Huffington Post
Arianna Huffington, 18 March 2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/what-if-jon-stewart-inste_b_175503.html

Jon Stewart's Jim Cramer interview was a pivotal moment -- not just for Stewart, Cramer, and CNBC but also for journalism. It was a bracing reminder of what great research and a journalist more committed to getting to the truth than to landing the big get -- and keeping the big get happy, and ensuring future big gets -- can accomplish.

Stewart kept popping into my head as I watched John King interview Dick Cheney on Sunday. Each time King let Cheney get away with spouting gross inaccuracies and revisionist history, I kept thinking how different things would have been had Stewart been asking the questions. Stewart without the comedy and without the outrage -- just armed with the facts and the willingness to ask tough questions.

Jon Stewart, from what I've noticed through watching The Daily Show, is like Jeremy Paxman, only funnier.

Jon Stewart could do that the day he is over flying, but if he ever did to Cheney what he did to that guy, it would be rough.

How do you mean "rough," Kat? Rough on whom and how?

Nichole

I think there are people you can mess with, and ones that are a lot harder to talk like that to.  Its one thing to call out CNBC on the fact that they were in bed with the very companies they were reporting on, I think everyone knew or understood that, but in calling out Dick Cheney you going to be accusing some of the most powerful people and companies in the United States of War Crimes, Crimes against humanity, and Treason.  Bet me that's a bit harder to do.

Are you saying then that American journalism is no longer in a position to pose difficult-to-answer questions for the leadership? Or would you imagine that the interview would simply be on the order of

Interviewer: When did you decide that torture was an acceptable response to possible terrorists and others you deemed "enemies-of-the-State?"

Cheney: You, #$@%^&$#, that's a gd ridiculous accusation and believe me if I could answer you point-by-point I would but my attorneys have told me to remain silent, you %$#@%^&*#, and so I shall. FU. I'm leaving this cesspool you're calling an interview.

Nichole

I've seen it happen, though.  I've watched interviews where the interviewer presses for answers and doesn't accept blatant inaccuracies.  You know what the interviewee then does?  Interrupts, speaks loudly as though loudness = truth, and ignores anything the interviewer says in favor of repeating the same tired "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what you say" lines.  What is an interviewer supposed to do in that situation?  It's like interviewing a brick wall at that point.  And I'm pretty sure that's what Cheney would do- basically refuse to answer questions.

The reason Stewart absolutely roasted Cramer is not just that he exposed facts, but also because Cramer was such a bad interviewee, at least in light of what I said above.  He accepted Stewart's accusations, he was contrite, he was a good subject.  That's not what you're 'supposed' to do when you're under attack.  If he'd acted like every other person under fire acts these days, the interview wouldn't have been so amazingly harsh and open.

I'm thinking that journalists should have the power to dig out the truth from our highest offices, but if those people refuse to participate in the process, who exactly is going to force them?

You're channeling Dick Cheney, and that scares me.

I've no doubt that power to is not the reason you don't see that. I suspect that job security, and as Arianna said, access are the driving forces involved.

The journalists tend to be employed and paid large sums of money through corporate entities that will only allow a certain level of digging to go on before they step in with attorneys and call a halt to such things. Government officials are not obligated to make sure X gets a juicy story and raises his rep as a reporter/pundit/interviewer. However, once they are no longer at the levers of the government machine ....

As for forcing Dick? I should think that the legal system and Congress would be quite powerful enough to wring some answers from his fat-ridden hide.

Nichole

Quote from: tekla on March 18, 2009, 12:19:04 PM
You're channeling Dick Cheney, and that scares me.

Me?

No, not you, that Nichole person.  However, if you were doing it, that would scare me too.

It's kinda easy to channel the goober. He's an angry white-guy!! Plus, he shoots his friendsand always seem surly and pompous.

It's just too easy, silly-Kat!!

Nichole

I think Cramer almost agreed to everything Stewart charged him with  because if he hadn't come out clean then John would have every night , for many nights , shown those hysterical clips . And that is also why Cramer agreed to be interviewed . If he hadn't Stewart would continue and it must have been a nightmare scenario for Cramer when a comedian took aim at him and didn't let go.

And that is why i think Stewart would also fry Darth Vader if he ever agreed to an interview such as the one with Cramer. If Cheney was sticking to his guns and refusing to answer qs Stewart would make a mockery out of him at that interview and subsequently on the next shows . That is why Cheney will never agree to such an interview, and i will loose an excellent chance to rolfmao .

Don't be so sure, lots of people, including John Edwards, one of the best trial lawyers ever, have had their ass handed to them by the Dick.  He is not stupid, and for a fat ->-bleeped-<-, he is very quick on his feet in an interview/debate.  And its not just Dick, its the people he 'represents', they don't have any sense of humor.  Oh yeah, they own the TV networks too.

Quote from: tekla on March 19, 2009, 12:28:28 PM
Don't be so sure, lots of people, including John Edwards, one of the best trial lawyers ever, have had their ass handed to them by the Dick.  He is not stupid, and for a fat ->-bleeped-<-, he is very quick on his feet in an interview/debate.  And its not just Dick, its the people he 'represents', they don't have any sense of humor.  Oh yeah, they own the TV networks too.

This is definitely true. No one should under-estimate the man's ability. He's a sharpie and is well-versed in the means of making himself not only feared, but prolly deadly, shotguns and shooting friends instead of quail aside!

I suspect him of instilling so much fear into the lackies of the former administration that few of them would make an attempt to "tell the truth" by trying to implicate either he or Dubya.

I don't like him, but you really should respect the abilities he has. He will not be an easy "sing."

Nichole

Stewart is a comedy guy, he'd find it hard to get past that, and Keith O is too in your face, which is Cheney's style, I'd suggest Rachel Maddow, she has a way of making people say things they really didn't want to say.

Sometime during the last 20 years i was in politics , its a long story. I got interviewed often and the outcome was some times lets say scripted . Other times it was  a gamble because i knew the reporter had his/her agenda . People say that I cant lie very well , i think i am too honest actually or never had the mental game required to win,  and this cost me greatly , but i knew what i would have to do if i wanted to end an interview on the winning side.
When you go to a set that you know the reporter will try to drill you you also know that in the end there will be a winner and a loser , either you or the reporter . If you stick to the plan and you don't try to deny but give the pret-a-porte side of the story you will have to be a moron or someone like me to let the interview get out of  control .
What no politician that i have known or seen can do is go against a comedian . If he wants to he can put the spin in your spin and your repetitive answers , however sincere they are ,  suddenly become a joke . More so when you go to an interview by a comedian that has video files of all the stupidest things you have said . You basically don't go to that interview unless its scripted already , or you know the Qs or there are ground rules. Such is the nature of politics in the  countries i ve been , States included.