Stewart vs. Kilborn: Funny how you and I disagree so much on the merits of Stewart's show when, generally speaking, you and I share very similar senses of humor. Probably the frat boy in me - a path in life you saw fit to eschew and mock.

Stewart's show plays to its audience which is analogous to David Letterman circa 1986 - going for the highbrow laugh in the lowbrow attire; meaning it's not just scatological humor (a la Stern), but more a nudge at society's foibles while we do it (it's just that Stewart is ostensibly political while Letterman was poking fun at mostly at our daily lives).

Kilborn was way too smug for his own good (Miller is the same). He couldn't read his lines without looking at his vanity mirror while he did it. Stewart is certainly self-aware, but he's much more willing to degrade his image while he does it (basically, he wanted to make fun of himself before someone else did it). Now, it's undoubtedly true that the Daily Show is self-aware; it's become the Institution that it used to mock. Still, while he may not be daring in the way Carlin, Bruce and Klein once were, you can't get a prime time show by being too shocking or controversial (see Maher - okay, he was just not that funny).

Agreeing with you, I guess I'd just ask how do you do a mock-news show and not rely on the convention of news coverage? And then, departing from your take, I haven't found that Stewart is presenting himself or his show as vital to our national discourse. I don't think he pretends to have the answers. Why can't you be silly in a sophisticated way?