Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  August 29, 2017 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. welcome to the program, tonight, jon stewart, the former daily show host. he is the subject of a new book called "the daily show." the orrespondent -- >> any artistic pursuit, is a relatively selfish pursuit. it is a catharsis for the individual, and a way to express and feel get them out the seduction of it is, is it going to score or not?
6:01 pm
that is the hit, that is the adrenaline. but what begins to wear on you is where it is taken. and i think this election could be a great lesson in that controlling the culture, is not the same thing as power. >> jon stewart, for the hour, next. ♪ jon stewart, thank you for doing this. >> think you for having me. >> why this, why an oral history. >> yes, why? >> well, the title, if i did it, was taken. so we had to go with "an oral history." because -- >> because it is an oral history -- >> yes, the people who wrote and performed this show are so interesting, and are not terribly well known as the head of the 22 minutes per night that
6:02 pm
john and everyone else did for 16 years. colbert hasephen done interviews, samantha be as well, that the actual process, of the making of the show that was not something that was kept secret, but was kept close because john and everyone else was so focused on those four days a week. on getting it on, which is a the actual job, that process, they making an evolution of the show, internally and externally, was a story asked told by the people who lived it. >> so you go to john, and everyone else and asked them if they would do this and cooperate and instantly they said yes? >> yes, i have known him for a long time. i have always enjoyed his reporting, and i always thought it was never, he always came at things from a really server and fair -- when you are reading his new york magazine and
6:03 pm
other places, it always felt invested but not purposefully pejorative. it was just really well done. and i thought we were so involved over the 16 years, people have always said, what was it like? what was your favorite part? and i would say, i do not know -- >> you learn something about it -- >> absolutely. >> about the people you were with me at works absolutely. and if for going to be told, i wanted it to be told as thoroughly -- if it was going to be told, i wanted it to be told thoroughly as possibly as it could be. and i thought chris was a great reporter to be able to do that. >> over the 16 years, how did the show revolves? what did it become -- how did it evolves from the beginning? >> i think during the evolution of the show, we became better at doing it. -- there that it is
6:04 pm
are two separate things, what the show became and what people thought of the show, on the outside perspective. that was the thing that i think, i talked to chris about it a lot, you had to ignore it. what we tried to develop was a decent internal barometer of what worked for the show and how well we could execute it. so, you could not look at a piece and go -- i do not know if this is an emmy worthy, and we are an emmy award-winning show! >> yes indeed! our ownd to keep morality and integrity as the beacon for where you wanted a material to go. >> was your instinct almost always write about what he be funny -- what would be funny or not? >> i think we got better at that, there is something fragile about comedy, and musical, and one man's meat is another man's
6:05 pm
[indiscernible] i can say that there were things we wrote that we thought were funny, where the audience might not think was funny. and other things where you would do a joke to be a pun that would come up for the show, and the crowd would go bananas and he would stop and look at each other like really? we would spend a whole day crafting this really beautiful comedic essay, and you really thought the little pun on double and seven? - on 007? works what was interesting to look back, people do not forget that the daily show existed before jon stewart. craig kilborn was the host for close to three years. and they laid a really good foundation in some ways, with the mock cars london, the satire, the tone and the focus was very different. it was much more of a parody, of
6:06 pm
local newscasts in a way that could be mean-spirited in some of the material and there were also much more interested in celebrity and hollywood and showbiz stuff. and it punched down at times, in a way that could be funny, but was kind of the femoral -- if ephemeral. john knew that he wanted to be substantive, but he did not have a master plan, not a blueprint. >> you said you only wanted to last nine months? >> yes, that was what i wanted. >> that was fine enough? >> yes. >> do you know why you were successful, was it the best extension of what you know how to do? >> i believe that.
6:07 pm
perhaps i did not know it at the time, but beyond that, cable is a different animal, especially at that time. it had a different level of pressure, a different level of performance. au were able to use it as laboratory in ways that you would not be able to do on network television. network television leaves and dies -- lives and dies by the overages. were -- whereas cable lives and .ies by the carriages their goal was to throw things out there, and i knew that we had more time which allowed me to have a little bit more confidence to push it. >> and i had to push them as well, because it was not necessarily the direction they wanted to go in. >> but you were running the show as well, you were there in the trenches. >> i would not refer to myself -- >> if you are at [laughter]
6:08 pm
-- of digestiveber metaphor is were involved in the daily show, -- >> what did it become? >> it became a cultural event, for all of us. >> yes, more than the show. touched on this as well, it is easy to forget what the media world looks like in 1996, 2 1999, when comedy central was still kind of a sketchy proposition. msnbc and fox news, had just launched at the same time, that the daily show was coming into being. nowbook did not exist, as it is had a major influence on an election, a presidential election! [laughter] >> you came in frozen and you
6:09 pm
had to heat it by hand! >> we just went through an election. >> what? >> yes. your reaction to the presidential election? >> at all ties together. -- it all ties together. i would say.at i do not believe we are in a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago or then we were a month ago. the same country, with all of andgrace and flaws volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience, it exists today as it existed three weeks ago. the same country that elected donald trump elected barack obama. ,nd those contradictions are this election to me is just
6:10 pm
another extension of the long argument that we have had from our founders. which is, what are we? -- are we an ideal, or are we some form of ethnic state? ethnostate. that argument has existed for such a long time, and i feel that for the people for whom this election will mean more uncertainty and insecurity. this fight feel like has never been easy. is odd, it is like we are a couple who met, and the first fight we had when we met had-- look, the people slaves. the people we honor had legs, the people who wrote "all men are created equal" had slaves.
6:11 pm
it is not like they do not know that it was wrong. >> many of them came from slaveowning states. right. so the argument between the ideals of inalienable rights and slavery, we have that argument over and over again. at times volatile, at times violent, but it has never been easy. -- i do not see it as some form of endpoint. a long continuation of battle to determine who we are, and i think, it made me wonder, one of the things that struck me odd about this, about the selection, and maybe i just missed it was -- nobody asked donald trump what makes america great. that was the part that i -- >> he was to make america great again, but nobody asked him what makes america great? what is it that you want to do?
6:12 pm
what is it that we are not doing now? >> what are the metrics? by listening to him, it looks like the metrics to him our competition, wins and losses. we are going to win more. it is that what makes us great? many people would say that what makes us great is that nobody -- america is an anomaly in the world. and iare a lot of people, think his candidacy has animated that a multiethnic democracy, a multicultural democracy is impossible. what america, by its founding and constitutionality is -- >> and is becoming more and more, year by year! >> correct. >> some people thought that it meant something's different for them, that their life would be changed, and there was a certain fear. >> definitely, no question.
6:13 pm
the insecurities that people feel as marginalized populations are also felt -- a worker that lost his job and manufacturing fields and a security that, look at all of the terrible things he says, and they might say -- i live in an area that voted for him. >> the question then, is democrats, as secretary clinton, did she opened the door for donald trump because she could not speak to them? >> whether or not she opened the door or not, i do not think it was her door to open. you are talking about a global issue. globalization and the push back of that, in ethnic states it makes more sense that we have an ethnic identity. but when you live in a state ideal, then what is the bar of entry? the bar of entry is i agree with you, people have been a liberal -- inalienable rights, and you
6:14 pm
can enter, as long as you behave in that manner. but let us not to attend that has been revisited time and time again. and that is why, i feel like we have a resilience to it. that we have to continue to fight. ♪
6:15 pm
6:16 pm
♪ >> did you miss it during the campaign. >> god no!
6:17 pm
>> you did not miss it for us again? tell us what you thought, both with satire and comedy, and with reason? >> no, -- >> not at all? >> no! because impotent rage ways on s on you.gh >> meaning that you could not make a difference, so it gave you rage? >> any the artistic pursuit, whatever effect it has on its artist, it is a selfish pursuit. it is about a study of the individual, a way to express ideas, and get them out and feel the seduction of it is, is it going to score or not. that is the adrenaline, the hit. you what begins to wear on is where it is taken.
6:18 pm
i think this election could be a great lesson in that controlling the culture, is not the same thing as power. a viral video, eviscerating racist is not the same as a grassroots movement that seeks to have a common ground with people and create a multiethnic coalition that understands that other people's hierarchy of needs is not necessarily your hierarchy of needs. >> but the idea of what the daily show became was not something to been around in your head when you took this job. >> well, what was banging around in my head was is there a better way to execute public affairs comedy that means something to me? if i am going to spend this much time, i had hosted talk shows, one on mtv and another one on a and i was channels,
6:19 pm
spending 12 hours a day on the things that were not or did not feel substantial or meaningful to me. this is a chance to, can i express my comedy about things that i care about in a way that is entertaining enough that i will not get fired? because i had been fired. and when that happens to you, when you get fired and your name is on a show, it is hard to not go, you might suck at this! reevaluate, if i'm going to put myself in that position then, i am going to lay it on the line. and i am going to put it out there -- to put out there what i care about. >> if i go down, i am going to go down doing it my way. >> that is correct. i am going down my weight, doing it in a way that i think is the
6:20 pm
best iteration of my abilities, and if that goes down, i can bartend. >> yes you could. [laughter] was there a time, an event, where you said -- we've got it! we have traction! i can be confirmed in my beliefs, that what i was rolling the dice on has come up a winner? >> not in terms of success, but in terms of the confidence that -- what i wanted to do, what i insisted on doing has been -- >> you have talked to a bunch of people, haven't you? i would say that it was never about -- it was more about when we be able to develop a process inherentt well and the juxtaposition of the greatest -- creative pursuit, is can we build a machine that is rigid enough, that it consists rain
6:21 pm
aspiration -- can we build machine that is rigid enough that it can sustain inspiration. >> what was the process when you knew? >> that was not my concern. the process, -- >> when did that happen? >> [laughter] 13 -- r >> it really took shape through the 2000 campaign and the recount, the day-to-day process. john says, the technology eventually caught up with what the daily show was doing. they pioneered it in some ways, not just to perform, but the assembly of all these kinds of montages. what was equally important, was not simply the process of having a meeting at 9:00, and we need what they found earlier on was a tone, to what they
6:22 pm
wanted to do. and while events went on and the outside world, that is changed what they thought, they found a tone and a piece that steve carell did with john mccain on the straight talk express in late 1999. -- steve carell does a preamble where he is chasing the boss and trying to get on the bus -- there were two press buses, and they would not let us in. the other one had nicer air-conditioning -- >> it had a bathroom -- >> right. so they go to the bus, and they asked to get on and he says ok, you can come on the bus. what you do not know watching the finished piece is all of the work that went into this. it became a prototype of how john shifted field pieces away from this object cruelty to actual point of view. [laughter]
6:23 pm
and steve carell and the producer of the peace, a guy named mike mckinney had laid out a series of questions. steve carell is a world-class improviser, so that if you asked this question, and he says next, here's how you respond -- he says x, this is how you respond. improviserrld-class is working with civilians who do not know that they are in an improv. so they develop all of these questions about what they will ask mccain, and most of them are softball such as -- what kind of tree would you be? what became famous at the end of that piece, and a turning point in the development of the show, was that corel asked mccain, senator, you have been a strident opponent off porkbarrel spending, how can you justify that when you were a chair of the commerce committee, you ok'd billions of dollars in porkbarrel spending?
6:24 pm
and mccain freezes, it is a deer in the headlights moment. and then steve carell bursts the tension by saying -- i was just joking, i do not even know what that means. me, and fascinating to steve carell did not even remember when i talked to him, they found that question in time magazine when driving over to the shoot! that kind of structure and last-minute improvisatory genius was something that john created that held throughout his run at the show. anit also brings up interesting point, the crux of the daily show paradox. moment, youthat hold to account a senator whose atire identity is based on hypocritical behavior. i am against this type of
6:25 pm
porkbarrel politics, unless it benefits [indiscernible] -- unless it benefits the good people of arizona. >> we nailed you, and what do we have to do at that point? we let you go. it is catch and release, because we had to undercut it with a laugh. it gets to the joy and frustration of doing that kind of job, and it is at the point realized that access did not help us. the idea of -- i got you! here is my one moment, and i am going to, with a scalpel, though at the cracks of your identity as a politician and expose it for everybody to see, and then make a joke about it and walk away. and you will want -- you will laugh, and it will humanize you. difficulties of this is that satire began to take the place of reality -- i think this has been given a greater place
6:26 pm
in the discussion, and a larger role in the discourse than is warranted. once that started to happen, i ifnk you began to question it is a good thing or a bad thing. i know it is not a black and white issue, but controlling the culture, and for as much fun as we could make it about the tea party, dust while we were up there passing around barrel videos of evisceration's, they ran the friendly's off the highway, taking over a school board. electionad in -- an were other democrats want a popular vote by probably more than one million votes. and they do not control the presidency, the house, the senate, they do not control governorships, state legislatures, this may be the betweendisconnect -- majority rule
6:27 pm
and majority power that we had in this country in ages! i am in no way saying that i am responsible, but what i am saying is that there is a comforting culture that can be mistaken for real power. there are only two towns in the world that i've been to that i thought were delusional rid one was washington, d.c., and the other was los angeles. the only difference between the two of them was that in los angeles, they actually believe that they have power. in washington dc, that is where it is. >> in d.c., they have power, they believe they have it. it is the same arrogance. so you're saying essentially, that whatever we say about culture, and the end it is not political power, and in the end it is not? >> that's right. story that we tell ourselves about the rightness of
6:28 pm
our position. but it is an argument, and it is not without weight, but it is not with so much weight. .- so much weight i believe that culture played a very good role in marriage equality, it brought a story out that had been -- so much of what occurs with marriage equality is ignorance. myean that in the way of have no experience, i do not know what that is! so exposure to that can be positive. generally in the entertainment sense -- >> do you think people came as guest because they wanted the numbers you had, or wanted to reach the audience you had? >> yes. >> or because he enjoyed it, it is give them a sense of being part of something that was hip and in? >> i would say they did not enjoy it. >> he talked to them. wallace,oint, chris
6:29 pm
from fox news, said almost exactly those words to me. that he's kids were never more impressed with him than when he went on the daily show. like you had been invited to become a member of a hipper club. >> and you had the ticket to that club. that is power! >> to a club? >> power in the way that a bouncer might have power. >> you had that power! >> i will tell you though, drive down 14th street, it is not there anymore. >> studio 54. >> it is a condo now! >> where i work now, i work at fox news world headquarters, and there is a marching band, free jell-o shots, dancing girls, apparently they won. >> but speaking of fox news, it was a gift that kept on giving? >> not so much the gift that
6:30 pm
kept on giving, but it was the they were offeror -- a good foil, because they were offering cynicism. which they continue to offer. there is no more cynical enterprise and fox news. >> fair and balanced! >> which may be the most cynical expression of any slogan in the history of slogans. that would be like if coca-cola said of their slogan was "vitamins for children." fox news is reactionary. reactionary,w was and a lot of this media is a reaction to what they see as either an fire nests -- unfairness. or something hidden. >> day you see what you're doing
6:31 pm
as offering an alternative to what fox is saying? >> no. we saw it as -- the headline for stuart eviscerates arguments against gay marriage! that would be the headline on huffington, and we would think of it as "the daily show comes up with a so much more humorous look at what they think is a hypocritical stance on personal freedoms." that is the way that it should be -- that is the weight that it should be given. >> when you saw hypocrisy like you have never seen before, that would be the point where you would say? >> it was animated by visceral feelings, because that is the stuff that this show is basically -- if you imagine in general, and i hate to do this to your audience, at her know if you would like to do a trigger the daily show
6:32 pm
was a satirical expression of me sitting in my underwear yelling at the television. and now i get to go back to doing that. >> just not on tv? >> there was a point in the book where a lot of the people, among them a guy named john field who has been a leader in pushing for health care for our 9/11 first responders. through what john and others did to get the permanent extension of the bill. -- where we could debate influence and power. there were points where the daily show had real-world impact, and john does not get up and raises hand and say, i did that, that a lot of those first
6:33 pm
responders, will have their medical bills paid because of his focus on this. discussion, jon at one point in the book says, in game ways the debate over zdro is what the daily show for me was all about. a lot of people looking at something in a commonsense way and saying, isn't this crazy that this is not getting done? why isn't this happening? >> it was the commonsense argument. >> right. he and the show were on the curve of recognizing, on the left and on the right, how the government was not functioning -- a lot of people average americans. and they pointed it out in a lot of ways. from the health-care debate to the government shut down, the minimum wage. all sorts of things. >> katrina? >> yes.
6:34 pm
and at one point there is a former correspondent named dan who was not on the show for a long. longwn -- often -- a period of time. and in some ways not a very enjoyable experience. he talks about how he does not think that bernie sanders would have been possible if not for the daily show. that there are a generation of people who grew up thinking that government and hypocrisy, and politicians, in terms that daily show defined. you have a lot of younger reporters in the media who grew up watching the daily show, and in this campaign, maybe it was too little too late, maybe it was more print and tv, but can we curse. >> yes. works there were a lot of people on thisd bull campaign.
6:35 pm
annotating every lie in donald trump's speech was something that the daily show had done with busch, o bama, all along. you can point to that -- they had done so with bush, obama, all along. the daily show is -- >> i am not saying this to denigrate what we did, i am so incredibly proud -- this is the best iteration of for me what i and weo with satire, prosecuted it to its fullest extent as far as i'm concerned. ie of the reasons i left was was just going to be redundant, keep going back and forth with the same thing. aam really going to do terrible analogy, but, we were patrick say after he died in "ghost." [laughter] we were in the subway yelling at that people. -- dead people, raging, and no
6:36 pm
one could hear us. but if we focused everything that we had on one moment, at just the right time, at just the right moment, with everything that we had, we could move to cannes, just a little bit -- >> would you like to talk about the pottery scene? >> [laughter] zadroga was 10 years of backbreaking labor by john field and his first responders. it was corruption at the government level at the highest order that could be done. it was the people that had been hailed as heroes, running into burning buildings, told by our government and the epa that the air was safe, but it was not safe. they are dying, they continue to die to this day. they were forced to go down, hat in hand, knock on doors to people who would not even look
6:37 pm
at them, those 10 years of working, they did all of the end,ruction at the very one of them came in with a [beep] and and went got way more credit than they deserved. the ultimate irony of this election is the strategy of the republicans which is -- our position our best we are going to make sure that it does not work. swamp.ning the >> yes, draining the swamp. but mcconnell and all of those guys, they are the swamp! donald trump is a reaction, not just to democrats, but to republicans. he is not a republican, but he is a repetition of them. of that she is a repudiation republicans but they will reap the victory of having human
6:38 pm
power. i guarantee that the republicans will suddenly realize that government authority is not tyranny, when he helped -- when we have won it. it is actually authority, consent of the people. if you want an infrastructure project, let me give you that and tax cuts. and let us see how far we can take that. ♪
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
charlie: when we began the conversation you're arguing that this entry is had a tortured history of going back and forth on these debates. >> not on this debate, but on a race. i am talking about the foundational creed of the country which is that we are not -- originally we were just white anglo-saxon protestants, and with immigration -- >> white anglo-saxon protestant man. >> yes. whatever symbolizes the frustration of this country is more than anything, susan b anthony. she fought desperately for women, a hero for people who were voting for hillary, they were putting strippers -- stickers on her grave. think that she was also racist. she did not want black men to vote before women got the right to vote. [laughter] because "white is better than !", but does that
6:42 pm
negate the work that she deed, -- that she did, of course not. it allows us to see each other more quick -- more clearly, have the empathy and compassion for people's hierarchy of needs and not negate people for the worst statement that they have ever or -- in the liberal community you have this idea where you hit creating people as a monolith. they are individuals. but everybody who voted for trump is a monolith. is a racist. that hypocrisy is also real in our country. fight thats is the we wage against ourselves and each other, because america is not natural. natural is tribal. we are fighting against thousands of years of human
6:43 pm
behavior in history to create something that no one has ever -- that is what is exceptional about america this is not easy. . it is an incredible thing. >> one of the most incredible things i hope the group -- the book does is illustrate that in some small way, john and the course ofover the river years, the show involved a over thermined -- course of the years, a very determined to change the ranks. on camera and off-camera. you're the end of john's run was a hubbub about a confrontation he had with one of the correspondents, who was african-american. and we go into some detail about how and why that happened. and i think it is a fascinating illustration of how people of good intention, of strong values
6:44 pm
, these are tough things to wrestle with day in and day out, in workplaces and creative environments. a fascinating total coincidence, when this story broke publicly, coates happened to be his guest that day,. he was not aware of this backstory rid i interviewed coates for the book, and he said -- i interviewed him for the book. he said, people's struggle with racism in good ways -- people struggle with racism in good ways all the time, that we do not hear about. we only hear about the confrontation and conflict. to him, what john did over the course of a number of years, sometimes did not make everyone happy, but was moving the ball forward. intentioned and progressive in every way -- >> his work on diversity?
6:45 pm
>> yes. when you are faced with that type of criticism, your first response is generally defensive mode. and that is what i -- when we first started the show, comedy wasespecially late night, the realm of late-night arnie. just very -- late-night irony. people did very well on their sats, very witty. they wrote for their parity papers at their colleges. papers at their colleges. >> people who love sports? >> who did not love sports and reared you would find, usually i would find -- people who did not love sports. they love the marvel universe. [laughter] when you are in it, sometimes
6:46 pm
the systems that perpetuate different forms of either racism or patriarchy or any of those things, you do not even realize you're in it when you are. and you certainly do not think that of yourself. an article came out and said they do not have any women writing for the show, and on and on. my first response to it was -- they do not understand that there are women here, they are empowered to read this is not a sexist environment. i was raised by a single mother. i went through every single -- there were things in the article which i thought were cheap shot. then i sat in the writer's room and looked around and i said oohh! we're all just white dudes! with various forms of facial hair! and i took that as diversity. what i took as metrics of diversity in a writing staff was
6:47 pm
"that guy is a one-liner guy", that guy is a good narrative guy , this guy is crazy, we will stay out of his way. >> that justified your existence? >> right. so we had a policy in the show that you do not put your name on your submissions. we thought that was what made us progressive, but what we forgot was that the system does not funnel you women, it follows you the same women it has been funneling for 20 or 30 years. it is a self-perpetuating system. so if i call my agents and go, i'm looking for writers, they're going to send me 100 white male writers. now, i will not look at their names, because i do not want to be prejudiced. but what you forget is change is effort. and it is not effort for efforts sake, it iseffort's
6:48 pm
effort because it makes the show better, stronger, with different viewpoints which gave the show strength. we had to say, thank you for saying those things, send me your women! get me those submissions please! the same with when we are adding correspondents. you have to do that actively, you deserve no credit for that, but you have to, to a large is tacit it is complicity with cynicism. essentially were ignoring a large part of the population. >> john, in a variety of respects over the years felt -- i will be out there talking about veterans, i will make jokes, i should go to the veterans administration and actually talk to veterans. >> why did you do, did you moment?at aha
6:49 pm
>> everybody has blind spots and it is very difficult to overcome them. that is what i had to face in is taxingich is, it sometimes. think, because of all of this, you found the right expression, that you could find something that is equally right for you again, or did you just simply hit a home run there, you found the perfect place for you, and it was 17 years ago? >> yes. i will never have that again, but i should not. -- that iift that was was fortunate enough to be graced with for all of that time, and to be in contact with
6:50 pm
all of those incredible people. i do not expect to find it again, but what i found is a more balanced existence that -- there is a difference between satisfaction and joy. this gave me great satisfaction. it gave me great confidence, , driving a couple of knucklehead kids home from school, joy. and you need to have that as well, and this was an obsession that i think, to be able to do it as well as we did, to me, it felt like the only way that we could do it. point, you have to hang up your cleats and go, i got out of this more than anybody, my cup runneth over. and it is time to see that, that to someone
6:51 pm
else whose curiosity will carry it forward and driver to another place that it could be a mother that i am in capable of doing -- in capable of doing. >> did you find that joy in making movies? >> work is work. when something happens and you are not at work, you say, oh, i wish i was at work. has that ever happened to you out -- in your life? when you are not at work and you heard something and you save man i wish it was back there? what is your most unusual insight from the book, from all of the people that were part of the daily show family. you got a chance to talk to and get a sense of what was going on? >> i don't know that it was ,nusual so much as striking that so many of the people --king there were unaware as
6:52 pm
did not realize or did not take in how much the outside world was paying attention. because the grind of actually doing the show, day in and day out, and the ether those that those, as johne said, the fact that they won all of these emmy awards, it was about showing up and doing the best show possible that day. they knew that people were paying attention, they knew that people would go to the emmys and accept awards, but the ability to stay in the moment of the creation of the show, to me, was really kind of surprising. >> you do except this idea that because of the audience, even people who said it was her source of news! as you know, who were influenced whether daily show, in terms of a mindset.
6:53 pm
those young people, especially, are going out now and doing these interesting things. influenced by you! as a teacher, as an influence? >> is stimulated curiosity for people to look at or look beyond the veil of what is seen publicly and try to deconstruct what is seen on television or in political campaigns, if that is the case i would consider that an incredible complement to the show and to the legacy. >> and to you? >> my name was on it. what i would also caution anybody, it did come from our perspective. there were a lot of people out there who thought it was unfair! , whene of the big things people push back you say, oh i am just a comedian. but i never really said that. >> i can claim to have seen and heard every utterance of john's in 20 years, and i will vouch for that. just ar said i am
6:54 pm
comedian, he took responsibility in all kinds of ways for the point of view as well as the jokes. >> and the material. i think it came from crossfire. the point of that is not to say, comedy does not matter. say that of it is to the language of satire is different from the language of news, and the language of media. our weapons are hyperbole and satire and hard juxtapositions that are a college will when newsmen -- a module when these media might use a scalpel. we stood by our arguments, and when our arguments were wrong, or as we thought, we thought that was unfair and we took it out of context, we had to own it. and apologize for that. because that was not the intention, not to propagandize, the intention was to see if you could make your own argument in a really interesting and smart way, that was funny. but that was also as
6:55 pm
unassailable as could the on the facts. the book and from the conversation, what you come away with is that comedy and satire, it is hard. and the pursuit of it is a daily demand and requires a process. >> i think what i try to come out of it is excellence is hard. and competence is hard, and the the process,at is whether it be satire or artistews or news, every i have ever really admired, and i delve into their process. it is always the same, it is always deconstructive, somewhat obsessive and intentional. and i think you can translate ethos, notcoast --
6:56 pm
just to satire, but if the aim is to challenge yourself and be excellent, and improve, and things i -- one of the hated about the movie reviews that i got, was that they came out after the movie. [laughter] through it, you thought some of them are unfair and then some of them you went and said why did i not see this before? you have to be able to handle and synthesize constructive criticism because that is what makes you better. all processes are drafts, first draft second draft -- that is what i feel like, it is a methodology that you can apply to anything that is done. i have great admiration for people who excel at what they do. because i know what goes into it, nothing is an accident. show, book is "the daily the book, and oral history, told
6:57 pm
by jon stewart, the correspondents, staff and guests. ." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
yvonne: it is 7:00 a.m. here in hong kong. i am yvonne man. welcome to "daybreak asia." all options on the table. president says north korea has shown contempt for its neighbors and the international community permitted pyongyang says it out to fire more missiles. they say it is a prelude to containing guam. betty: i am betty liu in new york where it is just past 7:00 p.m. the president visits texas and says the flooding is epic. initial estimates, damage could top $100 billion.

31 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on