no wrong. With or without writers, the Report is still the best and most worthwhile program on television. Even if he played checkers with a goose for hours, I would still prefer to watch that than network/cable news.

Still tuning in, are you?

Typical "progressive" fakery. All moral posturing with no commitment.

What a pretty little package.

Forced back to work. That's the phrase liberals are using to justify the actions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Talk about disingenuous. These guys didn't have to go back to work. Had they refused until a resolution, Viacom would've had to have been very, very careful about challenging them, in no small part because of the massive amount of public support either of them are capable of martialing.

As things played out, they returned to work - and, in doing so, weakened the strike's effect and the efforts of the very people they imply they support.

To believe they were forced back to work is to be a sucka. It's understandable their fans would prefer to characterize their return as being forced back to work. It's not like I'm unsympathetic. First there's no Santa. Now this.

Instead of directing the condemnation where it belongs - and God forbid anyone consider individual responsibity - the common refrain is "Sure, Stewart & Colbert are union members, but but but...

The only but that matters?

"... but, as a viewer, I want my entertainment. And I'll find any number of ways to justify my favorite liberal icons crossing picket lines in defiance of their own union's strike. Avoid watching? Hell no. Why should I have to endure the excruciating hardship of refraining from four hours of television every week until there's a resolution?"

Viewers of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show - millions of 'em - have bitched incessantly about Democratic politicians being unprincipled, spineless, corrupt traitors to liberalism for seven long years. But it's perfectly okay for these same viewers to refrain from exercising solidarity with the striking writers, even if it means becoming scabs themselves. Regardless of the mental gymnastics employed to assuage the conscience that knows better, the viewer - a real Friend of Labor, no doubt - tuning into Stewart and Colbert IS crossing a virtual picket line.

The next time you bitch about what weasels your Democratic representatives are, look in the mirror and be grateful you have a party which reflects its constituency just as capably as the ones conservatives have.

Some things really are as simple as they seem: As long as the strike is ongoing and you're watching The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report, you're a scab.

If you're comfortable with that designation, no problem.

If you're not, don't blame me. That's your Conscience talking.

Forced back to work. That's the phrase liberals are using to justify the actions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Talk about disingenuous. These guys didn't have to go back to work. Had they refused until a resolution, Viacom would've had to have been very, very careful about challenging them, in no small part because of the massive amount of public support either of them are capable of martialing.

From the beginning the WGA has been telling actors to fulfill their contracts and if those contracts can be fulfilled without using union writers...

I'm pretty sure the WGA doesn't consider Stewart and Colbert scabs.

Yeah, I'm finding it tough to sympathize with Stewart and Colbert and their awkward position. They may have more leverage than any of the strikers do collectively. If these two members of the WGA hold on and refuse to work, what will happen to them? Nothing. They won't be fired. They won't be starving. I keep hearing people say they went back to save the jobs of the non-writers who are affected by the strike. I don't know about that. People are always affected by the strike. The janitorial staff at a factory would be affected by a strike, but I doubt we liberals would cry in our beer over it. We would blame the factory, the company AKA people like Viacom. And we are not sympathetic to middle management or to non-union workers who need to get paid. Many on these boards would call them scabs or urge them not to work. If you care about the issues raised by the striking writers, you would absolutely have to urge Stewart and Colbert not to return to work.

Whenever Jon Stewart or David Letterman or the other WGA-supporting late night talk show hosts discuss the strike on thier shows, why do they focus on the residuals issue when, in fact, the producers had already offered the WGA improved residuals.

Maybe this offer the WGA rejected was unfair, but it would have provided(and I'm quoting an AMPTP press release here) "$130 million in additional compensation above and beyond the more than $1.3 billion working writers already receive each year. This could mean an increase up to $31,000 over the 3-year life of the contract for working writers which would be on top of the current average writer’s compensation of more than $200,000 a year."

That seems pretty good to me! I work hard at my job and I make only make 35K a year! Any full-time TV writer on a network shows makes a 6-figure salary, so they're not exactly starving oppressed laborers!

The WGA broke off talks with the producers because the producers would not accept the WGA's demand for jurisdiction over reality TV and animation writers. Unless the AMPTP relents (which is unlikely) the WGA will probably be forced to abandon this demand - which is not about helping writers, it's really just a power-grab by the WGA leadership. Why is this always left out of what you tell the public, Jon and Dave?

I'm not shilling for the evil corporate bosses, but I think a little more candor about what the contested issues are in the WGA strike would be fair. It's NOT just about residuals. If it was, (and the WGA took the new jurisdiction demands off the table) I think the Guild and AMPTP could have hashed out an acceptable new residual plan and they'd be back at work now!