The left blogosphere is working the spin on the Jon Stewart- Marc Thiessen encounter last night, insisting that Stewart “destroyed” and “nailed” Thiessen.
That’s not the way it looked to me. Stewart interrupted Thiessen, overtalked Thiessen, lectured Thiessen. He pointedly reminded Thiessen that Thiessen was a guest on his, Stewart’s, show. (In real life, a host has an obligation to defer to the guest, but on TV it works the other way around.) Yet he did not catch Thiessen in a contradiction, or expose a weakness in his argument, or reveal in him any ignorance of the facts, as for example Stewart did do in his interview with Betsy McCaughey last year.
What seems to have happened in the Stewart-Thiessen encounter is that Stewart overlearned his lesson from his encounter with John Yoo earlier in the year.
Yoo prevailed in that encounter, or so it seemed to me, because of Yoo’s virtues of character. He is gentle, thoughtful, and patient. But Stewart and his fans decided different. Yoo prevailed because Stewart was under-briefed.
Not with Thiessen! Stewart could have filled the whole interview by reading his briefing notes. Which as a matter of fact is precisely what he did. There was very little encounter, very little exchange, very little debate.
Thiessen gamely tried to assert his case in the interstices of Stewart’s lecture. I’m not sure that was the right interview strategy. My instinct, had I been sitting in his chair, would have been to lean back and let Stewart go for a good long spell, wait for him to draw breath, and then ask:
“Jon, are you going to read ALL your briefing notes? In that case I could have stayed home and watched the show in my pajamas. But since I’m here anyway, isn’t there ANYTHING you’d like to ask me?”
franco 2 // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I don’t watch Stewart much and have little interest in rigged interviews with partisan comedians. It’s kind of a no-win situation for anyone to the right of Stewart’s audience. They are crafting narrative so there are a lot of ways for them to “win”. Yoo surprised Stewart and now he’s honed his strategy for that type of encounter.
In these venues, perception is king, and the entire audience is predisposed to Stewart’s narrative. They do not wish to have their illusions shattered or to gain insight.
Moreover, these guests get used as props to trot out the old memes, another chance to reiterate the big lie. Politically savvy folks don’t go on these shows.
stephenson // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I don’t think Stewart destroyed Thiessen nor do I think he intended to. All of these conservative leaning individuals who come onto his show should realize that Stewart is a liberal and will not just agree with them. I think Stewart is willing to discuss any issue intelligently which Thiessen was not willing to do. It is also the Host’s responsibility to keep the Guest on track and not just let him babble on. Thiessen came across as a whiner, complaining that he wouldn’t be able to talk for the entire program???
PracticalGirl // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm
franco 2-
Post #1- You’re describing standard operating procedure for the entirety of the perspective media. It doesn’t matter the political persuasion, guests booked on any of these programs-serious or comedic- are there to either support the perspective of the host/show or serve as a counter example for the base.
I actually admire the conservatives who hit either Stewart or Mahr (and Matthews et al) and the liberals who go on conservative shows. They know, going in, what the deal is. But they also know that most of these shows have an audience make-up that includes moderates and independents. By “appearing in enemy camp”, they guarantee that their perspective is heard. In an era of eer-polarized media, this is a great way of presenting a reasonable argument for a side the the audience isn’t being led to by the host.
sparty // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:40 pm
The American public would be wise to heed the wisdom of Thiessen, an experienced military strategist and a well-regarded expert on all matters related to terrorism and interrogation. He’s been to the front lines, seen the enemy up close, and lived to tell about it. While you and I sleep soundly in our comfy beds, Marc Thiessen is out there taking on the worst of the worst, with a gusto and bravery that I can only imagine. We’re all safer thanks to people like Marc Thiessen.
He also wrote some pretty words for Bush read.
dh2303 // Mar 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Mr. Frum,
The televised version of the interview lasted for 9 minutes (from the beginning of Stewart’s introduction to the beginning of Thiessen’s protest about being talked over). Thiessen spoke for 4:26, Stewart spoke for 4:34. I don’t think you can describe this as a fillibuster. As for exchanges, there were many examples. I thought this exchange was particularly good: ‘Here are attacks we stopped using enhanced interrogation (Thiessen)’. ‘Well, here are attacks we stopped without using enhanced interrogation (Stewart).’… leading to a discussion about whether you can say ‘this makes us more safe and this other thing makes us less safe.’
cporet // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Why the hell should I care whether Jon Stewart won’t allow his guest to speak. The Vice-President went to Isreal and they greeted him with over 600 more homes in East Jerusalem. Where is the outrage over this slap in the face of not just the VP, or the peace process he was trying to coax to life, but to all Americans.
Jon Stewart hosts a comedy show. It can be found on the Comedy Central network. Isreal is a nuclear power in the mideast and is looking to pick a fight. Where are our prioities?
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Practical girl points out a truism: “You’re (franco 2) describing standard operating procedure… guests booked on any of these programs … are there to either support the perspective of the host/show or serve as a counter example for the base”.
For the 1st time in a long time, I watched David Letterman (whose real letter is evidently a big ol’ Scarlet A) interview Mitt Romney. He asked Mitt about Sarah Palin’s worthiness and Mitt responded in a way that drew the audience’s near boo’ing and ol’ David’s squirming in his seat. Mitt exited that uncomfortable moment by reminding the hearing-challenged Letterman that Sarah Palin hunts with a rifle. Now that’s character when you’ve unwittingly made the host uncomfortable and you use his forte –humor– to get the host out of another deep hole.
People of character, like John Yoo and Marc Thiessen and many others, can easily rebut low lifes like Jon Stewart or hacks like Chris Matthews or baiters like Larry O Donnell by their simple presence. Stewart wasn’t over prepped –he never has been, he’s a stand-up jewish comic schlepping for the farLeft just like Bill Maher (when he can hold a job) or Al Franken or Lewis Black.
Stewart gets his intel from the comment threads over at the Daily Kos and Democrat Underground. Thiessen has his informed by life and occupation –he was there at the event… not reading about what others say about events.
Stewart’s audience continues to shrink and people tune out these radicalized, off-spectrum voices. Jon will keep at it until he’s back to doing stand-up in the Berkshires for obnoxious, over weight pathetic New Jersey jews “out for some natural time” in the woods.
jcubed // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I think stephenson is pretty spot on. Jon has had many conservatives on his show in the past, and he has had some wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful discussions with them about various issues that they disagree on. If contentious issues have been discussed with conservatives on The Daily Show before, and it’s the same host this time, it would seem that however the interview went had more to do with Thiessen than Jon. As opposed to other news sources, Jon doesn’t simply give someone the green light to make any sort of claims that he or she wants to (which is good, as it seemed Thiessen was more than ready to simply prattle on for the entire interview). If someone makes an argument that Jon finds to be fallacious (and I have to admit I tend to agree with him) or uses misleading facts or phrasing, Jon will step in and call them on it. He tries to paraphrase the person’s statement to make sure he isn’t mischaracterizing it, and then proceeds to point out where he thinks the argument is at fault.
As dh points out, actual amounts of time spent talking are pretty much dead even, so that pretty clearly eliminates the “filibustered” argument. The long and short of it is this: Marc went in there with his prepared spiel, which is pretty clear when you hear him making the same exact arguments, nearly word for word, in other interviews. Jon was doing his usual job of pointing out misleading arguments and opinions, and I simply don’t think Marc was entirely ready for it. If you watch the completely unedited version online, there is one point towards the end where Jon asks him one VERY simply question about 20 times in a row because Marc simply will NOT answer it directly. I think that’s indicative of the interview as a whole. Thiessen wasn’t prepared or willing to be challenged, and his defense was to try and talk over Jon (which ultimately cost him time to speak) and avoid directly answering Jon’s pointed questions.
edsbowlingshoe // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:34 am
Gotta love Independent’s classic line, “People of character, like John Yoo and Marc Thiessen.” Yeah – people of character, like the guy who wrote the legal docs legalizing torture in the US, and the most prominent torture defender in the US, at the moment. Who are your other heroes? Let me guess: Head of the Spanish Inquisition – check. Warden of the Lubyanka – check. Prison guard from “Midnight Express” – check. Are you kidding me with this?
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:53 am
edsbowlingshoe… got another name you usually go by here?
ed tosses a gutter ball with: “the guy who wrote the legal docs legalizing torture in the US”
Um, no. No one authorized or legalized torture in the US. EIT are not torture. Your own heavily staffed ACLU division of the DOJ in Obama’s Administration cleared the authors of those documents you wrongly contend “legalized torture”.
I guess when the bowling alley is shut-down, the farLeft will still be screaming from the loose balls room that “Cheney Tortured”. It’s so sad; you’d think the same people who still cry about WMDs not being in Iraq –even after all the proof– would realize no one is listening to them anymore. Not even Obama, our newest Warrior President.
kevin47 // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:56 am
If the interviewer absorbs as much time than the interviewee, that’s pretty much putting it in Hannity territory. Stewart is usually pretty funny, but when he has an agenda, he becomes preachy and uninteresting (like virtually every entertainer).
ratgov // Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The thing that got Stewart so worked up, and what made him take the extra time, was that he was trying to get Thiessen to agree that there are arguments on both sides about using waterboarding and other disputed interrogation techniques. But this guy was so adamant that if you did not fully believe his case you didn’t just have a different opinion that Thiessen thought was wrong, you were actively trying to damage the United States. It is incredibly frustrating to try and argue with someone that won’t even acknowledge the arguments of the other side. I think that’s why Stewart didn’t give him as much time as he normally would to a speaker, although he did still get almost 50%. It was this point, that Thiessen would not budge from (the notion that anyone that disagreed with him was simply pro terrorism and wanted America to be hit by more terrorism) that threw Stewart off so much.
hopeychangey // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Nice try. Timed the interview. Marc spoke for 4:42 (I only timed him when he was speaking *by himself*), – the full interview was 9:45, which makes the “Marc-uninterrupted” percentage 48%.
Not sure how a near 1 to 1 ratio of guest/host speaking time can be called a “filibuster”…
Marc claiming that Jon “talked over” all of his talking points were not supported by facts (of course, that seems to be a theme with the right-wing crowd).
jason42 // Mar 12, 2010 at 5:58 am
Marc had plenty of time to voice his opinion. He wasted his time complaining, or interrupting Jon, or evading the questions. At the interview’s end Marc was exposed as a whiny child. Next!