Jon Stewart | News | Rachel Maddow

BigGayDeal.com
« Photo: Flamingos Shaped Like a Flamingo | Main | Zac Efron Using Some Muscle »

11/12/2010

Watch: Rachel Maddow's Jon Stewart Interview, Uncut

Maddow_stewart

Rachel Maddow's uncut 50-minute interview with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Posted Nov 12, 2010 at 7:28 AM EST by in Jon Stewart, News, Rachel Maddow | Permalink

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I watched the entire interview and was... disappointed. Much like "The rally to restore Sanity/Fear" the interview never felt like it went anywhere. Like both Rachel and Jon were waiting for the other to begin. There was nothing learned from the interview. Not the best effort.

    Posted by: Rad | Nov 12, 2010 8:13:50 AM


  2. I wouldn't quite put it that way but I know what you mean.

    For a number of years now Jon has been trying to map out an area of discourse that bypasses the rigid left/right matrix that everything's shoved into. A noble goal, but he mistakes achieving it with a maintenance of manners, and a specific assumption of roles. In this interview Jon keeps insisting that what he and Rachel do are different things. But they're not. They're both political commentators. His problem is he;s trying to maintain the illusion of comic purity. It won't parse.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 12, 2010 8:42:03 AM


  3. I respectfully disagree, David. What he is doing is no more than "SNL news" only for a half hour instead of 8 minutes.

    This has been my major wank with the news for years. They polarize the country. Most of us are more complex than the left-right paradigm, and if we are not...that's very sad, clone-like, and a dangerous path for the future.

    How we speak to each other is important if we wish to increase dialog and make real change. Dialog starters as opposed to show stoppers.

    While you might want to categorize someone as an asshole (and they might be) it will still shut down conversation.

    Posted by: Rin | Nov 12, 2010 10:53:17 AM


  4. Yeah, I felt that they were both a little too defensive about their roles in the media, and perhaps a bit disingenuous as well. But as a profile of Rachel and Jon, two media figures whose work I admire, it was worthwhile to hear them expound on what they each believe they do and contribute.

    Posted by: Zlick | Nov 12, 2010 11:02:10 AM


  5. What's up with Jon's latest routine: "MSNBC is the same as Fox News. Bill Mahr is the same as Glenn Beck"?

    True, politicized punditry does harm this country's discourse. But the the left and the right are not equally to blame.

    The Maddow/Stewart interview was fascinating but also irksome and, as Zlick pointed out, at times disingenuous.

    If these two fail us, where oh where are we to get our totally biased fake news in the future???

    Posted by: Trog | Nov 12, 2010 11:47:42 AM


  6. Why would he want to jeopardize having right wingers on his show? He doesn't want to be typecast, because that makes for boring television. Instead, he'll play this "that's just your opinion" bit, and evade when accused of anything substantive until people realize that he doesn't have a point. But yeah, pathetic that people care one way or the other, and maher nailed him.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 12, 2010 12:20:34 PM


  7. He is a naive, egotistical fratboy, with a large vocabulary who understands how to properly structure a sentence. He adds nothing to political discourse. His satire, and criticism of how most of the media miss opportunities for real analysis is made redundant during the interview segments of his show. In his interviews with Cantor, Axelrod, and Rice it was disgustingly similar to the softballs thrown out by the corporate media in order to sustain future interviews over substance. I think his comments in the Maddow interview point out his naivety, and the fact that he is truely disingenuous.
    To paraphrase...technically water boarding is torture, but when you bring it up it just stops the conversation.
    Calling George Bush a war criminal is hyperbole, he's not Pol Pot.
    Yes, Bush was looking for an excuse to torture, and to invade Iraq, but it was because he thought it was the right thing to do not because he's a bad guy.

    Posted by: Bobo | Nov 12, 2010 1:10:57 PM


  8. "but it was because he thought it was the right thing to do not because he's a bad guy."

    BOBO, you ANTISEMITE! So pol pot didn't think that the khmer rouge's cleanse (genocide) was the right thing to do? I don't disagree that george bush isn't pol pot, just that you're clearly not making the relevant distinction...they all think that they're doing the right thing.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 12, 2010 1:19:25 PM


  9. Tank I usualy don't bother to comment on your vitriol, but those are Jon Stewarts words that I am paraphrasing; watch the interview douchbag.
    Antisemite...LMAO, you disgusting old troll!

    Posted by: Bobo | Nov 12, 2010 1:41:09 PM


  10. For all their protestations of cordiality, it was a very tense exchange. And the interview never went anywhere, much to Rachel's frustration, because Stewart refuses to get into anything of substance.

    I think what annoys Maddow is that Stewart wants to have all the benefits that comes with being a media personality without even acknowledging that he is even a part of it. Which essentially means he can rhetorically punch her in the face anytime he wants. But if she tries to respond in kind, all he does is claim he's not a journalist and is, therefore, not beholden to any professional standards whatsoever. A self proclaimed non-journalist who goes to the White House correspondents' dinner every year, attend all their little conventions, and competes with them for high profile interviews.

    Posted by: John | Nov 12, 2010 5:11:02 PM


  11. I did watch the interview, and I didn't like it. Not one bit! I didn't care for it! I could have been throwing things at things...instead, I have to hear about media talk about itself? Metacable news? Cable news and the daily show and all that entertainment shit are bad enough without it being self conscious. It's alive!

    And bobo's an antisemite.

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 12, 2010 5:18:58 PM


  12. Jon Stewart is classically narcissistic. He sees himself and his show in one particular, specific way and will not accept an outside, objective view of what he really is; his painting of the intent of Rachel Maddow's show as something different than his own is fraudulent. And, akin to someone fumbling in the dark, he wildly stabs at meaningless nuances like "partisan" and "point of view" to differentiate himself from the reality of who he (and his show) really is.
    If I were Rachel, I would be insulted by his transparent defense and simultaneous patronizing.

    ********************************

    On the matter of corruption vs. ideology, I don't care how pure a politician is - if they are disgusting in their views, they will never get my vote. No, corruption cannot and should not be the first consideration when looking at a public official- it should be values & ideology. Look at if they share their your beliefs and values, then look at if they are earnest and pure (non-corrupt).

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 12, 2010 9:54:59 PM


  13. Jon stewart is actually smart, which is something I cannot say for some of you.

    Posted by: William h | Mar 10, 2011 2:21:43 AM


Post a comment









« «Photo: Flamingos Shaped Like a Flamingo« «