Question: What should Americans be asking themselves? 

Transcript: It’s probably not healthy to evaluate a candidate . . . It’s probably not healthy to evaluate a candidate based on legacy.  It’s sort of like leaping too far ahead.  But I can’t help put wonder that if Hillary Clinton were elected, would she be the first woman?  Or would she be the second Clinton?  What would be that thing?  And this seems almost romantic and unsubstantive, but the first woman president – that’s such a . . . that’s the female George Washington.  What are those qualities that she should have?  Because she’s gonna be this remarkable figure that plausibly, I think will be for little girls in the future, this inspiring figure.  And you know it’s . . . And I don’t know . . . And that’s not . . . I’m not saying . . . I guess I’m not saying, like, she’s unsuitable.  Maybe you can’t have a female George Washington.  Maybe the system is such that it doesn’t . . . Maybe the system is such that it’s not viable for that hero, whoever she is, to step forward.  Maybe it’s . . . Maybe it’s . . . Maybe the . . . Maybe the problem is that 200 years later . . . 220 some years later . . . 200 . . . Maybe the problem is that 230 . . . Where are we?  Well it’s 1788.  Maybe the problem is that 220 years later, the system doesn’t favor the female equivalent of a George Washington; that Hillary is the ideal woman candidate under the circumstances.  I don’t know, but it’s an interesting . . . The . . . Barack Obama has . . . has . . . The first African-American has captivated us so much more that the idea of a first African-American has eclipsed the otherwise huge label of first female president.  And so we have . . . It doesn’t seem like people have given thought to who that person should be, because she’s going to be . . . Whoever the first female president is is going to be this gigantic figure.  

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: Does anyone want to have a beer with Hillary Clinton?

Transcript: Well, she has a very difficult challenge in that there’s a whole rulebook on how to be a regular guy, but there’s no such rulebook on how to be a regular gal.  And in fact for all things considered, I went out and I asked people about this – what sport, what activity they wanted to see her pursue to make her more likeable – and people had very definite opinions.  A lot of people wanted her to scrapbook, which is wildly popular, you know?  Maybe to see her bowl.  Somebody wanted her to be a dolphin caller or something – a whale caller and a dolphin trainer or something.  So it’s very difficult because she doesn’t have a model.  You know, Ann Richards is the closest model that exists, and Ann Richards . . . I lived in Texas when she was running for re-election and lost to George W. Bush.  But all her . . . All of her ads featured her hunting.  That’s a more regional thing, but it was a way for her to be seen as kind of a tough lady; you know who could be . . . who could be an executive . . . a Commander-in-Chief of, in this case, her state.  And this is at the core of what I think is so funny about presidential politics, is the bad acting; people trying to convince you that they’re just like you and me.  And they’re not.  They can’t be because their lives are consumed with fundraising and with, you know . . . with wheeling and dealing.  But that’s the fun of it, is how . . . you know is looking at John Carey in the middle of a county music band strumming a guitar and looking ridiculous with a big cowboy hat; or going duck hunting when, you know . . . Sorry.  I mean he was probably there for the foie gras, but the . . . The Bush clearing brush was nonsense, and you know some people are just . . . Some politicians are just better actors than others.  Some politicians are just better actors than others.  They’re just better able to convince you and me that they’re regular people.  And I know that Bill Maher had said, “I don’t want a regular person in the White House.”  I understand what he’s saying, but people want that.  They want somebody that they can relate to.  But it has to be very carefully calibrated.  Because do you want somebody that scratches himself because you do that?  No, you don’t want that.  But you also don’t want somebody that windsurfs because that’s too up there.  So it’s about finding that level, and to me that’s hysterically funny watching them reach for it.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: Would a Clinton-Obama ticket be good for the Democratic Party?

Transcript: I think an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a little too much to take.  I think it would just . . . Regardless of whatever merits it might have . . . And it might have a lot of merits.  It might make a lot of sense on substance.  It just would . . . It just cries out to be mocked as the Democratic Party being so pleased with itself how far it’s come; the celebration of the gorgeous mosaic.  And you know what?  I say that, but then again who knows?  We’ve already been really surprised by this.  I will say that . . . to give myself credit, that when Obama entered the race, you know, the conventional wisdom on race has never held true.  I mean people are very . . . This is a country that worships Oprah Winfrey.  I mean the woman gets people to read books, which is a far harder thing to do than to get them to vote.  I mean to actually read books . . . So you know and she’s a black woman . . . I think it was always more complicated than a lot of people said, “Oh, a black man can’t be elected president.”  I mean even if he doesn’t get the nomination, it’s clear at this point that he could be elected president, that there are circumstances under which he could.  I mean it’s . . .  You know especially in these . . . in these . . . And by the way there is one conventional wisdom going around after Super Tuesday that, well, she won the important Democratic states; but he won the states that Democrats can’t win, so it doesn’t mean anything.  Well that’s kind of silly.  I think you could . . . You could flip it around and say all the states that she won – those Democratic states – if he were the nominee he’d win them anyway because the margins were close enough.  It wasn’t like California, you know, ignored Obama.  But in fact his winning these other states, a few of them are swing states and are incredibly important states. 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Are fringe candidates funny?

Transcript: Whatever their motivation to be in the race – and it’s different in every case obviously – I think some of them abase themselves I think just to get attention, because they’re trying to . . . But I think Dennis Kucinich is actually kind of interesting because Dennis Kucinich in the 2000 . . . Yeah.  Dennis Kucinich in 2000 and maybe even in 2004 clowned around a lot – I mean to the point that you thought, “Is this guy . . . Does he care about anything?”  And I interviewed him them, and I’ve interviewed him this time around and there was no clowning around.  And that’s an interesting sign of the times – that the fringe candidate is . . . is immovably serious; is . . . It’s a sign of the times that a fringe candidate like Kucinich is uncompromisingly serious.  Because last time around he was willing, when he was single, to put him up for a . . . Last time when he was single, he was willing to put himself up for a mock dating contest on the “Tonight Show”; and all these different things that made you go, “Was he just in this for attention?”  But this time he’s been really serious, and I think Gravel is serious too.  You know he’s   . . . I was in one pressroom for a debate where the reporters were laughing at him; sort of waiting for the wacky comments he was gonna make, and I actually thought that they were great comments.  They helped shake the debate out of its pre-scripted torpor, you know and liven it.  And I don’t mean that in a condescending way.  I mean at one point he say Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, because I guess Hezbollah, like Hamaas, has an arm that provides social services.  And the reporters laughed at him, but it was a provocative, good comment to throw in there and force other people to respond to.  I think the fringe candidates are cast in these roles where they’re supposed to be clowns.  I think the fringe candidates are cast in roles as clowns, and sometimes they bring it on themselves.  But you know Kucinich is somebody that is . . . Dennis Kucinich is an interesting story, because in 2000 and in 2004 it would be fair to say that he made a mockery of himself at different points.  And maybe he was just doing this all for an attention grab.  In 2008 I’ve interviewed him, and he’s not interested in making a fool of himself.  He is really, really serious.  And these guys, just like . . . like I’d like to think sometimes a satirist or a humorist can kind of mix things up on a . . . on an otherwise scripted talk show, these fringe candidates do have the power to kind of change the conversation; to jerk it out of its sort of sort of torpor and inject life into it.  And you know when I was in the press room for a debate that Mike Gravel was participating in, you know I heard a lot of serious reporters cackling, laughing even before he’d finish a response, like, “Thank God the wacky grandfather is . . . said something outrageous”; except that some of what he was saying was truly provocative.  And if people had followed up on it, it would have . . . If other candidates had followed up on it, it would have made a difference.  I mean his saying at one point that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization; and in fact Hezbollah from what I understand, like Hamaas, has social service wings.  They also kill people, but it’s a valid comment.  And you know, but they’re allowed to sit there like the wacky relative that just has to be suffered through.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: Mo Rocca on Sports and Steroids

Transcript: Every time I hear about it, I think back to when George Bush in his State of the Union a few years ago mentioned steroids in sports as a major issue, and he was mocked for it.  And maybe he deserved to be mocked for it, but obviously he has an internal __________ that’s pretty . . . that’s pretty darn accurate.  Like he . . . I guess he knew that a sports crazy America would really be riveted to this.  I mean so it’s really brought in . . .  My bet is that it’s bringing in big numbers, and that the hearings themselves are gonna generate a lot of profit. I think there’s a lot of anxiety about the . . . I think there’s a lot of anxiety about the . . . I think there’s a lot of anxiety about the disappearance of heroes.  And you know since 9/11 it has felt as if institutions and heroes are crumbling all around us – the FBI; the CIA; big business with Enron; the Catholic Church with the sex scandals; now sports with the steroids scandal.  I mean you know I visit a lot of college campuses.  And I haven’t taken any polls, but it’s very . . . The good thing I see is that . . . that kids seem to have taken all this in, and it’s made them not cynical, but very skeptical.  And it’s why I believe it when I hear that there’s a lot of more . . . a lot more volunteerism happening; small organizations where people are devoting their time; where they can see their payback; where they can see the effect of their work more quickly and transparently.  You know this has been a very bad decade for institutions . . . for big institutions and for the heroes that sit on top of them.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  What is George W. Bush’s legacy?

Transcript: I mean you know his epitaph may very well be, “He Went For It.”  I mean mind you he went for something completely different than he said he was going to go for. I mean remember . . . Everyone seems to have forgotten the whole decrying of nation building.  It’s weird that everyone has just sort of forgot that; that 9/11 would . . . as terrible as it was, would completely . . . that 9/11, as terrible as it was, would completely switch around your philosophical underpinnings.  I mean that’s like . . . It doesn’t really make sense.  I mean you know so . . . So I wouldn’t go so far as to say that George Bush definitely has a core and knows who he is.  I don’t know about that. 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Is it a president’s job to resolve moral issues?

Transcript: Yes.  I think the president is . . . The president is both . . . The president is . . . The presidency in the United States is fairly unique.  It’s both the head of state and the head of government, and that’s pretty rare.  The head of government . . . The head of government we expect to fulfill a litany of duties – get in there and do A, B, C, D, E, whatever.  The head of state is special.  The head of state is ideally a reflection of our better selves; a heightened version of the common man or woman; this person that kind of embodies all that America should be.  And you know to George Bush’s credit he doesn’t stint on . . . on who he is.  I mean he puts it out there to be embraced or rejected.  And that’s what’s so weird is that the Bush administration . . . This is a side point, but the Bush administration is visionary.  I mean no one could ever claim that there was anything incremental about this administration.  It was . . . It’s been a visionary administration with terrible eyesight.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  If you were an Iraqi citizen, how would you view America?

Transcript: I think it depends where in Iraq you are.  I think that there probably are a lot of Iraqis that appreciate what America has done, but they might appreciate it for reasons that . . . that . . . that make us uncomfortable.  I mean they might appreciate it simply because of their own ethnic grievance.  They might appreciate it because there are Shiites that are so thrilled, despite all the bloodshed, to see the Sunnis go down.  I think there have certainly gotta be Iraqi citizens that are upset – I mean you know namely the ones who have had numerous relatives blown up.  Yeah I mean it’s . . . it’s just so overwhelming.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Are two parties enough?

Transcript: Yeah I think they’re enough.  I mean I’m not convinced that if there were a third party that it would offer a radically different alternative.  It might come right . . . It might . . . It might . . . A third party might actually come down in the middle, and you know the two parties are so close already.  You’re just . . . Look.  A presidential candidate is trying to . . . A presidential candidate is trying to capture a majority, so you know it’s always gonna move towards the center.  If there were 10 parties on the national ticket – and there are, I guess . . . But if there were 10 viable parties, they’d all be so close together.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Is Obama too inexperienced?

Transcript: My cynical assumption is that there are mechanisms in place; that there is not so much that a president can do certainly early in an administration anyway beyond, you know, executive orders that don’t have all that much impact.  My assumption is that whoever the president is, there are certain things that will be set in place; certain safety mechanisms.  Maybe this is a pipe dream.  Maybe this is just some way to soothe my own insecurities about somebody who doesn’t have much . . . well in the case of Obama really any executive experience to be fair.  But you know the guy he’s compared to . . . The guy he’s compared to all the time . . . The guy he’s compared to all the time, John F. Kennedy, was only a senator before.  He wasn’t even a state senator.  He wasn’t a community organizer.  And while he may have served longer in the Senate, he was a pretty lousy senator – JFK was. Also . . . Can we point out that . . . Somebody on my blog was bitching at me about this, and they said, “Well Lincoln was a senator.”  No he wasn’t.  He lost.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates were part of his drive to become senator, and he lost that race.  Lincoln, like Obama . . . I’m not . . . Believe me.  I’m not doing this to be weasely.  I’m not a big Obama fan, and I’m not . . . I’m not a . . . I’m an Independent.  You know and I know . . . I know if you stay in the middle of the road you’re more likely to get run over.  And it’s true.  I’d be . . . Look.  There are a lot of advantages to coming down on one side or the other, and I’m not gonna do it.  But he has pretty much . . . I mean he has about . . . He has as much experience if not more than Lincoln did.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton: is that a problem?

Transcript: I think it’s a terrible, terrible thing.  And I did a commentary about this a year and a half ago for “CBS Sunday Morning”.  And at the time if people remember the campaigns had been going on so long there was talk about Jeb Bush maybe running.  George H.W. Bush said he’d make a fine president.  And so we were looking at the prospect of Clinton and Bush running against each other.  And I don’t think people realize . . . Yes, we’ve heard this now over and over that since 1980 there has been a Bush or Clinton on the national ticket.  And looked at another way, I think you’d have to be something like 52 years old to have been able to vote in an election in which there was not a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket.  Those figures have been bandied about, and they’re . . . they . . . but I don’t think people understand how terrible that is that we’re at a point now where the whole . . . the . . . where the whole mindset of the voter . . . the whole mindset of . . . The mindset of a whole swath of voters is perilously close to changing to you know what?  We’ve gotta go with the people that have been there before.  It’s very . . . I mean it’s like . . . It’s like a switch is about to   . . . I think . . . Hillary Clinton’s merits aside, I think if she were the nominee of her party and were elected, regardless of how well or poorly she did in office, I think that there is . . . that there is a terrifying chance that a switch would have finally been pulled, and the majority of American voters would switch to looking forward to looking back when they vote; saying we need somebody who has ties to White House power from before.  Like it would be . . . It would . . . It would also be a failure of imagination; a complete failure of . . . I mean it’s amazing to me that people aren’t more disturbed by dynasty.  I mean you would have thought that this Iraq mess would have turned people off of it completely.  I mean Jefferson must be spinning in his grave – I mean just doing like (makes a fast spinning sound).  You know I mean because he had a problem with the appointment of Supreme Court justices for life, you know, and wanted to clean house.  However many years I won’t pretend to know offhand.  But this idea that people will say to me in casual conversation, “Now we really need someone who’s been in the White House before.”  What?  We really . . . We’re at a . . . “You know the world is so dangerous right now we really need a president who has actually been in the White House.”  Oh okay.  Well that kind of really limits the pool.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: What is the biggest challenge facing Republicans?

Transcript: Well I think that the Republicans’ greatest challenge hasn’t really become all that clear.  I think it might be . . . What’s weird is that you don’t . . . Polls show that people are upset about this war.  But Bush may yet sort of exculpate himself.  I mean that would be the most amazing escape act.  I mean its like  . . . He’s better than Houdini.  And . . . But . . . But if when Bush leaves office and there’s time to think about it, and people decide you know what?  This was really, really a terrible, history changing, epochal event – the invasion of Iraq – then I think that alone will be a huge problem, I think, for Republicans.  I mean maybe that’s a silly statement because by that time there may in fact be another Republican in office.  I don’t know.  I think the Republicans . . . One of the Republicans’ challenges has always been not seeming mean; not being mean. 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: What is the biggest challenge facing the Democrats?

Transcript:  I think the greatest challenge facing the Democrats is maintaining this youth quake excitement – harnessing it and maintaining it – because I think conservatives . . . Not to paint with such a broad brush here, but conservatives have . . . Conservatives have more sturdy institutions, like churches where they’re constantly getting new blood.  Conservatives have more sturdy institutions from which they get new blood all the time – like churches.  Obviously not all churchgoers are conservative, but you know that’s a very handy network.  And I think the Democrats have, you know . . . The Democrats have always been much more of a . . . The Democrats have always been much more of a . . . The Democrats have always been much more of a crazy quilt of special interests, and I think it’s hard to get the center of the left to hold.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: How do you explain the popularity of NPR?

Transcript: You know the whole idea of the Subaru driving, Whole Foods shopping . . . what David Brooks wrote about – the “Bobos in Paradise” – yeah that exists in the NPR world, but NPR is huge.  It bears repeating that 16 million people listen to “Morning Edition”; 12 million to “All Things Considered”.  I mean these are huge shows.  What I found interesting in my “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!” experience is it’s not only been just enormously fun and wonderful for a host of reasons; but it’s also been pretty enlightening because the people who call in, they’re not all those bobos.  It’ll be a Baptist minister in Lexington, Kentucky.  It’ll be, you know . . . It’ll be a store clerk in Albuquerque.  I mean there is . . . There are . . . There are a whole lot of people listening to NPR, and you know it’s funny.  One of the producers I know over there says that she scratches her head when a senator will turn down an opportunity to be on “All Things Considered” because, you know, he’s booked on FOX or something.  And even though FOX might be the leading cable news net, it’s just dwarfed by the numbers of people listening to NPR.  The interesting thing about . . . Well I can tell you just on two fronts about my personal experience with “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!” and what I sort of kind of gleaned from it, the show . . . People always ask me if we’re having as much fun on that show as it seems.  And we really are, and I think for two reasons.  Number one, the show began as something small, and its success surprised all of us.  It was always this kind of side thing that the panelists were doing, so the stakes were never high, and they still aren’t.  And that’s . . . That’s a joy, because when the stakes get high in an ensemble situation like that, no matter what people tell you . . . When they say, “We’re just one big happy, dysfunctional family,” no.  You’re one big unhappy, dysfunctional family.  But here it’s a happy, functional family.  It really works.  Also because people came from all different places – I mean wildly different places – sort of a legend like Peter O’Rourke and Roy Blunt; to a great standup like Paula Poundstone; my friend Adam Felber who’s a terrific writer and performer and got me the job . . . So . . . So it’s . . . It’s . . . When we get together it’s in different combinations.  It just . . . It has a very loose family feel. But the other thing I think that the show has done, which it’s filled a niche . . . There was a . . . There was a . . . It filled . . . It has filled a . . . It’s . . . It occupies a very special niche, which is that we hope it’s smart and funny, but it’s easy to take.   You know a lot of political comedy, which I admire a lot, you have to really think sometimes and go, “Okay wait a minute.  This person is saying that, but he really means that because he’s being ironic.”  And that’s great, and it’s beautifully written.  But “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!” is primarily for people who are driving around.  They’re doing their errands.  They kind of wanna unwind on a Saturday or a Sunday, depending on where you’re listening.  And that’s not easy to pull off.  I mean and it’s a tribute to the editors because our taping is a lot longer than the 50 minutes or whatever it is that the show becomes on a weekly basis.  But being easy to take . . . It’s something a voice teacher told me early in my career.  She said people will get it.  Be easy to take.  Don’t cram it down their throats.  It’s something that I still lapse into and still have to watch.  But the show I think as a whole really understands that.  It’s just . . . It’s easy to take.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Transcript: You know it’s interesting.  I kind of moved from working as a news parodist – I loved that – on “The Daily Show” to doing a lot of talking head stuff, much of which I’d like to think was a little bit on the edge.  I loved being paired with Larry King during the 2004 conventions.  I mean I felt like we were some, you know, twenty-first century Vaudeville team or something.  And . . . But the two shows I love doing right now are “CBS Sunday Morning” – I adore it; it’s everybody’s parents’ favorite show – and “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!”  The interesting thing about . . .”CBS Sunday” is one . . . I think is a beautifully produced show, but it’s the first time that I’m actually doing stories and reporting stories – I do commentary for them – but also reporting stories where I’m not parodying something.  And it’s a . . . It’s a very new experience for me, and it’s tricky, but it’s also really, really exciting because I certainly don’t want to become what I spent years making fun of.  And that’s not gonna happen on a show like “CBS Sunday Morning” which is just a very good show.  The reporters are amazing.  And . . . But . . . But it’s an interesting challenge doing stories that finding humor in stories without relying on making fun of the conventions of news coverage.  So sort of the unctuous nod that I would use in, you know . . . on “The Daily Show” to make fun of a reporter – I wouldn’t call that a crutch, but it’s certainly really handy and people get it immediately.  But doing a piece for “Sunday Morning”, you know I’m not gonna rely on that and I shouldn’t.  But the task there is to actually find the humor in the story and draw people out, and let the storytelling . . . let the . . . let the absurdities and the ironies arise just from the storytelling; from . . . let the . . . My task there is . . . My task there is to draw out the ironies and the absurdity of a particular story without making fun of the conventions of news coverage.  And that’s . . . It’s tricky and sometimes I don’t know, “Wait a minute.  Should I be doing something funny right now?”  And it’s been a really, really interesting challenge to just kind of let a story tell itself. I did a story on the diner circuit in New Hampshire.  It’s a story that’s told all the time – that politicians live in these diners in New Hampshire.  And I mean you’d think it’s a law to eat breakfast in diners in New Hampshire; like that people don’t have kitchens at home or something because everybody seems to be in diners.  But there’s a whole ritual of how to work a diner that a politician uses.  It’s . . . Working the counter is different than working a booth.  You know going up to a diner just at precise chew point so that you’re not getting them while their mouth is stuffed. And so I worked with a Mitt Romney consultant; a guy who understood how . . . how almost lunatical this was, except that it wasn’t lunatic; that all this stuff matters in politics.  It was a great kind of a story, and it was just my task to draw him out and have fun with him.  But . . . But you know the story itself is what was funny.

Question: Has the transition been difficult?

Transcript: I feel kind of naked at points – a little bit exposed, like, “Oh my goodness.  The story here is what’s funny,” and this . . . this is not . . . You know am I making a funny face?  Or doing an unctuous nod would be stepping on the story right now.  So sometimes . . . So the challenge becomes sort of kind of directing the interviewee to be him or herself and tell the story that we think is a funny story and allow ourselves also to be surprised at the same time since we’re not trying to prescript these people.  But it becomes as much about standing . . . staying out of the way as inserting oneself. I wanted to do something new, and I wanted to do something new without doing something old; without just simply becoming a reporter; as respectable as that is, and I really do believe that, you know I still wanna be funny.  So how to be funny . . . how to . . . How do you report on a story . . . legitimately report on a story and be funny, but not step on the funny story?  How do you report . . . Basically it’s the challenge has become how do you tell a funny story without being pushy and stepping on the story by being funny in the middle of it?  And it’s . . . It’s a whole new and exciting challenge for me.  And at a show like “Sunday Morning”, it’s really the only place that I can do that. I absolutely am very self-aware of slipping into becoming what I made fun of.  And . . . And you know the . . . the . . . the . . . What it’s come down to is after generally kind of deciding what’s funny about a situation, then my task becomes engage as much with the person – I mean really listen and allow myself to be surprised.  The story may turn out differently than I thought it was gonna be, and that’s a lot harder than I thought it was.

Question: Has it changed your perspective on media and politics?

Transcript: I always thought that what we had to do as reporters on “The Daily Show” was strikingly and eerily similar to what . . . what beat reporters, especially for the cable news nets, did – which is we went in with an agenda, and we’re a comedy show.  We had an idea of what . . . a pretty strong idea oftentimes . . . a strong idea usually about what was going to be funny about this, and would push that.  And I think sadly that happens to a lot of reporters.  You know they don’t allow themselves to be surprised by what the actual story might be, so they go in there with, “Okay, this is gonna be our bad guy.  This is gonna be our good guy,” and go in and get that story.  And that was strikingly and eerily similar to what we would do as reporters on “The Daily Show”.   You know here is this guy . . . Here is this guy that maybe lives in a cave with 98 cats.  So here’s what’s gonna be funny about it, and make sure we get these bites – which is totally legitimate for a comedy show.  And . . . But now that on a show . . . Now that . . . Now that I can’t do that and shouldn’t do that on a show like “Sunday Morning”, I have a lot of respect for the reporters who really get in there, you know, and really listen; and really engage; and then  . . . and allow a story to unfold, and allow their preconceptions to be demolished if that happens.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Did quality suffer without the writers?

Transcript: Well I don’t really watch them, and I do . . . I do pieces for the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno”, and I love the writers over there.  But I do have to say that Jay Leno just demonstrated remarkable readiness and grit.  And yeah I mean he . . . He’s never been a critical darling, but my goodness.  That was quite a feat. I think it ended just soon enough.  I think that that was a . . . I think it was . . . I think that . . . I don’t think that the shows that were working without writers could have sustained themselves much longer.  I think they simply would have become exhausted.  I think there was sort of an all hands on deck kind of emergency measure taken at a lot of these shows.  I know in the case of a couple I happen to know that.  And so I don’t think they could have sustained their quality for much longer without a writing staff.  And . . . But certainly the late night shows, the reputation of writers vis-à-vis the late night shows were the most precarious because those shows went on and didn’t lose a lot of viewers.

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  What advice do you have for people like Rupert Murdoch or Katie Couric?

Transcript: That’s interesting, but those are all very different people.  I think a half hour newscast, which is sort of a dinosaur . . . I think at this point they’re really doing the best that they can.  And I don’t watch those shows a lot, but you know when I look at the evening news – the half hour – I actually think they’re sort of doing the best they can under the circumstances.  I think that the cable news nets are just such a flawed . . . They’re money making . . . The cable news nets are money making machines certainly; but you know the need to fill all that time makes them . . . makes them flawed.  I think that . . . They need . . . The need to keep people there as long as possible, I don’t know. I guess . . . I guess it’s . . . I guess it’s I long . . . Maybe this is . . . Maybe I’m just romanticizing here, but I guess I long for the time when news was just simply a loss leader for these networks.  And they accepted that, and they made editorial decisions about . . . based on what they thought the public needed to know.  And then the public could then say, like they do with magazines and with cable news networks, “You know what?  This network is too liberal for me.  This network is too conservative.” 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question: Where do you get your news?

Transcript: I am terrible about this.  I am terrible about this.  I will tell you that in the morning, the blunt truth is that I’ll log on and I’ll look at both the NewYorkTimes.com and I’ll look at Drudge Report.  That’s sort of my high-low, and I’ll use clearinghouse sites like that or Romenesko I guess to kind of just pick and choose.  I should really pick up a hard copy more.  I still will read the Economist.  I like that a lot. 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  Does “The Daily Show” make young people more cynical?

Transcript: Yes.  But the . . . I think “The Daily Show” has always been, I think, sort of half about making fun of the conventions of television news; and then making fun of news events themselves.  And the second is sort of time honored – you know pointing out the disparity between what a leader says and does.  And that . . . that space, that disparity is a sweet spot where the funny is.  And that’s time honored and that’s been around forever, and that’s a good thing.  And then the first half of it, I think, is the parity element and making fun of the excesses of the anchorwoman on MSNBC who is breathless over Paris Hilton and then spends five minutes on that.  And then follows up with 30 seconds about, you know, a major health care crisis or something like that.  So . . . And I don’t wanna . . . I’m becoming a little over flooded here, but the . . . I think that that’s a . . . I don’t think that there is any danger . . . I think that’s worth . . . I think that’s worth mocking a lot.  I think it’s worth . . . I think that’s worth mocking a lot.  So if people become very cynical about television news coverage, I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world.  I think if . . . I think if the show decided to just spray gunfire at everything – at print journalists . . . at every print journalist as well, at every thinker, then every columnist, you know, I don’t know how practical that would be.  I mean that would be terrible.  I guess what I’m saying is . . . And I hadn’t thought of this before, but if it means that people watch a little less cable news and go elsewhere for their news, well that’s not so bad.  I mean I guess.  I mean I think  . . . I mean ultimately I think like the . . . When people say oh . . . say, “Is the show or shows like that making . . . Are shows like that making people lose faith in the whole process?” I don’t think so.  I don’t think a politician’s wings can be clipped enough. 

Recorded on: 2/14/08

Question:  How has “The Daily Show” affected other news broadcasts?

Transcript: I don’t think it’s had a dramatic effect.  I think one of the effects, which is not a probably great effect, is that a lot of the news shows now try to show that they have a sense of humor; and that they can be rascals as well or make fun of themselves.  And I’m not sure how . . . I’m not sure how valuable that is.  I think probably their anchors on these shows are less likely to say things without thinking if they’re concerned that they might be made fun of on a show like “The Daily Show”, so that can’t be bad.  I don’t think . . . I don’t think that’s made them gun shy.  I don’t think that’s made them gun shy in a way that the audience isn’t being served.  I mean you know I think   . . . I think . . . I think that the . . . The sad reality remains that they are . . . that they respond to what they think their audience wants.  And this current campaign is so riveting that they’re sort of on their best behavior right now.  And I actually think that the cable news nets, which are sort of flawed because they feel that they need to keep filling all this time, at least it’s being filled with more substantive politics than usual.

Recorded on: 2/14/08