On Monday night, Jon Stewart interviewed lawyer and former Department of Justice official John Yoo, a guest who seemed at first (at least to me) a run-of-the-mill political guest. In fact, I didn’t even bother to watch the interview, as I often do unless the night’s guest is the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal or Brian Williams. However, after watching Tuesday night’s show, where Stewart apologized for not grilling Yoo hard enough on his role as the author of the infamous “torture memos,” I went back and watched the 30-minute extended interview on The Daily Show’s Web site to see why exactly Stewart was so repentant.
In the interview, Yoo discussed the legal limits of torture and plugged (of course) his new book, speaking the entire time with an “Aw, shucks, I was just doing my job” sort of attitude. A man who somehow stretched moral guidelines to defend not only the practice of, but the need for, simulated drownings and other forms of torture received a solid chunk of prime airtime to defend himself and seem like a pretty swell guy.
So why did Stewart even feel the need to apologize? He’s a comedian who hosts a comedy show on Comedy Central. Based on the usual standards for late night comedy shows, he could have discussed the funny thing that Yoo’s dog did that day or what the bathrooms are like in the White House and not receive a single bit of criticism. In fact, I’d be oddly fascinated to know whether the West Wing bathrooms use Charmin or generic.
Perhaps the better question is why do we, as a news-gathering society, trust and expect more from a comedian than the actual news organizations that are supposed to monitor and question these sorts of issues? Stewart’s job is to make fun of the news, make us laugh and preferably air more Jason Jones packages. We should not feel let down because he did not rip Yoo to shreds over his policies and actions. For some reason, we do.
Stewart has the very unique advantage of being the host of a fake news show. Because he is one of the most trusted and watched news-ish hosts, high-profile guests are often more willing to appear on his program. It is often viewed as a relatively safe space, one where politicians or legislators can show a more personal, casual side of their image and endear themselves to the general public. Stewart might ask a hard-hitting question, but it is rarely asked in a truly scathing manner, and the interviewee can often skirt out of a serious and comprehensive answer by providing a laugh or two.
Yoo is a law professor at Cal-Berkeley, and by all accounts, even those of his opponents, a very intelligent and astute man. Stewart, while clearly a smart guy, just doesn’t have the media or law training to go up against such an interviewee. Even though this is certainly not Stewart’s first major interview (he’s interviewed politicians and windbags such as Mike Huckabee, John Kerry and Jim Cramer), Yoo was a little too much for him. Stewart is usually a spot-on interviewer while managing to keep it funny, and when he could only accomplish the latter with Yoo, at the expense of getting some serious answers, we found ourselves disappointed.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of news channels and publications to keep tabs on political figures and government actions. Stewart’s primary job, which he does very well, is to make us laugh and ease the tension during this very stressful time. Lately, news organizations have been faltering, relying more on fluffy human interest pieces and viewers’ Twitter thoughts on the weather than actual reporting. Until mainstream media realizes its original intention and goes back to true watchdog reporting and interviewing, it seems that Stewart and his team will have to carry the double-burden of being not only entertaining satire but serious journalism as well.
