Read this article and post your reactions to it below. The article focuses on a year-old interview Jon Stewart conducted with John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel who wrote the so-called “torture memos." Be sure and also watch the interview here. I think the link in the article is a dead link.
1) What did you think about the caliber of Stewart's questions?
2) Do you think the article writer's assertions are correct or do you disagree?
Your response should answer both questions.
First, I think that Jon Stewart is amazing in his interviews, but not this one. I wanted to hop inside the frame and tell Jon to ask, "What allows us to flip on and off the treaty whenever it suits us?" I wanted Jon to ask about what they did to the prisoner and if he was the only prisoner who experienced those methods of interrogation. Had they even tried the usual methods or they jumped straight to the water boarding? I was antonished to see that Jon didn't come close to breaking Yoo. It seemed that Yoo always found a way to turn the question around and answer the question with an irrelevant statement. I agree with the article's author in the fact that Jon Stewart didn't do as well as he did with other interviewees. Jon's questions lacked the exactness needed to zero in on the holes in Yoo's arguement. The author was right. I watch the Daily Show and The Colbert Report (my favorite shows) and I am used to Stewart and Colbert "nailing" their interviewees with questions and comments that no one was expecting. This interview fell short in my opinion. I would like Stewart to get another interview with Yoo, maybe then he could get it right.
ReplyDeleteI was not impressed with the way this interview was conducted. It was disappointing how much Jon Stewart changed the way he conducted this interview. Usually I am very impressed with what Jon Stewart has to offer, however I felt like in this interview Jon Stewart was very timid towards Yoo. I believe that Jon should have asked more intense questions. This interview was not what the readers and audience wanted to hear or see. Jon Stewart should have asked more questions about the "torture methods" and how those were effective in that time. The questions were not even close to what the interview should have been about. I feel like Jon Stewart was afraid of Yoo and let him lead off of the main question. Yoo would not answer the questions directly or give an answer, except for rewording of the original questions and Jon Stewart let that occur which I was not impressed with. The author was correct with their assertions. The Daily Show along with The Colbert Report were lacking the strong evidence of getting what they wanted out of Yoo. They allowed Yoo to take a different track off of the questions and did not lead him back into the right direction. The writer was right about how Yoo continue to make humor and show his personality, when in reality this interview was supposed to be serious and answer many questions people had. This interview fell short of what the audience and readers were expecting, just like the writer stated. Jon Stewart should try and "nail" Yoo and not allow him to get off topic with another interview.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I wouldn't classify this as an interview. Stewart clearly had an agenda and simply wanted to show his audience how wrong Yoo actually was. This being said, he had a few good points but he didn't exploit them. He didn't stay on subject, he would address torture and then go off on presidential power without establishing a concrete relation. When he said we should treat domestic criminals the same way he proved that he completely missed the point of what Yoo said. His questions weren't really open to being answered, they where more rhetorical statements, that challenged Yoo or tried to corner him, not open him up. However, I think some of Yoo's answers where much to vague, like any good politicians would be. It was up to Stewart to ask for straight answers. Exactly what was determined to be torture? for example. The article is clearly biased as well, it assumed that the point of the "interview" was to carve Yoo up. Why not just call it a debate then? I fail to see how someone con "fail" at an interview if they succeed in getting the interviewee to answer their questions, which Yoo did. Yoo would have given straight answers had they been required. I don't think an interview should be described as "nailing", that is a debate.
ReplyDeleteIt comes as an unpleasant surprise that Jon Stewart's interview didn't impress me, he usually established such a satisfactory interview. It seemed as though he didn't pursue Yoo enough to even begin to make Yoo crack. Stewart would state a question and Yoo would weasel his way around the answer and flip it towards Stewart. Stewart never gave a question that Yoo could even open up to. He also didn't set himself up on a task, I felt the interview didn't necessarily flow as well as it could have. As far as the article is concerned, I believe they were on target. Though, Stewart does usually nail the interview, this was out of the ordinary for Jon Stewart and I expected a great deal more from him with this interview. Yoo was calm, cool, and collected, and never let one instance slip up where he seemed uneasy. He answered the questions asked in a way that was more broad and most political leaders and politicians do and that kept himself safe. But, it's a shame Stewart didn't get more out of the interview.
ReplyDeleteI found the interview to be very frustrating. In my opinion, it was not conducted in a very professional manner. I thought Stewart’s questions were extremely opinionated. Instead of being objective and allowing viewers to make their own conclusions, he appeared to bring in all of his biases into the interview. He had a few great points, such as the idea of how far is too far when trying to get information from an enemy during a war, but the way he presented himself was disrespectful and rude. The topic was very controversial, and was bound to stir up emotions. However, as the one conducting the interview, I thought that the only person who should have been emotional was the person being interviewed but it was Jon Yoo kept his calm the entire time. I agree with the author of the article. Jon Steward was very antagonistic in the interview and from the selected quotations in the article it was apparent. I liked the way the article was written. Though short, it allowed readers to depict what took place during the interview without a bias from the journalist.
ReplyDeleteI think Jon Stewart went into the interview thinking he could make Yoo look foolish by asking him ridiculously simple questions and in the end it was Yoo that made Stewart look bad. Personally I have never been impressed by Stewart's interviews but this one was especially bad. The writer of the article had made some really good points and definitely called Jon Stewart out on not being able to "nail" Yoo as he does to so many of his other guests.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jon Stewart's caliber of question's could have been more effective. It became sadly obvious that he didn't do much research about Yoo's position on torture. He even stated that he didn't finish reading the book. This allowed Yoo to refer back to what he had written in the book to further back up his position. He could have also researched more about what the constitution stated, because it seemed as if his questions were based off of his own logic rather than fact. I also think that the person who wrote the article raised good points as well. I agree that no he wasn't going to pin Yoo down completly because Yoo knows what the law says, but if he had done his reading then Stewart could have interpreted it the way he wanted to as well.
ReplyDeleteYeah I think his questions could have been a little better but who says Yoo wouldnt have know how to answer them. Apparently he is a very smart person and knows what he is talking about. I feel that if your a terrorist you deserve to be punished just like Yoo does. Being a lawyer and having connection in somewhat with Bush he knows the law and he knows what the constitution says. Yoo just outsmarted Stewart in a way.
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart's questions were not great. It seemed that he was not prepared or he was trying to point out exactly what how he though about John Yoo. Obviously he does not agree with Yoo's stance. In my opinion, Stewart wanted people to disagree with Yoo. The interview was not impressive. I agree with the author. Stewart's questions did not make a great impact.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stewart did not do enough research or ask the appropriate questions. Mr. Yoo is clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable. He already knows the arguments for and against his decisions due to his training as a lawyer. Therefore he is not going to get flustered or give the responses that John Stewart wanted very easily. I don't think Stewart understand or did enough research before the interview. Each time Stewart said he didnt understand just gave Yoo more ammunition to prove what he was saying. Stewart did not know enough on the subject to use logical counter arguments again Yoo. He also should of asked more specific questions. I agree with the writer of the article that from the very beginning of the interview, Stewart did not have a chance at all of tearing Yoo down. It would be very difficult for Stewart to elicit the answers from Yoo that he wanted. Stewart would need to be better prepared and even then he may not of got what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteStewart's questions were not well thought out and planned. If he had done more research, he could have potentially had a good interview. I believe the article was correct to assume that Stewart did not "nail" him. Most of the interviews Stewart does turns the answers around to make the interviewer look as to not know. In this case he ultimately failed at that. He tried to - but wasn't prepared and was outsmarted by a lawyer. Something we all hate to have happen..
ReplyDeleteJohn Stewart's interview with John Yoo is affective in many ways. Though it is not formatted in a traditional "Stewart style", he succeeds in flustering Yoo and convincing others that the former attorney had a direct influence on the change of torturing laws. Stewart's audience unsurprisingly supports him in stands that he takes. They are familiar with his interviewing strategies, and expect him to use them. However, Stewart gracefully and jocularly takes on Yoo's responses and keeps the interview at a steady pace. Though Yoo repeatedly states that he is comfortable with the questions being asked, he continues to trip over words and takes back statements. Him having to validate his nonchalant attitude is equivalent to juvenile lies that are unnecessary and blatantly untrue.
ReplyDeleteThe writer of the article analyzing Stewart's interviewing skills is wrong in the statement that it is a fail. Viewers of the show who had not previously heard of John Yoo, saw the conversation and concluded that Stewart proves the direct connection between Yoo and the controversial torture laws. Stewart did just that for me. This is why he did not fail.
After reading the article, going in the video i expected Jon Stewart's to be a complete mess. While it was not the best interview a reporter could have with an interviewee it was not all that bad. Stewart did ask very in depth questions on the things that he had researched. However, Yoo was able to outwit Stewart in the fact that he knew a lot more on the subject than he did. Also, another reason Stewart failed was he went into the interview with the want to take Yoo down. I personally feel that a journalist should not feel as if they need to take down a person. It is is there hob to present and unbiased perspective to the people for them to understand the problem themselves. Overall, I disagree with the assertion of the article that stewart failed. Because he did not fail. He asked great questions, however, he was just outwitted by the person he was interviewing.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost I would like to establish that I am a Jon Stewart fan. I am usually very impressed by his work and almost look to him as a model when it comes to journalism. However, I was taken back by his job here. I felt like Stewart's questions were not prepared well and that if he had taken the proper precautions he might have been able to pull off a better interview.
ReplyDelete