Interviews on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

[Mudcat]

Is it good, the way they do it?

To put it harshly, the guests are very often partisan bureaucratic drones or folks selling books I will never read. Sometimes they have some style or humor but oftentimes I find myself thinking the average person walking down the street would be just as engaging.

Sure, there is usually some kind of interesting topic to touch on in the 22 seconds when Stewart isn't dominating the interview.



I dunno. Stewart himself frequently jokes about how weak their guests are. I appreciate self-deprecation but I also think, "Okay so get more in-demand guests."

I often wonder if the reason he dominates some interviews so much is because he knows how weak his subject is. Again, finding stronger subjects seems like the way to go.



I do give them some credit for being different. Most talk shows go mainly with movie/tv people plugging their latest project. The Daily Show tries I think for a loftier concept, for more intelligent relevant discussion.

That sounds good in principle but gawd-help-me I think I would prefer the movie/tv shills.

I watch the start of the show most days but more and more I am skipping the interviews. I wonder if I am the only one.

[JoNightshade]

I actually I quite like his interviews. (And I'm saying this as a conservative - I know he's super liberal but most of the time I love his show.) I feel like he doesn't just go for big names or try to get OJ Simpson's best friend's driver's wife or something, you know? I think the books he picks are lesser known, but they're almost always interesting, and the people he has on are often important people who DON'T get a lot of media attention. (Such as foreign ambassadors, analysts, etc.)

Yes, he dominates interviews, but his show is about entertainment first and foremost. That said, I think he is not afraid to listen to differing opinions and often has some very interesting discussions that go much deeper than the usual party lines. I can't remember who it was now, but a while ago he had a guy on who had a completely different view from him on some hot-button issue (abortion?) and they had a very interesting, rational discussion where neither one looked like a nutcase. Just two people on different sides.

[CDaniel]

Your not, JoNightshade. I'm only able to site through the opening and then, by the interview, I'm back to surffing the channels.

[Sophia]

I quite like the interviews. I've bought a couple of books after watching them - A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah, the memoir of a boy soldier in Sierra Leone, and Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks, which ties in well to my current WIP. I get the impression that Stewart gives the guests a chance to relax and talk about their subject in a more light-hearted way than other venues might, but when something more serious comes up, he lets them talk and encourages depth. I think his style is geared towards getting people to talk about the heart of their books, but not to go off on a particular soap-box for too long.

[Toothpaste]

Personally I think Jon Stewart is one of the best such interviewers out there. His guests aren't all just celebs promoting some flaky movie (though sometimes they are), they are intelligent, and yes sometimes dry, individuals, mostly authors, of work that is very well researched and not given its due in today's fast paced society. Some of his interviews have actually affected change (ie Jim Cramer admitting he could do things differently on his show), he isn't just pandering to his guests. And I actually don't think he dominates interviews, just makes sure that they keep moving. Sometimes his guests aren't used to speaking in public, so he helps them along, I think, brilliantly - making an awkward moment a joke about himself, or asking just the right question to get things back on track. When an interviewee has a story to tell, he shuts up.

And come on, his interview with the Pakistani president has already become famous for how indepth and enlightening it was, while at the same being light and funny.

So I guess I have to disagree with you. There are plenty of other venues out there for mindless interviews with funny people (see any late night talk show), Stewart actually interviews people who've done stuff. Who've been there, seen it, researched it . . . and he makes them interesting. If he fails now and again at that, I'm willing to forgive him.

[dgiharris]

I have no idea what parallel universe you live in, in which the Daily Show Interviews don't kick ass.

But in this universe, the Daily Show interviews I watch pretty much always blow me away. Not only with the insight but the humor.

One reason he kicks ass is because he often brings so much unique issues to his shows, issues that actually do relate to the country. It is ironic that his show touches on more issues that can impact our lives than normal news media.

If i'm not mistaken, Jon Stewart has won some major awards.

Anyways, his worst interview is still funny as hell.

Mel...

p.s. I think there is this myth that the American public only likes mindless entertainment. Jon Stewart does well among almost all demographics. And his protege, Stephen Colbert isn't bad either, though his show is more hit or miss

[Mudcat]

Yep I agree with pretty much everything that has been said against my original point.

I think some of you are giving Stewart just a little too much credit as an interviewer. They have such a short amount of time and he uses just plain too much of it showing how cute he can be IMO. Not always but often.

But as far as everything else, I think the problem is me. I am getting old and decrepit and my brain just starts shutting down and rejecting anything challenging as the day gets late.

At least late at night, I have become that consumer demanding mindless entertainment that I have always complained about.

[dgiharris]

Yep I agree with pretty much everything that has been said against my original point.

I think some of you are giving Stewart just a little too much credit as an interviewer. They have such a short amount of time and he uses just plain too much of it showing how cute he can be IMO. Not always but often.

Well, it depends. He does have some interviews that run 'long' over 15 minutes.

And as far as his being funny/cute during the interview, that is his schtick.

But, he has been known on occasion to just put his foot in someone's ass and since he does it using humor, he cuts through the normal 'spin' that the guests are used to bullshitting the normal interviewer with.

UUUggghhh can't think of any of the top of my head, but there have been several guests who he nailed so hard Jesus Christ would have said, "Damn Jon, being a bit harsh aren't you?"

I would say that 55% of his interviews are on the fluffier side but 25% of the time he brings to light some incredibly relavent social issues and another 20% of the time he does call a guest out on their bullshit.

One interview that sticks in my mind is his interview of the President of Peru. That was a great enlightening interview.

I think perhaps we are getting hung up on the semantic of 'interview'. With Jon Stewart ,they are just more unconventional and you do have to sift through some humor. But if you can do that, tolerate him, then the payoff is huge IMHO. Which is why his show is so well recieved by many. It is unique, different, and surely needed in this bubble gum ghoulish media world.

In fact, he is a nice check and balance against the normal media. It's hilarious how often he will show a CNN or Fox News clip of them just being completely stupid. God I love that

Mel...

[Nightfly]

Is it good, the way they do it?

To put it harshly, the guests are very often partisan bureaucratic drones or folks selling books I will never read. Sometimes they have some style or humor but oftentimes I find myself thinking the average person walking down the street would be just as engaging.

Sure, there is usually some kind of interesting topic to touch on in the 22 seconds when Stewart isn't dominating the interview.



I dunno. Stewart himself frequently jokes about how weak their guests are. I appreciate self-deprecation but I also think, "Okay so get more in-demand guests."

I often wonder if the reason he dominates some interviews so much is because he knows how weak his subject is. Again, finding stronger subjects seems like the way to go.



I do give them some credit for being different. Most talk shows go mainly with movie/tv people plugging their latest project. The Daily Show tries I think for a loftier concept, for more intelligent relevant discussion.

That sounds good in principle but gawd-help-me I think I would prefer the movie/tv shills.

I watch the start of the show most days but more and more I am skipping the interviews. I wonder if I am the only one.

I really enjoy the interviews. The guests may not have much "style or humor" but they may be more interested in substance than style. ( Or they just weren't blessed with these gifts - I don't mean to imply all of them are taking some higher road. )
And it's a testament to Stewart that he can interview these people, have some intelligent exchanges and still make it damn funny. I applaud him and Cobert for having intelligent guests on and giving their work exposure it would not otherwise get. Even if the interviews are mostly schtick ( necessarily to keep so many viewers ) they are at least bringing some important, intelligent ideas to the masses. More than anybody else.
There's no lack of interviews out there with pretty or funny people plugging their movies or shows. Sometimes I prefer "the average person walking down the street" if they have something offer.