As lissener stated, Jon’s there to get laughs. In interviews he’s repeatedly said that he’s looking for laughs not applause. Get up and state an injustice is wrong, people will clap in agreement, crack wise about the same topic and you get a laugh. People want to laugh more than clap.
I can’t say that I can recall Jon ever really derailing a guest with his asides (and there’s been scant few episodes I’ve missed). Disarm, perhaps, or even defuse, but the asides are almost always used to lighten the matter at hand. They’re usually thrown in (masterfully, IMHO) when the show starts getting to into unfunny matters. In fact, I think this method actually gets some of the stuffier politicos to lighten up and show a more genuine side than they would otherwise.
First jon asked her incredulously why they made a Garfield movie 15 years after he was actually popular (she floundered).
Teased her some about working with a CG cat, sarcasticly quiping that they couldn’t have ever found a real cat to work with.
The really big thing was when Jon asked about Bill Murray.
LOOSELY PARAPHRASED FROM MEMORY:
Jon: So, Bill Murray’s in this too, right?
JLH: Yes! He was amazing. Such a funny guy.
Jon: Wow… That Bill is “one crazy whore for money”.
(JLH looks shocked- the crowd gasps/ laughs/ cheers)
JLH: (Trying to be good humored about it) So does that mean I’m a whore for money, too?
Jon: No, no, no… (the implication being that Bill was above this movie be she’s not)
Awkward and hilarious. Wish I kept the tape of it.
She also was talking about her dog (I don’t remember what it was but it sounded pretty fat for the breed it was) and Jon said “My dog would like to eat your dog” she nearly did a double take. You could tell that was NOT the type of joke she was used to during these interviews.
He also basically said that Garfield peaked in the 80’s and doing a movie now was just a payday for people she seemed pretty off put about that.
That’s because of your bias. If I had selected a conservative example, it would have made sense to you, just as the one that is the subject of the thread did.
This is fine, and I take your point. Despite my complaints though, Stewart clearly does have some strengths and an ‘actual’ interviewer. Don’t tell me you’re not a little frustrated when you hear him come up with an insightful question to a guy like Richard Clark, that no one in the supposed real news media has bothered to ask, and then he doesn’t let him answer the question.
Maybe that says more about the state of journalism in this country than it says about TDS, but it’s still frustrating.
Yeah, that worked against Hayes, although I don’t think he was trying to make a joke. I think he literally meant the size of the book was convenient to take on an airplane (Stewart had said the book’s dimensions should be much larger). I thought it was one of those moments where you say something you think is totally innocuous, but manage to do it in a way that’s inflammatory and you don’t realize it’s inflammatory until right after the words escape your mouth. I’d bet the first thought to pass through Hayes’ mind after he said that was “Jesus, I should’ve said train.”
Assuming, of course, that The Daily Show doesn’t have audience members visiting from Spain.
The joke is that Ben Franklin, whose portait is on the $100, was never a U.S. President. Grover Nordquist was adamantly going to wager that Alexander Hamilton was the only non-president depicted on U.S. paper currency, which makes the irony especially juicy.
That was my point. That an interviewer on a comedy show often asks better questions than supposed real journalists, says much about the state of (especially broadcast) journalism. I just wish Stewart would let his guests answer some of those questions. Others have pointed out that this expectation on my part is unrealistic, but that’s another argument.
Dewey, I’m 99% sure it was an intentional attempt at humor by Hayes. He had a sort of sparkle in his eye when he said it. But I don’t think Stewart was “pissed off,” just surprised that someone would make a joke in such questionable taste about his own book.
That’s what my wife and I were talking about last night after we watched the re-run. She also pointed out that it is just sad that it takes a comedian to point out the pure contradiction of the Cheney interview.
The reporter knew, knew Cheney was lying. You could see it when she was totally taken aback and her, “Uh… Okay.” But she didn’t follow up with a “You didn’t say that on Meet the Press last March?” Of course, if she had, she would have been looking for another job.
It’s sad when a fake news show has a higher standard of journalistic integrity than the “real” news show.
I missed this one; can anyone link to a news story that mentions this? anything at all? I just want to know what the substance of what Cheney said. Was.
I noticed the same thing. What really got me was how she looked down at her notes immedietly after Cheney’s denial. That and the way she phrased her question (using very similar wording to that which Cheney used in the Meet the Press interview) made me think that she must have had the Meet the Press quote right there in front of her.
If reporters aren’t going to ask follow up questions, we mind as well just fire them all and have the interviewees read their own prepared statements to the camera.
Interviewer: Well, you said a few months ago you were “pretty much sure” of your sources-
Cheney: No, I did not.
Interviewer: You never said that?
Cheney: No, I didn’t.
[clip from February (?) news show]
Cheney: We are pretty much sure of our intelligence as to the presence of the Iraq/al-Queda link.
This is paraphrased, but accurate enough for comic effect.
That’s presumptious and wrong. I think the point you were trying to make (about politicians) could have been made without throwing in Hillary Clinton as an example. When I read your post, I couldn’t make out what you were trying to say, especially with Hillary as an example. If you had mentioned Newt Gingrich, I would have been equally confused. Just so you know, I don’t politically support Hillary Clinton.
Good enough for comic effect Troy, but now we’re debating politics.
So in case anyone is inclined to give Cheney some wiggle room on this one, the reporter was quoting his earlier interview verbatim (“pretty much sure”) and her question and the Cheney’s comment in the earlier interview were on precisely the same point, a Czech intelligence report, not merely a vague connection, as Troy has it. Furthermore, Cheney’s denial in the later interview was more strident than that. He was the one who said, “I never said that.”
IOW, Cheney was flat out lying. No question about it.
Which reminds me. David Letterman has been doing his part to skewer the Administration, too. On a recent show he did one of his little segments called “George W. Bush LIE.” It was a clip of Shrub giving a speech and saying, “It’s really great to be here in Dubuque.”