Theissen is overstating - he got about four and half uninterrupted minutes out of an eleven minute interview. It usually does annoy me when Stewart/Colbert/pretty much everybody else talks over and interrupt their guests, but after Theissen’s defense of Liz Cheney’s calling into question the loyalty and character of attorneys who represented detainees, I would have been okay with John simply screaming at him in apopleptic outrage for the entirety of the interview.
He may be overstating, but that’s not the narrative he’s going with. Expect to see him on Fox at some point soon caterwauling about how he was just ridden over by that meanie Stewart. Even if the factoid about his speaking time does get brought up, that’s significantly less than half, and why should a guest have to sit there and listen to the host talk for half his air time?
It’s possible it won’t get any play due to the other networks taking a hands-off approach to The Daily Show for the most part, but I smell “narrative” all over this thing. Theissen making a point of complaining during the show was just setting up for it.
I live in the UK and we aren’t allowed to watch the videos on the Daily Show website. Some of the interviews get re-copied on to YouTube and other sites, but not all of them.
I think this is a shame and I don’t quite understand why the PTB want to block access from the UK. There is an international edition of the Daily Show that is aired over here, but it doesn’t always feature the ‘big’ interviews, and if you miss the broadcast there’s nowhere to see it online (AFAIK).
I actually thought that was clever. I really did think Jon steamrolled him in the on air segment, he countered with ‘oh, I only get to state my position online?’ if I had been in his shoes thats what I would have said.
As far as the stuff online goes, the man got bombed.
I also like, and respect, the way he acknowledges that his personal desires and abilities are different from what he wishes as policy. Like when he said we didn’t want him questioning the detainees, because he is a vigilante (very rough paraphrase).
It always bugs me when people - of any stripe - offer what impresses me as very strongly a personal impression, yet refuse to acknowledge that thier prefernce/interest may not be identcal to desireable public policy.
I also sensed the guy was cleverly setting up his future talking points in complaining about not getting to make his point, and keeping saying “Do I get to talk?” The guy is a speech writer - no reason to think he is ignorant of spin. For my part, I would have preferred if JS has apologized far less frequently for his comments/interruptions.
As I watched it, I thought it was going to be a “Thank you, America- by torturing me, my people will come at you with even more force until you are destroyed” kind of thing, but Stewart didn’t hear it that way, and he is wiser than I.
Ok, why did Theissen use it then to strengthen his argument that torture helps the American cause. See what I mean? His critical thinking is marginal even when touting his own facts.
Yeah, agreed, I felt the same way. I thought it was great that Stewart was calling him out, but he really wasn’t giving the guy any time to defend himself or make his points and it was clear that he was incredibly biased against what Theissan had to say. That said though the author did a terrible job sticking up for himself and pretty much got walked all over.
Just timed it. Over the course of the 11-minute debate, Theissen spoke for just a hair under 5-minutes.
How much did Stewart speak for?
If my math skills are still up to par, just a hair over six minutes.