How does The Daily Show do interviews?

Watching yesterday’s Daily Show, I saw a segment with Olivia Munn (wowsers!). She was interviewing an ASPCA manager and a political operative, on opposing sides of a anti-puppy mill bill in Missouri.

And you know the rest. The DS reporter cracks wise, grimaces, rolls her eyes, and makes both interviewees look a little nutty/silly. They always have the shot of the reporter with her face to the camera and the back of the interviewee’s head. Which looks kind of fake.

So I have some hypotheses about how they do interviews…

  1. They do a “straight” interview, and take advantage of times between takes to say off the wall stuff, then edit it in.

  2. The interviewees (at this stage in the game) know they’re going to be made fun of and play along.

Seriously, it’s like magic and I would love to know how they do interviews. Anyone have insight? They could be doing an Ali G thing but of course that only works for out-of-touch celebrities and pols, and the gig is up within a few months. TDS, on the other hand, has been on TV forever…

I also wonder just how much of their real personality the interviewees inject into the interview. Do they receive any sort of direction. And if so are they told to just play it straight, or ham it up a bit. Because there’s no way that woman last night could not have known that she would come off as a grade-A bitch (no pun intended).

Well, there clearly has to be some preparation. I haven’t seen last night’s episode yet, but there’s plenty where the correspondent interviews two people on either side of an issue who are ostensibly in different places, sometimes even different cities, and they often play it as asking interviewee A a question, getting a crazy answer, going to interviewee B with the answer for a response, then returning to A. That’s obviously impractical, so there has to be prep work.

It is fake.

When you see the two-shot of the Daily Show person making a joke and the interviewee’s back is to the camera - that’s not the actual interviewee - it’s a stand in. (Not always, but when it’s an insulting joke, etc).

Then they’ll cut to a reaction shot of the interviewee, which could actually be taken from any point during which the camera was on them.

It’s the same technique used by all the news networks* – a single-camera interview. They tape the interview with the interviewee answering questions, then the tape the interviewer. Note that AFAIK, in the The Daily Show, the interviewee is answering the questions that are added to the tape, though I suppose some of the comments leading up to the questions were not in the original interview.

*One of the plot flaws in the film Broadcast News was that Holly Hunter didn’t know a particular interview was single camera, when anyone in the business would assume that’s exactly what it was.

As for the sincerity of the interviewee, last week they did an interview with Andrew Shirvell (the nutjob Michigan Assistant AG who’s been harassing a gay college student). While there’s no way he can’t know what Daily Show is (i.e. Satan’s Representative to the News World) you can be absolutely certain he has no sense of humor and was playing it- ahem- straight. I think that’s true of several of their interview subjects- they know the wheels are rigged but also it’s a chance to get their message to a large audience.
Since it’s an entertainment show rather than a news show I wonder if they have to pay their interviewees for their appearance. That could also explain what some are willing to be ridiculed. Anyone know?

I remember when they were a new show.

They interviewed some Christian Clowns(literally clowns, folks) that go around doing ministry and comedy.

I think back then, the clowns honestly had no idea the Daily Show was not legitimate.

Same with that mime that wanted to get mime into the Olympics. He seemed dead serious.

Now, it’s a gag like the others have said.

You’d be surprised. Most people are not so self-aware to know how they appear to others, especially if they have an ax to grind.

And one of many examples of how The Daily Show is about making fun of the conventions of television news as much as it is about making fun of the events.

A lot of viewers don’t see the artifice of a single-camera interview (and the absurdity of “noddies,” the after-the-fact reaction shots of the interviewer.)

These stick out like a sore thumb in regular news - the Daily Show’s OTT take on them just makes fun of that.

Theoretically, any interview could be a two camera, with the shots edited to jump back and forth. Practically they are often shot one camera, so editing tricks suggest they were filmed simultaneously.

I don’t know about The Daily Show, but when The Tonight Show does this, they don’t even interview the person themselves. They just get footage of any interview, then fake the questions around the responses in the interview to make them funny. I imagine The Daily Show does the same thing.

Take a sensible if positioned response, edit the question sufficiently, and make the interviewee look like a bigger jackass than they are.

Except that they frequently include shots of the correspondent and interviewee talking outside the single camera interview.

I don’t think TDS or Colbert fabricate stuff that much any more. I mean, call me an unthinking worshiper if you like, but while they may have done it in Kilborn’s time, I’d like to think they have a certain level of integrity. You don’t have to make things up to be funny. I don’t know the truth though, and I could be wrong.

Are you calling Stephen Colbert a liar? (Not the character, the real guy.)

He was very big in conventions about saying that they do not do that. Colbert said a lot of it was to see what they could get away with saying. He said that, while they ran the stuff twice, they never changed what he said between the two different takes, and that the responses were always in context.

Man, that Olivia Munn segment was fucking horribly unfunny. She does NOT deserve to be on the show.

Probably wrong. Maybe they do it for Olivia Munn cuz of how unfunny and uncharismatic she is but for the rest of the ITVs, it’s clear they go for a two cams set up, but with correspondents already prepped with a lots of the stuff they’re gonna put in. That is they have a list of jokes or angles they can plug in at the right moment. It’s very easy to see it when part of the ITVs are done in a walking style (usually when the ITV is partly about a locale, both the correspondent and the interviewed will stroll there together) and you got both of them in a single frame, they do the same jokes.
I also dont believe they use stand ins for inserting the backs of interviewed people, mostly its funnier to have them both stand in the frame (albeit partly for one) when the other says outrageous shit.

Now, maybe we have some pple that worked on the Dailyshow and are dopers who could say more, but just judging by the images , saying it’s a one cam setup really doesnt make any sense (it wouldnt even be practical).

Who ya gonna believe, him, or your own eyes?

Emphasis added. I’m confused by what that means?

It’s not necessarily a stand-in. It’s standard procedure in television news to film reverse cutaways after an interview is concluded in which the reporter repeats questions or gives reactions.

Yes, and it’s standard procedure in fake news to use a stand-in wearing a wig and same colored top as the interviewee.

They have to run the questions twice, once with reaction shots on the interviewee, and once again with shots on the interviewer. Colbert specifically said that they absolutely do not film a reaction to one comment, and then go back and ask a different question. He said they’ll sometimes ad lib funnier parts, but the essential question remains the same.

Of course, there’s the possibility that this has chanced since he left.

As for whether I believe him or my eyes: My eyes have never contradicted his statement.

That statement can be true and not contradict what I said.