Final on Stewart: I suppose I can't really say much more. To me, he's just not funny. I think his timing is awful -- like a caricature of a funny host.

How to do a successful news satire? It's not rocket science. Miller's HBO show was often hilarious, as were his SNL news bits. (Here, again, it was because he was always sarcastic rather than earnest.) "Not Necessarily the News" is another example. As for "the Daily," rag on Kilborn's vanity, sure, but he was funny. And the writers wrote good gags mocking his preening attitude. (And that added another level of satire, which I think the show played up for effect: Kilborn as the vain, handsome, but empty-headed anchor.) In other words, I think the Daily Show's format is fine; I just think its host is lame.

Your Letterman comparison is interesting. I was a huge Letterman fan in the NBC days. Once CBS rolled out the red carpet for him, made him sophisticated, he was done. (I think of the montage in "Singin' in the Rain" that shows Don and Cosmo's vaudeville act getting more and more sophisticated as they get more and more famous. It's the same act, they just slowly drain the fun out of it and do it in tuxedos.) Letterman was funny because he was the late-show guy; because his set was cheap and schlocky; because he wore crappy clothes and sneakers. (Have you noticed that wearing an expensive suit has made him any funnier?) His show was pure dada action (to wit: the brainlessly funny "thrill cam" effect) because he didn't have ratings to protect or a Tonight Show to compete with. He was competing against WPIX's Million Dollar Movie in New York (usually a heavily cut R-baby like "Road Warrior") and that was it.

It was a moment that won't come again, I think. Not on network TV, at least. They gave a total goofball a TV slot, some cheap furniture, and a smoking band and said, "Let's see what you can do."