Jon Stewart’s last episode ofThe Daily Show with Jon Stewartwas on June 21, 2025. During his absence, American politics has imploded with the election of Donald Trump and the obliteration of the norms we took for granted. Polarization has only become more extreme as social media giants and other Internet companies further exploit our differences for money. With so much chaos in the world and frequent refrains that we’re living in the “dumbest timeline,” fans have looked for Stewart’s return. Five years ago, there weremurmurs of a four-year deal with HBO, but nothing has ever materialized. He was working ona stand-up special, but that too has seemed lost in the ether. It’s not that Stewart hasn’t been busy;he worked to make the Zadroga bill permanentso that 9/11 first responders wouldn’t have to keep coming to congress to beg for their lives. But as far as a new comedy endeavor from one of our nation’s sharpest comic minds, Stewart has been out of sight with fans wondering what his new movie,Irresistible, might have to offer.
I recently finished readingChris Smith’s bookThe Daily Show (The Book): An Oral History as Told by Jon Stewart, the Correspondents, Staff and Guests, and it was a powerful reminder of what Stewart and his team accomplished in the 16 years they were on the air. Obviously, late night comedy had lampooned politicians in the past, but the genius of Stewart and his writers was to tell the story that wasn’t being told. They worked hard to find new angles so that rather than just accepting the media apparatus or how politicians operate, they joked about systems, which gave the show a potency and revelatory quality to its comedy.
At the center of this was Stewart, who, despite his outrage and anger at how American systems had failed, could never be depicted as a cynic. The thing about cynics is they don’t care; the cynic is more concerned with being right than being emotional, and Stewart’s moral compass runs throughoutThe Daily Show. Mocking the flaws in our politics or our media doesn’t make you cynical; it makes you invested because you see what needs to be fixed. The point ofThe Daily Showwasn’t to make its viewers feel superior, but to make them feel informed about the absurdity of American life.
Now that American life feels more absurd than ever, some fans have wondered why Stewart has been absent, to which I can only say that if you think Stewart is absent, you’ve missed his entire legacy. Look at how drastically late night comedy has changed and how much of it reflects the impact ofThe Daily Show. You’ve gotStephen ColbertonThe Late Show(where Stewart serves as an executive producer),John Oliverracking up Emmys and acclaim onLast Week Tonight, andSamantha Beecrushing it over on TBS withFull Frontal. That’s not to mention where you can see Stewart’s impact on other shows like “A Closer Look” onLate Night with Seth Meyersor formerDaily ShowcorrespondentMichael Chebringing insights toSaturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update”. That’s not to mention the framework ofThe Daily ShowthatTrevor Noahhas pushed to his own sensibilities rather than simply trying to emulate Stewart. If you’re busy looking for Jon Stewart the person, you’re missing what that person accomplished.
We have this bizarre expectation of entertainers that they’re supposed to keep entertaining us until they fail or die. The concept of going out on top is appealing, but as an audience, we’re always hungry for more, and the thinking seems to be that if the world is still absurd and Jon Stewart is an expert at pinpointing that absurdity and giving voice to our outrage, isn’t it wrong, nay, isn’t it IRRESPONSIBLE that he is not out here entertaining us at this very moment. The nation needs you, funny man! Make some jokes about Trump and the media to soothe our wounded souls!
No, Stewart did all of that. Reading Smith’s book, I’m struck by how badly the Bush era wounded us and now it’s just kind of in the dustbin of history because our society is so eager to brush past anything objectionable in our past. But this brief bit between Stewart and correspondentRob Corddrywould be just as apt to our current moment as when it they did it back during the Bush years:
Rob Corddry: [sarcastic] I’m sorry—my opinions? I don’t have—[makes air quotes with his fingers]—o-pin-ions. I’m a reporter, Jon. My job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. A little thing called objectivity. You might want to look it up someday.
Jon Stewart: Doesn’t “objectivity” mean objectively weighing the evidence and calling out what’s credible and what isn’t credible?
Rob Corddry: Whoa! Well, well,well, sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! [in haughty, girlish voice] “Oh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality!” [pinches own nipples in mock excitement] Listen! Listen, buddy! It’s not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me!
Jon Stewart didn’t change the political landscape in the sense that he could magically fix broken institutions just by pointing out how broken they were. But he used his show as a megaphone to broadcast about that brokenness and raise our awareness to the flaws in the system. The flaws are still with us, and it’s not about what Stewart is going to do about them. That responsibility is left to us.
