The Late Night "Wars"

Bill Carter's written a nice piece on Jay Leno and Dave Letterman, and the perceived battle for ratings between the two.

From the article:

Jeff Zucker says about the critical praise and accolades Letterman gets vs. Leno's relative dominance in the ratings:

He added: "I think it's hard for the national media to accept the fact that Jay is so dominant. The national media has always been more drawn to the dark, brooding cynicism of Dave, rather than the populist wit of Jay."

That's a good point on the media.

I say this without actually working so hard as to check, but I've got a hunch that if you looked hard enough, the numbers would show that of those watching one or the other, Dave's Late Show would get the higher numbers of white-collar, and folks with higher levels of education (a category most journalists nowadays fall into).

"Jay runs the 'Tonight' show like a political campaign," Mr. [Rob] Burnett added. "If he thinks something will attract more viewers, he'll do it. Jay sees that Arnold Schwarzenegger is hot, so he introduces Arnold at a political rally. He sees that wrestling is hot, so he wrestles for the W.W.F. Maybe Jay earned himself a few more viewers for doing those things....."

Just a thought and a guess:

Leno has the advantage of taping out of LA. So 95% of anything big that happens in the entertainment industry happens close enough to him that within a day, people will show up on his show.

Letterman's in New York. He ends up with more theatre people, and a lot more of the news folks and political people.

And I haven't timed it. I don't like Leno, and I don't think I've watched an entire episode, ever. But it seems like Leno devotes upwards of 45 to 50 minutes of his show to the guests, some nights. I know that I'll flip by at 10:45, and there will already be somebody on the couch.

Dave usually doesn't start getting guests on the couch until 11 or so, until after he's done a sketch of some sort (Will It Float?) and the Top 10 list out of the way.

And I think part of the fact is, more people are tuning in to see the celebrities than they are the actual comedy.

And I think the white-collar folks are tuning in more for the comedy.

That said, I tune in for the comedy.

And Jay's comedy, to me, is very formulaic. Set up/punchline.

Dave's more likely to find something small and subtle, and laugh at it himself because of its absurdity.

I think the best example is this.

Jay used to do a bit (and he may still) where his man on the streets (who was Arsenio Hall, travesty of travesties, for a little while) would go into public and do something like ask trivia questions or something. And the audience would laugh at the stupid answer.

Dave would, on the other hand, send Rupert or Biff (or Sirajul and Mujibur, or his own mother) out with an earpiece just to mess with people. It was the funniest thing in the world when Dave went to a Taco Bell drive thru one night and kept trying to order a hamburger.

With Jay, you're laughing at a person, while with Dave, you're laughing at the situation.

To me, Jay is like a Rob Schneider movie. Every joke is lobbed easily at the audience. And after the joke, Jay stands around basking in the laughs. But what's more, Jay molds his act every night at a comedy club in LA, trying to find what joke works and what doesn't, because he's more eager to please.

Dave will do stupid stuff or say something odd because he likes doing stupid stuff or saying something odd. I think he could give a damn if you laugh or not.

Link via Mark Evanier, who makes the point that neither show is in any danger of cancellation, as long as either has anybody willing to advertise. Because Dave and Jay both bring in more revenue than a re-run of Will and Grace or Seinfeld.

And lastly....I like Jon Stewart on the Daily Show a lot more than either Dave or Jay...which surprised me when I realized it. I was a huge Letterman fan. But Stewart's stuff just appeals to me nowadays.