If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Show)   John Oliver, who is getting scarily good at this Daily Show hosting thing, destroys CNBC hosts on their facile dismissal of Sen. Franken's ratings agencies amendment   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 140
    More: Amusing, Al Franken, CNBC, amendments, reseller hosting, Maggie Gyllenhaal  
•       •       •

10441 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Jun 2013 at 12:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-25 10:05:50 AM
the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:46 AM

FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.


Yep, and of course it will never change.
 
2013-06-25 10:51:07 AM
That was good, I'm going to have to start DVRing the Daily Show again.
 
2013-06-25 11:35:22 AM
I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:51 AM
Wow. He doesn't pull punches. That was pretty f*cking awesome. The follow up piece on Canada and the US is pretty awesome too.
 
2013-06-25 11:45:42 AM
I used to DVR the Squawk Box. Might get some good financial analysis most weeks. But it's like 3 hours long, every day. So lots and lots filler, and plenty of right wing political banter.
I didn't mind the political banter that much, Kernen's not a complete asshole. Compared to the social conservatism and downright idiocy that congressional Republicans put out these days, the old-school country club stuff was... almost of refreshing, in a way.
Just didn't feel like I was getting enough out of it for the amount of time spent. Maybe if I was more serious about investing or worked in the financial sector.
 
2013-06-25 11:54:11 AM
"Your one job..."

Besides having great hair.
 
2013-06-25 12:11:25 PM
In fairness, their job is to spin, not report. They are, after all, paid by folks who are knee deep in these self same markets, and to push and pull on investment strategies so that the folks who pay them will have a captive audience. They have an allegiance to those who pay them, and those folks really don't want investors or the public aware of how deeply they game the system.

The banking bit that came right after that, illustrated pretty much why America's financial system is in the state it's in. We're casting off regulatory bodies, sensible banking and financial regulations, and we're returning to the boom/bust cycle that typified the financial state that was America for a long, long time. It was very good to some, and it cleaned house and destroyed a lot of folks, whose goodies were bought up and distributed amongst those who were left. There are folks who long for these days, and they're doing their level best to return us to that state, and it's not for "freedom" or "liberty" it's because, in their mind, competition is for suckers...
 
2013-06-25 12:13:48 PM

OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.


"All better judgment," apparently meaning that you've never heard one single episode of The Bugle.
 
2013-06-25 12:40:35 PM
John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.
 
2013-06-25 12:42:54 PM
Nobody delivers a joke like Al Franken.

/Thank God
 
2013-06-25 12:43:29 PM
Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).
 
2013-06-25 12:43:40 PM
In their defense, it's not dismissal as much as "we have no idea what this is about".
 
2013-06-25 12:45:24 PM

propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.


Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)
 
2013-06-25 12:47:11 PM
What's the difference between jam and jelly?
 
2013-06-25 12:47:34 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


My guess is that John and the writers are trying to work out what works best for John, and John doesn't completely know what his thing will be. Stewart and Oliver have different delivery styles, once Oliver figures that out he'll be fine, he's very quick on his feet.
 
2013-06-25 12:47:43 PM
Dishonesty and bigotry from conservatives. I am shocked, shocked.
 
2013-06-25 12:48:22 PM

jaytkay: Dishonesty and bigotry from conservatives. I am shocked, shocked.


wrong thread, sorry!

/ As you were
 
2013-06-25 12:49:58 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


Give him time. He just needs to find his footing.
 
2013-06-25 12:50:22 PM

jaytkay: wrong thread, sorry!

/ As you were


Meh. Still works.
 
2013-06-25 12:51:19 PM

eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?


Pectin content, sugar, and fruit content. Although for jam to jelly, it's primarily fruit content.

jelly < jam < preserves < marmalade < chutney

"Butter" has the highest fruit content, but is smoother from the absence of rind or pulp
 
2013-06-25 12:52:02 PM

squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).


Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.
 
2013-06-25 12:54:50 PM
(golf clap)
 
2013-06-25 12:56:37 PM
Looks like CC will need to clear room for another half-hour four days a week.

/Let John Oliver lampoon Piers Morgan's style in his new show.
 
2013-06-25 12:56:58 PM

tallguywithglasseson: I used to DVR the Squawk Box. Might get some good financial analysis most weeks. But it's like 3 hours long, every day. So lots and lots filler, and plenty of right wing political banter.
I didn't mind the political banter that much, Kernen's not a complete asshole. Compared to the social conservatism and downright idiocy that congressional Republicans put out these days, the old-school country club stuff was... almost of refreshing, in a way.
Just didn't feel like I was getting enough out of it for the amount of time spent. Maybe if I was more serious about investing or worked in the financial sector.


You're forgetting about a few folks:

s.marketwatch.com

cnbcadsalesmarketingblog.typepad.com

/more than balance out any of Kernan's banter to which you might be referring
 
2013-06-25 12:57:11 PM
For my old job, I used to watch and monitor the first 2 hours of Squawk Box. This was in the mid to late -00's, so it was akin to watching MTV play Poison video after Trixter video with the commercial for the chance to win an all-expense paid weekend to hang out with Slaughter 2 months before "Nevermind" was released. To call these would-be money honeys anything resembling the word "journalist" is a disgrace to that very word. The funniest were the segments when ol' "Chainsaw" Jack Welch would spend time in the studio, and those corprostitutes would do everything short of a handy under the table as if he hadn't run their company into the shiatter.

Pity anybody who seeks those jerk-offs, or any other business "news" outlet, for financial advice.
 
2013-06-25 12:58:19 PM

squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).


Well, to be fair, the host is a writer. (And I'm talking about both Stewart and Oliver here).
 
2013-06-25 12:58:33 PM
Can't say I agree with removing this link from the main page and shunting it off to the entertainment section.
 
2013-06-25 01:00:34 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


I think he'll find his own rhythm pretty quickly...he's not trying to be Jon 2.0. Takes a bit of trial and error; some stuff works, some doesn't.
He does OK, considering he is sitting in a very hot seat there.
 
2013-06-25 01:01:45 PM
I keep getting CNBC and MSNBC confused.  It's weird how one network managed to position themselves on both ends of the ideological spectrum.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:08 PM

eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?


Seriously?

Jelly is made from just the juice of the fruit while jam uses the entire fruit (including seeds with stuff like strawberries and raspberries).

I'm probably missing the point here...
 
2013-06-25 01:03:12 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


It's not the same  BOOM! though. Oliver's BOOM! is something he does a lot on The Bugle, I'd say there's enough difference in how they use it.

But yeah, maybe the writers don't quite know how to use it yet. Eventually they'll figure out how to write in Oliver's voice. But comparing to The Bugle, so far, Oliver sounds a lot like himself.
 
2013-06-25 01:03:17 PM

Arkanaut: I keep getting CNBC and MSNBC confused.  It's weird how one network managed to position themselves on both ends of the ideological spectrum.


Different audiences.
 
2013-06-25 01:04:05 PM

propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.


With this one post, a Monty Python reboot was just greenlit.
 
2013-06-25 01:08:34 PM

FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.


I don't have a problem with it, in principle.  The banks can always find someone who'll eat their shiat and call it steak for a buck.

The reason they went after the ratings agencies is that in the absence of regulation, they had built up immense power as gatekeepers to various funds.  Their AAA rating allowed Wall Street unfettered access to vast pools of money that had internal policies of low-risk investment -- school endowments, insurance reserves and retirement funds.  And these funds were desperate for those high returns because many of them were chronically underfunded.  The problem is that once the house of cards fell, it took with it a huge foundation of institutional wealth that was basically siphoned off to Wall Street middlemen.

The problem with capitalism is that without regulation, any social stability is only created by the public's acceptance of a fox guarding a henhouse -- either by ill-deserved trust or lack of choice.  Without a few "gold standard" ratings agencies to rely on, analyzing the risks of various investments is a huge burden -- and why would you do the work when the agencies are doing it for free?  But this is the equivalent of gathering all of your life savings, putting the cash into a bag and asking a random stranger on the street to keep it safe -- and the only thing you key on is the quality of the suit the guy's wearing.
 
2013-06-25 01:14:20 PM
Say what you want about Al Franken, but doggone it, people like him.
 
2013-06-25 01:17:29 PM

OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.


What you did there. I see it. With my blue within blue eyes.

Bless the maker and his water. bless the coming and going of him. may his passage cleanse the world.
 
2013-06-25 01:19:25 PM

Hydra: /more than balance out any of Kernan's banter to which you might be referring


"More than balance out"? Yep, just like Hannity more than balanced out Colmes. Sorkin isn't constantly taking political pot shots as Kernan is. And then, let's have someone like Jack Welch on for an hour.
Overall the show has a right-leaning bent, you could only really call it "balanced" or "neutral" with a straight face if you're a fan of Roger Ailes.
But, I mean, it's business, lots of CEOs are Republicans. It's still very watchable even if you're not a Republican, it's not like it's Fox Business or anything.
I don't think it's constantly driving an agenda, and there's plenty of straight news and non-partisan analysis. Just that there's a lot of time to kill, and a good helping of old school Republican/Friedman/supply side comments peppered in.
BTW Sorkin apparently was in the news for suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested. What a lib!

//I actually mostly like Kernen btw, even though I often don't agree with him
//he was an ass for dismissing the Franken amendment though
 
2013-06-25 01:20:14 PM
I hate Joe farking Kernan.  He just sits there and makes dismissive noises.  One of the biggest reasons I haven't watched that crap factory for at least 5 years.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:14 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Yep, just like Hannity more than balanced out Colmes


farked that up. Meant to be the other way around, as sarcastm. Whatever.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:40 PM
I personally liked the "a duck walks into a bar" joke more.

/better joke for jam vs jelly is jam vs peanut butter
 
2013-06-25 01:21:19 PM

bdub77: The follow up piece on Canada and the US is pretty awesome too.


Yes, but don't believe the bit about Canada being immune from housing crashes and Internet bubbles. Vancouver prices are still hugely inflated, and those "couple of stocks" included Nortel which at one point was 1/3 of the total valuation of all companies on the Toronto stock exchange. It crashed so hard that you would have been better off spending your money on beer and returning the empties.
 
2013-06-25 01:24:59 PM

FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.


What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

If the govt decides who rates, how do they determine who gets to rate, how much they charge, and if they are doing a good enough job of rating? What would stop an issuer from contracting some other rating agency to rate that bond as well?

The current model isnt perfect but it is no worse than any other you can come up with. Everyone knows what it is and they need to take that into consideration in the value they place on ratings. If you think the rating agencies are corrupt, then you shouldn't pay any attention to the rating.

If the govt doesn't think ratings are useful because of any perceived conflicts, they shouldn't write any reliance on ratings into any statutes.
 
2013-06-25 01:25:18 PM
Who didn't farking know this already?
 
2013-06-25 01:28:34 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Hydra: /more than balance out any of Kernan's banter to which you might be referring

"More than balance out"? Yep, just like Hannity more than balanced out Colmes. Sorkin isn't constantly taking political pot shots as Kernan is. And then, let's have someone like Jack Welch on for an hour.
Overall the show has a right-leaning bent, you could only really call it "balanced" or "neutral" with a straight face if you're a fan of Roger Ailes.
But, I mean, it's business, lots of CEOs are Republicans. It's still very watchable even if you're not a Republican, it's not like it's Fox Business or anything.
I don't think it's constantly driving an agenda, and there's plenty of straight news and non-partisan analysis. Just that there's a lot of time to kill, and a good helping of old school Republican/Friedman/supply side comments peppered in.
BTW Sorkin apparently was in the news for suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested. What a lib!

//I actually mostly like Kernen btw, even though I often don't agree with him
//he was an ass for dismissing the Franken amendment though


The problem with CNBC is that it had to compete with Fox Business for "main street" so that necessitated it becoming more of an opinion show.  It became less of David Faber running the numbers and more of Rick Santelli screaming like an idiot.

They ceded the smart crowd to Bloomberg.  The problem with fighting with FBN is that TV news is an old person's game.  Young people read Business Insider.  CNBC is fighting for a declining market share.  They'll probably reinvent themselves as a 24 Hour Trump network of reality programming.
 
2013-06-25 01:28:39 PM
Good. Stewart shoulda hung it up years ago.
 
2013-06-25 01:31:42 PM
Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.
 
2013-06-25 01:32:29 PM

tallguywithglasseson: BTW Sorkin apparently was in the news for suggesting that Glenn Greenwald should be arrested. What a lib!


Wow, really? You must've missed him when he was on Bill Maher with Michael Moore.

/you have to think MSNBC is mainstream if you think the show has a "right-leaning" bent
//Jack Welch has been on like twice in the last year
///there are PLENTY of Boston- and New-York-based CEOs they have on who shill for Bernanke and Obama all the time
 
2013-06-25 01:35:17 PM

bdub77: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

My guess is that John and the writers are trying to work out what works best for John, and John doesn't completely know what his thing will be. Stewart and Oliver have different delivery styles, once Oliver figures that out he'll be fine, he's very quick on his feet.


If you listen to his podcast with Andy Zaltzman, The Bugle, he has a very well defined comic voice. But it's probably a bit more than TV does usually, so he's probably better off with doing Stewart's gags.
 
2013-06-25 01:36:23 PM

jaytkay: wrong thread, sorry!


Don't worry. It's like a little black dress with a strand of pearls... always appropriate.
 
2013-06-25 01:37:04 PM

mooseyfate: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

With this one post, a Monty Python reboot was just greenlit.


I'm not sure whether to kiss you or stick a knife in your belly for suggesting such a thing.

We don't really need a re- boot. Sadly, most of the social commentary remains fresh.
However, put a bunch of Brits together and let them go sounds like a very good idea.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:15 PM

Hydra: Wow, really? You must've missed him when he was on Bill Maher with Michael Moore.


Yeah, really. He did say Greenwald should be arrested. Well, "almost arrested" or something like that.
And I don't watch Maher. It's farking terrible.

//Bernake is a Republican and originally a Bush appointee
//if shilling for Bernake is your idea of "liberal" balance.. well... ok there, Roger
 
2013-06-25 01:43:26 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.


They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.
 
2013-06-25 01:43:27 PM

Father_Jack: OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.

What you did there. I see it. With my blue within blue eyes.

Bless the maker and his water. bless the coming and going of him. may his passage cleanse the world.


I see whut yer dune.

/glad I wasn't the only one.
 
2013-06-25 01:44:59 PM
Bloomberg. Financial news with a lot less DERP.
 
2013-06-25 01:47:41 PM

eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?


I can't jelly my....
 
2013-06-25 01:48:55 PM
Considering the scam Al Franken pulled just to get in the Senate, something with his name on it that begins Restore Integrity is a farking joke.

Hey, we found some uncounted votes in a car trunk in Carver County. What? Not enough? We hear there might be some more uncounted votes found in Jackson County or somewhere. Give us some time to, uh, find them.
 
2013-06-25 01:50:36 PM
Oh, I should add, Sorkin made his comment about Greenwald on Squawk Box. Not that Sorkin himself doesn't lean left generally, just that liberal political comments aren't really his "schtick" on air... he's not a foil to Kernen, or if he's supposed to be, he's a lousy one.
Not that it would make the show better if he were.

Oh well. At least CNBC's still got Mad Money! *gag*
 
2013-06-25 01:51:37 PM

Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.


Or the government could step in and do the rating themselves in the best interest of all parties involved.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:03 PM
Can I just say, that the last clip, with the girl introducing the story and the guy going off into a "Bill Murray Clause" tangent, was one of the most boring 20-second clips I have ever seen? She looks dead behind the eyes and is just reading her news lines like a robot, why the hell do the producers of the show think she's host worthy?

And I don't believe it's 90% writers and 10% host, partly because I would assume the host has some responsibility in writing, and not everyone can deliver the comedic shock and awe performance. John Oliver is great, ever since he started as a side reporter with the show.
 
2013-06-25 01:52:31 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Yeah, really. He did say Greenwald should be arrested. Well, "almost arrested" or something like that.


So he was toeing the Obama talking points. Surprise surprise?
 
2013-06-25 01:52:54 PM

Reginald Maudling: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

It's not the same  BOOM! though. Oliver's BOOM! is something he does a lot on The Bugle, I'd say there's enough difference in how they use it.

But yeah, maybe the writers don't quite know how to use it yet. Eventually they'll figure out how to write in Oliver's voice. But comparing to The Bugle, so far, Oliver sounds a lot like himself.



Boom belongs to no one.
 
2013-06-25 01:53:48 PM

Richard Sauce: Good. Stewart shoulda hung it up years ago.


Are you trolling bro?
Stewart is coming back @ the end of summer.

Oliver is awkward with all the guests... except the few Brits / really easy going type.

He is a good comedian and does a fantastic job delivering jokes with the Queens tongue... but he's no American from Jersey like Stewart.
 
2013-06-25 01:54:19 PM

Lost Thought 00: Or the government could step in and do the rating themselves in the best interest of all parties involved.


That would only make the situation WORSE. Nationalizing the credit rating agencies might be the worst suggestion to "fix" the problem.

/the government NEVER has "the best interest of all parties involved" in ANYTHING
 
2013-06-25 01:55:47 PM

Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.


Huh? Pay for it themselves? You mean the rating agencies?

How would that work? You mean they do it for free and then sell it individually to investors, but tell them not to tell any other investors who didn't pay for it? Not sure how you keep that secret considering the investors would likely want to disclose the rating if they want to sell the investment or buy the investment from others.

Even of that were workable and viable then what's to stop people from not paying attention to what te rating agencies say now? The public wouldn't get to see any ratings in your business model, and would have to pay to see ratings or make their own investment decisions, ignoring the rating agencies. The public (and govt and institutional investors and regulators) are free to ignore ratings today.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:51 PM
Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.
 
2013-06-25 01:57:36 PM

Hydra: So he was toeing the Obama talking points. Surprise surprise?


Oh weird, you took a shot at Obama.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.

Yep, and of course it will never change.


As long as the legislature is sponsored by corporations, nope. That can be changed, though.

I nominate chancellor Palpatine, and suggest he be given special, emergency powers to singlehandedly remake the financial system!
 
2013-06-25 02:00:30 PM

Hydra: Lost Thought 00: Or the government could step in and do the rating themselves in the best interest of all parties involved.

That would only make the situation WORSE. Nationalizing the credit rating agencies might be the worst suggestion to "fix" the problem.

/the government NEVER has "the best interest of all parties involved" in ANYTHING


That's a bit extreme there... with the use of the words 'never' and 'anything',
How do you feel about a simple example like water filtration by cities - would this in your mind be a grave injustice to the free market vs instead of clean drinking water available from your faucet?

The rating agencies need to be decoupled from the companies they rate.  This can be done by having the government oversee them at least.  The rating agencies have been at the center of every crash, cheering the bubble to grow bigger and bigger.  They are the one's who are giving a false sense of security, because they are bought and paid for by the companies they rate.  This can be fixed by being overseen / audited by the government and exist as a non-for-profit, so they have less of an incentive to lie to Main street to get kickbacks from Wallstreet.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:59 PM
Is this in every single tab?
 
2013-06-25 02:03:49 PM

syzygy whizz: eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?

Seriously?

Jelly is made from just the juice of the fruit while jam uses the entire fruit (including seeds with stuff like strawberries and raspberries).

I'm probably missing the point here...


The Brits call jello/gelatin jelly.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:47 PM

bdub77: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

My guess is that John and the writers are trying to work out what works best for John, and John doesn't completely know what his thing will be. Stewart and Oliver have different delivery styles, once Oliver figures that out he'll be fine, he's very quick on his feet.


Well, it's still Stewart's show and Stewart's writers.
 
2013-06-25 02:06:24 PM

Lost Thought 00: Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.

Or the government could step in and do the rating themselves in the best interest of all parties involved.


Sure, they can go nuts. If the taxpayer is willing to pay for the govt to set up an internal agency to rate bonds and companies, and investors buy that the govt rating agency is legit and unbiased enough to produce worthwhile ratings, they can do that.

The existing rating agencies will likely compete under their current model, but if the govt rating agency gets buy in from investors, they'll go out of business.

If investors think that a govt agency is too politically influenced to be unbiased, the rating agencies will continue to have a demand for their product.
 
2013-06-25 02:09:47 PM
You mean people still think CNBC has any credibility on anything?   The network that tried to tell me Lenny Dyskstra was a financial guru?
 
2013-06-25 02:11:12 PM

squidgod2000: The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same


And the graphics package, and the name of the show, and the set. Oliver would have done better sooner if they'd customized the production ever-so-slightly so it didn't seem like he was wearing the show like an ill-fitting suit from Stewart's closet. He's going to be doing this for months, for crying out loud.


/union shop?
 
2013-06-25 02:12:59 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If investors think that a govt agency is too politically influenced to be unbiased, the rating agencies will continue to have a demand for their product.


A product which, apparently, is propaganda.
 
2013-06-25 02:13:31 PM

jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.


Well, you certainly kicked that strawman's ass.
 
2013-06-25 02:14:27 PM

Triple Oak: Can I just say, that the last clip, with the girl introducing the story and the guy going off into a "Bill Murray Clause" tangent, was one of the most boring 20-second clips I have ever seen? She looks dead behind the eyes and is just reading her news lines like a robot, why the hell do the producers of the show think she's host worthy?


Just ask any CNBC executive, and they'll tell you, "DERRRRR, CUD SHE PWIDDY!!!"
 
2013-06-25 02:17:52 PM

jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.


Translation: "I got nuthin"
 
2013-06-25 02:24:48 PM

saintstryfe: bdub77: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

My guess is that John and the writers are trying to work out what works best for John, and John doesn't completely know what his thing will be. Stewart and Oliver have different delivery styles, once Oliver figures that out he'll be fine, he's very quick on his feet.

If you listen to his podcast with Andy Zaltzman, The Bugle, he has a very well defined comic voice. But it's probably a bit more than TV does usually, so he's probably better off with doing Stewart's gags.


The Bugle podcast is hilarious.
 
2013-06-25 02:29:06 PM

OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.


The snark must flow.
 
2013-06-25 02:37:00 PM

enry: Arkanaut: I keep getting CNBC and MSNBC confused.  It's weird how one network managed to position themselves on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Different audiences.


Yeah as long as the money is green they dont care.
 
2013-06-25 02:38:56 PM
I'm finding Oliver getting better and better as the weeks go by. Kind of a refreshing change for a while.

/ I will be happy when Stewart returns, though
 
2013-06-25 02:46:50 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.

Huh? Pay for it themselves? You mean the rating agencies?

How would that work? You mean they do it for free and then sell it individually to investors, but tell them not to tell any other investors who didn't pay for it? Not sure how you keep that secret considering the investors would likely want to disclose the rating if they want to sell the investment or buy the investment from others.

Even of that were workable and viable then what's to stop people from not paying attention to what te rating agencies say now? The public wouldn't get to see any ratings in your business model, and would have to pay to see ratings or make their own investment decisions, ignoring the rating agencies. The public (and govt and institutional investors and regulators) are free to ignore ratings today.


There's a few factors at play here --
1) Some of the instruments that the ratings agencies are being asked to rate are relatively illiquid or obscure, so if you're an investor trying to find out whether someone already has a copy of the rating you're looking for, you might not find it, and you're better off going straight to the source.
2) For the more liquid instruments, a lot of the trades will be carried out by trading algorithms, which often seek to make trade decisions in microseconds.  In this situation it would be far more advantageous to have a direct line to the source of the rating rather than wait for a free copy to make its way into the marketplace.
3) You were suggesting earlier that the investor might have an interest in artificially lowering the rating of certain instruments; while this may be true, a lot of big institutional investors (mutual funds, insurance companies and the like) are mandated by their charters to only invest in instruments rated above a certain level, and sometimes with mandates for specific allocations.  The preference tends to be for safer instruments.  If you're required to only buy AAA rated bonds (which is where most of the money is), there's no incentive to tinker with it.
4) From what I hear from my friends in finance and law, a lot of ethical standards are focused on protecting the interests of the investor, so by that standard having the credit ratings agency be on the side of the investor would be more ethical.
5) Wouldn't it help to be a bit more risk-conscious, given the state of our economy?

And as for your argument to just ignore the credit ratings, I'd refer you to argument 3 -- for historical and legal reasons, we've been tied to the ratings by S&P, Moody's, and Fitch.  While it's probably a good suggestion -- a lot of big investment houses have their own "credit research" teams anyway -- there are funds that have people's money tied up for 30 years that can't just up and change everything they're doing without upsetting their investors.
 
2013-06-25 02:53:07 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.


Google Maps must have sent you to this thread.
 
2013-06-25 02:54:12 PM

NostroZ: Richard Sauce: Good. Stewart shoulda hung it up years ago.

Are you trolling bro?
Stewart is coming back @ the end of summer.

Oliver is awkward with all the guests... except the few Brits / really easy going type.

He is a good comedian and does a fantastic job delivering jokes with the Queens tongue... but he's no American from Jersey like Stewart.


My favorite part is when Stewart does his Jersey voices.
 
2013-06-25 02:58:29 PM

Hydra: That would only make the situation WORSE. Nationalizing the credit rating agencies might be the worst suggestion to "fix" the problem.

/the government NEVER has "the best interest of all parties involved" in ANYTHING



Prior to the AIG bailout the holding company controlling AIG contacted the Insurance Commissioners for New York and Pennsylvania and requested that they allow the AIG insurers domiciled in those states to swap out the collateral in their insurance reserves (cash, high quality bonds, and other instruments) with the collateral in the Holding Company's accounts.  The theory was that the value of the securities in the Holding Company account was being driven down to artificially low levels by market sentiment and that they would ultimately rebound to the value reflected in their rating and purchase price.  Since the insurance reserves are intended to guarantee that injured policyholders will be indemnified both Commissioners were not receptive to AIG's argument since they believed those securities were extremely toxic and there was a high likelihood that they'd ultimately be worthless.

The insurance regulators were right and because of that policyholders that looked to AIG insurers for indemnity were paid what they were owed.

This is why you should not use words like "never" since it makes you look like an ignorant asshole.
 
2013-06-25 03:00:36 PM

Hydra: tallguywithglasseson: I used to DVR the Squawk Box. Might get some good financial analysis most weeks. But it's like 3 hours long, every day. So lots and lots filler, and plenty of right wing political banter.
I didn't mind the political banter that much, Kernen's not a complete asshole. Compared to the social conservatism and downright idiocy that congressional Republicans put out these days, the old-school country club stuff was... almost of refreshing, in a way.
Just didn't feel like I was getting enough out of it for the amount of time spent. Maybe if I was more serious about investing or worked in the financial sector.

You're forgetting about a few folks:

[s.marketwatch.com image 183x275]

[cnbcadsalesmarketingblog.typepad.com image 240x250]

/more than balance out any of Kernan's banter to which you might be referring


I guess anyone who doesn't blame hurricanes on gay people is a liberal.
 
2013-06-25 03:03:58 PM

jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.


I'd say at least a third of clips shown on the Daily Show are from Fox News, and I'd suggest it's because Fox offers angles that are both easily understood in a brief clip and terribly, terribly funny to watch.
 
2013-06-25 03:08:16 PM

theurge14: NostroZ: Richard Sauce: Good. Stewart shoulda hung it up years ago.

Are you trolling bro?
Stewart is coming back @ the end of summer.

Oliver is awkward with all the guests... except the few Brits / really easy going type.

He is a good comedian and does a fantastic job delivering jokes with the Queens tongue... but he's no American from Jersey like Stewart.

My favorite part is when Stewart does his Jersey voices.


But Oliver has been having fun with the Southern accents.
 
2013-06-25 03:11:48 PM
One big improvement I've noticed right off the bat; now everybody on the Internet spells the host's first name correctly.
 
2013-06-25 03:19:45 PM

Lost Thought 00: Or the government could step in and do the rating themselves in the best interest of all parties involved.


That was my first thought, but how long until that agency gets captured by the people it's supposed to be overseeing?  It seems to happen in every agency, and I would imagine that it would happen even faster with whatever body is tasked with ratings due to the banks' enormous interest in it.
 
2013-06-25 03:21:02 PM
The Bill Murray Amendment would of been an awesome amendment.
 
2013-06-25 03:22:14 PM

gingerjet: The Bill Murray Amendment would of been an awesome amendment.


It would never pass. Nobody would ever believe it.
 
2013-06-25 03:47:46 PM

clkeagle: jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.

Well, you certainly kicked that strawman's ass.


And then had very scratchy sex with it.
 
2013-06-25 03:50:24 PM
John Oliver is awesome.

I love Stewart, but to be honest, hadn't been watching The Daily Show for several months by the time Oliver took over.

I'm almost kind of hoping Stewart won't really come back, and Oliver will remain the host.
 
2013-06-25 03:52:22 PM

bdub77: Wow. He doesn't pull punches. That was pretty f*cking awesome. The follow up piece on Canada and the US is pretty awesome too.


Good, but they got some things wrong. Greed is not the problem. greed that is not restrained by Ethics and the Law is a problem.
 
2013-06-25 03:57:10 PM

doczoidberg: John Oliver is awesome.

I love Stewart, but to be honest, hadn't been watching The Daily Show for several months by the time Oliver took over.

I'm almost kind of hoping Stewart won't really come back, and Oliver will remain the host.


Stewart will come back, but he plans to retire in the not too distant future (on the order of a few years). Expect more extended breaks like this which will serve as potential tryouts for new hosts. I would expect Oliver to get picked up with another show of some sort well before he'd get a chance to take over full-time
 
2013-06-25 04:08:54 PM
I need someone to tell me how good someone else is.
It doesn't matter if they've been paid by that person.

I need someone to tell me how good I am.
Here's something to make it a bit better when you tell me or another.

Conflict of interest, what's that??
That doesn't count in DC and other places.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:54 PM
He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.
 
2013-06-25 04:12:34 PM
John Oliver knows, that the owl has the high ground.

/Obscure?
 
2013-06-25 04:24:26 PM
Why not give Oliver a friday night show?
 
2013-06-25 04:26:46 PM

jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.


Why do you visit these threads if the other commenters irritate you?

Does belittling them give you a sense of power and respect you lack elsewhere in life?

It's not healthy.
 
2013-06-25 04:30:16 PM

evilmousse: Why do you visit these threads if the other commenters irritate you?


Because people keep responding to him for some reason.
 
2013-06-25 04:31:57 PM
Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:40 PM
John Oliver is great. Another +1 for the Bugle, and if you get the chance to see him do standup, I highly  highlyrecommend it. I got to see him on his last tour and it's the first time I've laughed so hard that I had trouble breathing. It was fantastic.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:26 PM
He is getting better.  Although he doesn't know what to do with guests.  Can't seem to connect with the ones that aren't British.

To be fair in this case, Maggie Droopieface is a terrible guest.

"I prefer Obama to Romney!"  *Mugs for the camera*  "And I like puppies!"  *Mugs for the camera*
 
2013-06-25 04:43:52 PM

Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.

Huh? Pay for it themselves? You mean the rating agencies?

How would that work? You mean they do it for free and then sell it individually to investors, but tell them not to tell any other investors who didn't pay for it? Not sure how you keep that secret considering the investors would likely want to disclose the rating if they want to sell the investment or buy the investment from others.

Even of that were workable and viable then what's to stop people from not paying attention to what te rating agencies say now? The public wouldn't get to see any ratings in your business model, and would have to pay to see ratings or make their own investment decisions, ignoring the rating agencies. The public (and govt and institutional investors and regulators) are free to ignore ratings today.

There's a few factors at play here --
1) Some of the instruments that the ratings agencies are being asked to rate are relatively illiquid or obscure, so if you're an investor trying to find out whether someone already has a copy of the rating you're looking for, you might not find it, and you're better off going straight to the source.



The belief is that public ratings are a "public good" and that having companies pay for their own rating permits ratings to be more available to the marketplace.  I understand your point of view, however I think selling ratings to individual investors on an ad-hoc basis wouldn't be a viable business model.  It'd be like a racetrack shill or one of the spam emails you get that pitch the 'next big breakout stock'.   The price that agencies would have to charge to make it worthwhile, while not pitching their research in spam emails, would be too high.

2) For the more liquid instruments, a lot of the trades will be carried out by trading algorithms, which often seek to make trade decisions in microseconds.  In this situation it would be far more advantageous to have a direct line to the source of the rating rather than wait for a free copy to make its way into the marketplace.

Algorithmic trading would have nothing to do with ratings but rather price fluctuation.  Rating changes are generally telegraphed by watches and other narrative information ahead of time.  Rating changes aren't a useful input in high speed trading, I'd think.


3) You were suggesting earlier that the investor might have an interest in artificially lowering the rating of certain instruments; while this may be true, a lot of big institutional investors (mutual funds, insurance companies and the like) are mandated by their charters to only invest in instruments rated above a certain level, and sometimes with mandates for specific allocations.  The preference tends to be for safer instruments.  If you're required to only buy AAA rated bonds (which is where most of the money is), there's no incentive to tinker with it.

Mutual funds and insurance companies' investment guidelines aren't etched in stone, neither are regulatory guidelines that require investments in certain asset classes.  If ratings determined under an issuer-pay framework aren't reliable or useful, then the charters and regulations will be/should be changed.  I work in the insurance industry and their regulators recently removed reference to rating agency ratings in some of their investment guidelines (however in doing so they outsourced the determination of capital charges to big investment houses like Pimco and Blackrock, so I don't know what conflicts have been avoided)

But the ratings remain a useful indicator apparently  (otherwise they'd beout of business) and therefore why is there a need to change the model?  Everyone knows the supposed conflicts.

4) From what I hear from my friends in finance and law, a lot of ethical standards are focused on protecting the interests of the investor, so by that standard having the credit ratings agency be on the side of the investor would be more ethical.

They provide an opinion that the investor can take or leave.  It certainly isn't any more ethical for an investor who wants a high rating for the bonds in his portfolio to pay for ratings.

5) Wouldn't it help to be a bit more risk-conscious, given the state of our economy?

And as for your argument to just ignore the credit ratings, I'd refer you to argument 3 -- for historical and legal reasons, we've been tied to the ratings by S&P, Moody's, and Fitch.  While it's probably a good suggestion -- a lot of big investment houses have their own "credit research" teams anyway -- there are funds that have people's money tied up for 30 years that can't just up and change everything they're doing without upsetting their investors.
 ...

 If those funds think the ratings provided are useful, they can use them.  If not, they can buy ratings from the investor-pay rating agencies or other research firms, or they can do the research in house.  I certainly wouldn't want to be invested in a fund whose manager thinks that the ratings are unreliable because of conflicts, but continues to use them because they can't handle the research in house.
 
2013-06-25 05:02:08 PM
"By the way, just incidentally, I'm guessing that's not the first time Shep Smith has had to say, 'This has to be the stupidest place I've ever worked at.'"

I larf'd.
 
2013-06-25 05:02:57 PM

eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?


You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?
 
2013-06-25 05:04:56 PM

wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.


Indeed. You could give George Carlin's funniest material to Ryan Seacrest, and I'd doubt you'd ever laugh.
 
2013-06-25 05:25:49 PM

aintnuttintofarkwith: eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?

You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?


The way I always heard it was: I don't jelly my dick into my girlfriend's asshole.
 
2013-06-25 05:28:55 PM
We should just take it for granted that the ratings agencies are parasitic snakeoil salesmen and bullshiat artists, who provide no real tangible benefit, good or service to humankind.    The entire industry is a sham.  A numbers gambit amounting to nothing more than a futile waste of man hours,  brian power, education and privilege that otherwise could have been used to benefit humanity (or at least provided a benign effect).   Rather, upon each of the participants death, the world will be a better place on the whole.

In other words, they're in the financial sector.
 
2013-06-25 05:31:22 PM

Bith Set Me Up: wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.

Indeed. You could give George Carlin's funniest material to Ryan Seacrest, and I'd doubt you'd ever laugh.


Give Seacrest the same drugs and alcohol Carlin used and he would do just fine with the material.
 
2013-06-25 05:39:24 PM

theurge14: the opposite of charity is justice: Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.

Google Maps must have sent you to this thread.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-25 05:45:05 PM

Teaser: He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.


OhioUGrad: Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.


This is what I take away from it as well.  You can tell that it's obviously the same writers, but it's just not the same delivery of the lines.  Stewart's delivery makes TDS what it is.
 
2013-06-25 05:56:35 PM

Father_Jack: OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.

What you did there. I see it. With my blue within blue eyes.

Bless the maker and his water. bless the coming and going of him. may his passage cleanse the world.


Posts like these are why I keep showing up here.

/I must not fear...
 
2013-06-25 07:14:26 PM
Jon Oliver may be a pretty great host, but Jason Jones really carries that show.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:11 PM

FriarReb98: Teaser: He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.

OhioUGrad: Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.

This is what I take away from it as well.  You can tell that it's obviously the same writers, but it's just not the same delivery of the lines.  Stewart's delivery makes TDS what it is.


----

That's what they said when Stewart took over. I think Oliver is actually doing a damn good job...
 
2013-06-25 08:47:30 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


What gags? You mean explaining the joke and making a silly face?
 
2013-06-25 09:03:58 PM

machoprogrammer: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

What gags? You mean explaining the joke and making a silly face?


Jay Leno already has his own show.
 
2013-06-25 09:44:15 PM

wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.


yup, dane cook is the perfect example. whatever you may think of his jokes, the man can work a crowd.
 
2013-06-25 10:04:05 PM
Oliver has been the best thing about the show for some time now.  Stewart has grown quite stale and need to hang it up sooner than later.

This is the best DS clip in a long time...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2013/get-us-to-the-gee k
 
2013-06-25 10:31:08 PM
Did that guy just call Joe Kernen a financial analyst??  Ha, joke's on you.  Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever.  He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.
 
2013-06-25 10:31:18 PM

tillerman35: Say what you want about Al Franken, but doggone it, people like him.


imageshack.us
 
2013-06-25 10:37:42 PM

freddie freeloader: Did that guy just call Joe Kernen a financial analyst??  Ha, joke's on you.  Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever.  He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.


Maybe the title wasn't precise but A) He's on the financial news channel and B) to talk about finance C) during a segment about financial legislation, so the presumption is that he's merely keeping a chair from floating away while a live camera is on him?

Analyst or no, he's in front of a live camera during that segment. It should be media career suicide to shrug and claim ignorance.

Who am I kidding, if it pleases their corporate master they'd drool on command
 
2013-06-25 11:13:02 PM

FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.


With all due respect, couldn't the same thing be said about UL?
 
2013-06-25 11:49:23 PM

archie leach: Oliver has been the best thing about the show for some time now.  Stewart has grown quite stale and need to hang it up sooner than later.

This is the best DS clip in a long time...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2013/get-us-to-the-gee k


I agree with this completely. Jon has been phoning it in for the last 6-8 months and really not clicking. I will say Colbert has been a non stop riot since the election last year started and he continues to pump out some hilarious stuff. I applaud Oliver for adding a new touch to TDS and I think he's done a great job.
 
2013-06-25 11:56:07 PM

mikemoto: FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.

With all due respect, couldn't the same thing be said about UL?


UL was set up by insurance companies, the "underwriters."  In theory UL has to answer to them, even if the manufacturers pay for the tests.
 
2013-06-26 12:28:49 AM

Lost Thought 00: doczoidberg: John Oliver is awesome.

I love Stewart, but to be honest, hadn't been watching The Daily Show for several months by the time Oliver took over.

I'm almost kind of hoping Stewart won't really come back, and Oliver will remain the host.

Stewart will come back, but he plans to retire in the not too distant future (on the order of a few years). Expect more extended breaks like this which will serve as potential tryouts for new hosts. I would expect Oliver to get picked up with another show of some sort well before he'd get a chance to take over full-time


Doubt it. Oliver has been pretty adamant that the job he has is the one he wants. It's not that he couldn't get his own show, it's he would consider any job a step down from TDS.
 
2013-06-26 01:38:58 AM
I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show. Perhaps lampoon international news and use incredibly shallow, "style over substance" gimmicks and comic ineptitude a la CNN.
 
2013-06-26 02:56:36 AM

Thats_Not_My_Baby: aintnuttintofarkwith: eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?

You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?

The way I always heard it was: I don't jelly my dick into my girlfriend's asshole.


That's not what she said.
 
2013-06-26 03:10:39 AM

the opposite of charity is justice: Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-26 07:00:52 AM

freddie freeloader: Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever. He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.


I somehow doubt CNBC is paying Kernen's salary to manage securities transactions.
 
2013-06-26 08:42:25 AM
Wasn't this story further down yesterday? Did the Daily Show pay to have it bumped up or something?
 
2013-06-26 09:11:43 AM
Why is this in the business tab?
 
2013-06-26 09:34:01 AM

Lord Binky: I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show.


I was really hoping they'd play off the "international news" angle: bright, over-saturated set design with fluorescent colors, that weird PAL artifacting international video gets when we play it on our American TVs, confusing international sports coverage, chav alerts, etc.
 
2013-06-26 10:03:07 AM

mccallcl: Lord Binky: I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show.

I was really hoping they'd play off the "international news" angle: bright, over-saturated set design with fluorescent colors, that weird PAL artifacting international video gets when we play it on our American TVs, confusing international sports coverage, chav alerts, etc.


Oliver already has a podcast called the Bugle.

FYI: He already did have a stand up show he hosted.
www.lanesavage.com
 
2013-06-26 10:10:33 AM

NostroZ: Oliver already has a podcast called the Bugle.


Yes, but does it look like this?:

i1.cdnds.net
 
2013-06-26 07:41:37 PM

Ivo Shandor: It crashed so hard that you would have been better off spending your money on beer and returning the empties.


Thats my mutual fund right there.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report