Skip to main content

tv   The Rachel Maddow Show  MSNBC  November 11, 2010 9:00pm-10:00pm EST

9:00 pm
thank sarah palin for getting me here tonight. politics aside, the success of sarah palin and women like her is good for all women. except, of course, those who will end up paying for their own rape kit and stuff. >> vegas has not opened the betting line on when ms. palin will declare ms. fey part of the lame stream media. nine days since republicans took control of the house. mr. boehner, where are the jobs? good night and good luck. ladies, and gentlemen, the john stewart interview. in which he gives a lengthy but entirely fair critique of cable news as incapable of describi distinguishing news. i frankly don't buy it, not even
9:01 pm
for a minute. in which mr. stewart gives a defense of george w. bush on the iraq war and water-boarding. a defense i don't agree with but i think was interesting to hear. in which john stewart does not throw up, despite having an acute stomach thing, the poor guy. the john stewart interview is right here. >> john stewart, thank you for coming in. i know you're under the weather. it's nice of you to come in. >> i have the bu-bons. >> you're here at the conflicted perpetuator. >> the evil dr. doofus. >> you don't do that many interviews. i think i've read every one you've done. i tend to overprepare. why did you want to talk to me?
9:02 pm
>> after the rally it -- you know, whenever you go out there, whatever you put out, you can only control your intention. you can't control its perception or how people perceive it. you can control your execution. so when people are perceiving it as something -- people i respect are perceiving as something that we didn't perceive it. as, sort of either two or three things, one was we were inartful in the way we conceived it and presented it, our intention was wrong or off, not clear, or it's being misperceived. there's probably four. i don't know what that would be. >> on the issue of the perception of the rally in media, bill mahr's criticism was this. when john announced his rally he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe obama is a socialist and people on the left who believe 9/11 was
9:03 pm
an inside job. i can't believe any left-leaning leaders who believe 9/11 was an inside job or on republicans who believe obama is a socialist. >> he was a marxist on the left and bush went to iraq. >> bush is hitler. obama's hitler. >> it was more about that 9/11 was a chance for halliburton to get their hands on oil contracts. so it's -- again, i take his point. it's a fair point. that's not exactly what we said. it's certainly not -- that's not the seminal thrust of what we were saying. again, the intention was not to say that that's people on the left and that's people on the right. the intention is to say that we've all bought into -- the
9:04 pm
conflict on this country is left and right. liberal/conservative, red/blue. cnn sort of started it. the fight in washington is republicans and democrats. so why don't we isolate that and we'll stand back here? democrats and republicans will go at it. red and blue staters will go at it. it afimplifies a division i don think is the right fight. are you asking me, do i believe that? he's saying, that's what i believe such no. what i do believe is both sides have their way of shutting down debate. the news networks have allowed these two sides to become the fight in the country. i think the fight in the country is corruption versus not corruption. extremists versus regular -- do you understand what i'm saying? >> yeah.
9:05 pm
what's the lefty way of shutting down is? >> okay. you've said bush is a war criminal. now, that may be technically true. in my world, war criminal is pol pot or the nuremberg trials. >> or harry truman but then you took ha that back. >> i don't think he was. i think that's such an incendiary charge. when you put it in the conversation, technically he is. that may be right. it feels like a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter. the complaint was, in the clip reel we had a woman shouting as an example of dialogue we were talking about, not being helpful. a woman at a meeting shouting, bush is a war criminal. that's where that came from. not saying it in normal conversation. we were talking about tone there, not content necessarily. we were talking about standing
9:06 pm
up in the middle of a meeting and shouting that. my problem is it's become tribal. and if you have 24-hour networks that focus, their job is to highlight the conflict between two sides where i don't think that's the main conflict in our society. that was the point of the rally, was to deflate that idea that that's a real conflict, red/blue, democrat/republican. i think there's a bigger difference between people who have kids and people who don't have kids than red state/blue state. >> i guess the way i follow your logic and believe what you're saying up until a point. >> i'm glad somebody's following it. >> the people interrupting meetings and interrupting rallies are direct action activists doing things to be purposefully disruptive and to
9:07 pm
throw a wrench in the works. and then on the other side -- >> you're saying it's really nothing? >> it's not that it's nothing, but not being done with the same level of authority on the right. like the second amendment remedies thing, that's people running for senate. >> how did you handle town hall meetings when tea partiers interrupted the town hall meetings? with the same level of dismissiveness or the sense, what's going on with these angry people? >> my sense was of it being organized. >> your sense was to desensitize it. >> no. this is a widespread political tactic by people with a lot of money in the issues and they're deploying activists we haven't seen before. >> would you say the general spirit of the block of coverage on msnbc was as dismiss itch of
9:08 pm
the woman who stands up and says bush is a war criminal or the people at the town hall, do you think they were viewed through the same prism? >> i think they were viewed through a proportionately appropriate prism. >> they say they identify with the tea party. what does that mean? identify how? identify with their idea that they like smaller government or idea with yelling at a town hall. i'm not saying -- look, i love the voices that i hear on msnbc. and there's a difference between -- here's what's unfair about what i do. this is really what's a great -- here's a great thing i think's unfair. you're one person with one great voice and sincere -- but i'm a
9:09 pm
climate scientist. i study weather patterns and climate. you're talking about the weather. maybe these networks are not meant to be viewed in aggregate. but there is an aggregate. there is an effect. when people say, you're influential too. i'm a 22-minute show. when i say, puppets making crank calls in front of me. i don't mean that to diminish comedy. that's not reenforced through the next person. it's not a relay. and there is an amplifying effect to the relay. and this is not -- you know, i don't -- i want to make perfectly clear because i think if the argument is you do exactly what fox do and you're as bad as fox, anybody who has watched our show in any measure would understand the special place in our hearts for fox. >> yeah. >> so, again, it feels to me like false equivalent sounds
9:10 pm
like something you're doing as well. we have a tendency to grant amnesty to people that we agree with and to overly demonize people we don't. i do the same thing. i think everybody does. >> if you would like to write to me in defense of code pink, you can. i was trying to talk about the difference in size. send your hate mail to here is what is ahead in my continuing interview with mr. stewart. >> fox is not partisan either. they're really not. >> they never criticized george w. bush for anything. even when he was not doing things that were not sort of conservative. >> but that's -- they are ideological but i don't know that they're partisan.
9:11 pm
9:12 pm
here's what's the most
9:13 pm
amazing thing about this interview. i have not thrown up once while we've been doing this. and i can believe that is the longest in 24 hours i have gone. you, my friend, are like ginger root. you're the ginger root of interviewers. >> there was, in fact, no barfing, thon at all. bigger surprises ahead. ♪ [ male announcer ] it's luxury with fire in its veins. bold. daring. capable of moving your soul. ♪
9:14 pm
and that's even before you drop your foot on the pedal. ♪ the new 2011 cts coupe from cadillac. the new standard of the world. there's alternated of people on the right who made the decision they'll only talk to media who agrees with them. >> that's their greatest triumph. >> i think they were only --
9:15 pm
>> i think bill clinton was pretty good at delegitimizing it. i think the brilliance of fox news, they delegitimized the idea of editorial authority while exercising incredible editorial authority. it's amazing. and they also have the game that they're all out to get us. any criticism of them can be filtered through the idea that it's persecution. this isn't criticism, it's persecution. that's a tough distinction to make. nobody likes to be criticized. i don't like to see people i like and respect go, that rally was useless. it did nothing and, in fact, you're crazy and wrong. but i understand that i put something out there. i made something. and people should have a chance to go, this is what i thought it was. i just want to make sure that i'm clear about what i thought
9:16 pm
it was, not what i thought it was, what it was. because i made it. >> then what do you do with the noise? what do you do with second amendment remedies? with the koran-burning pastor and terror babies? if you don't cover it, it doesn't go away. >> how did fox delegitimatize media? by relentlessly -- >> making it biased. >> so the answer to that is, why don't we form a more idea logically network? that's fighting fire with fire to some extent. >> i don't know that was the answer. >> do you think msnbc changed over the last five years? there is a genetic linkage between keith -- keith was the first. it was a voice in the wilderness. people were like, what? you can say that? you came on. now i'm talking about climate as opposed to weather. but it does create a linkage that i think it would be hard for you to say, geez, i don't
9:17 pm
know if we're really doing that. then what are you doing? >> i think the media, having been derided for so long as being liberal and biased and very afraid of that charge, when keith spoke out the way he did, he essentially came out of the closet as a liberal. and nothing bad happened. it was still okay. he grew his audience, if anything. i think it gave network executives some courage to say, okay. people are liberals can be on tv as long as they call themselves liberals. >> the idea that executives work on courage -- i think what they did is said, why is fox news kicking our asses? we need to fight this with a similar -- this is an arms race. >> being here and having those conversations, that never happens. what happens is, look, keith's making money. how can we do more of that? that's more the conversation. >> that's what i just said. >> you said that fox is beating us. how can we be more like fox? >> keith is making money. and it seems like the -- i don't
9:18 pm
think you can separate the atmosphere of fox and think that network executives don't look at -- nothing second like excess. or whatever. nothing succeeds like excess. if that was a measured tone, i don't think you would see people raising the bar on graphics. the problem with 24-hour news cycle is it's built for a particular thing, 9/11. other than that, there isn't 24 hours of stuff to talk about in the same way. how do you keep people watching it? o.j.'s not going to kill someone every day. that's gone. what do you have to do? you have to elevate the passion of everything else that happens that might even be somewhat mundane and elevate it to the extent that this is breaking news. this is developing news. this is breaking developing news. the aggregate effect of that is that you begin to lose the lexicon. you begin to it lose any meaning of what breaking news means or
9:19 pm
urgent or look at this or dangerous. that was our montage at the end. it wasn't saying. >> just hype, hype, hype. >> right. it was it the language then has to become sharper, louder, to cut through more and more of the noise. what i'm saying is maybe there is a way to not engage in the idea, not to accept the premise -- there is a premise out there. the premise is, we are all on this access of left/right. maybe there's a different premise. i don't mean that in the way of partisanship. i mean it in the way of they cover politics. politics is a democratic and republican game. it is left and right. i think the conflict that would be more appropriate to a news channel would be corruption and noncorruption. i don't mean corruption necessarily in the classic sense of this man has $90,000 in his
9:20 pm
refrigerator. we should check that out. he's a congressman. that too. anderson cooper, i think he does a really nice job. he's fun to watch. and you as well. and i like a lot of this stuff. again, i watch way too much of it. i really do. this is in itself corrupting. he's got a bit on his show that i love called "keeping them honest" which is so funny to me. isn't that the subtext of -- it would be like me introducing -- i've got a new segment called telling jokes to an audience. whenever you hear that, you're like, isn't that what this whole thing is. >> the thing to do to get through to an audience is to offend. >> if you're going to add an ingredient to news -- there is news, news exists. the nightly news, toes things.
9:21 pm
that does exist. if you're adding an ingredient and you're going to be on the air for 24 hours, you'll need some ingredients. >> none of us are on 24 hours solid. >> not on the weekend. do i have to see another guy eat another guy's brains in a lockdown cell? >> yes, you do. >> you have to fill it with other ingredients. maybe the ingredients would be to not necessarily amplify that one aspect of the battle. >> i do think there's a difference between having a point of view and being a partisan. >> i agree with that. i am a liberal. it doesn't mean i think of democrats being on my team. >> fox isn't partisan either. >> they never criticized george bush, even when he wasn't doing things that weren't so conservative. >> they're ideological but i don't think that they're
9:22 pm
partisan. it falls under partisanship. there are a lot of republicans that can't get on board. they won't shine their light on. >> they'll pick between republicans, you mean? >> yeah. >> would they ever pick a democrat? >> i think they'd pick lieberman. everybody picks someone to give them cover. the most valuable person in the world is a turncoat. you can go, this guy was a democrat. now he's sitting here saying, you're right, obama is nuts. what i'm saying is not so much that the distinctions don't exist, is that they have been so blown -- you talked about proportionality. it's surprising to see somebody -- again, this is the unfair criticism. you're one person. proportionality is not the strong suit of the 24-hour news networks. i think to myself, how would they handle the moon landing? because could they give it more coverage than balloon boy?
9:23 pm
what would they do? what would their font size be such the "new york times" has a font size. the difference is newspapers and blogs are an active process. you have to look at them. they can make editorial judgment. but you are an active participant in it. you pick where you want to go and read and how you want to do it. the tv tells you. it's a passive experience. our top story -- you know what's always a great exercise? the difference between the top story on cable news and the newspapers? you would have thought juan williams killed people. >> right. >> it was everywhere. and what it was, the reason why it was everywhere, is because it fellows beautifully into the narrative of left and right, liberal/conservative. it fell perfectly into the only fight they seem to feel matters. all i'm saying is that in many
9:24 pm
ways a fun house mirror of what actually really matters. >> i went into this with a handful of questions about the media and say, john, are you sick of talking about the media? me too. let's talk about pakistan. there was no getting sick of talking about the media. there was no pakistan. there was an unexpected diversion into trying to understand george w. bush. on water-boarding, bush in his book says -- >> is that next such is that what happens now? what happens to me now? to save in insurance.
9:25 pm
9:26 pm
9:27 pm
9:28 pm
my interview with john stewart of "the daily show" eliciteded a critique about the 24-hour news world and let me get some stuff off my chest. you think of it differently. i think a lot of people who watch your show, and who watch cable news think of what we do as not being that different, which sucks for me. i used to be the mildly moving person using humor to tell the story of the wasteful f-35. and now i'm the person trying to be john stewart and sucking. >> i love the f-35. that wasteful engine bit. that killed them. sure, decaf or regular? - regular. - cake or pie? - pie. - apple or cherry? cherry. oil or cream?
9:29 pm
oil or cream? cream... please. when other toppings are made with hydrogenated oil, the real dairy cream in reddi-wip's sure an easy choice. nothing's more real than reddi-wip. fork or... spoon? nothing's more real than reddi-wip. i worry about my son playing football. which is why i'm really excited. because toyota developed this software that can simulate head injuries and helps make people safer. then they shared this technology with researchers at wake forest
9:30 pm
to help reduce head injuries on the football field. so, you know, i can feel a bit better about my son playing football. [ male announcer ] how would you use toyota technology to make a better world? learn how to share your ideas at
9:31 pm
i always feel like i don't care where it comes from. if if it's right, it's right. but that's an earned authority that i think is difficult to have when the environment is so polarizing. >> how do you deal with stuff that people believe that isn't true?
9:32 pm
>> you cannot control crazy. >> on iraq, bush accepted the report saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. he admitted it and changed his response to the war in response to that. >> did he change it or did he -- >> started talking about other reasons. >> they went out with four rationales for the war. the main one was fear. the main was colin powell was waving anthrax. there were four rationales. they probably did that to provide themselves a certain amount of coverage. but even when he said -- you did it on the show. saddam hussein was trying to get around sanctions. but if you follow that sound bite for another 15 seconds, he
9:33 pm
does say to reconstitute his weapons program. >> so he could get money so that he could use that money to reconstitute his weapons program. >> he was -- now, again, i see it in your eyes. you're like, but that's horse -- but whatever. all i'm saying is, it is there. it's not as black and white. you know, i think -- let me -- left always says, we're not black and white. i didn't like bush because he was so black and white and there's no nuance. do you think the left ever suffers from that same myopia? >> bad arguments persist everywhere. i'm trying to pursue bad arguments where are i find them. let me finish this point about bush. bush accepted that saddam wasn't pursuing weapons of mass destruction and changed the way he talked about the war, i think. he didn't dispute the report when it came pouft out.
9:34 pm
>> yeah. i think they were like, really sad we didn't find anything. >> yes. that's definitely true. >> i got the feeling he was like, too bad that report didn't find the weapons i knew were there. >> back in his book he's declaring that saddam was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. >> it's true depending on where you find the pursuit. my son wants a car. he's six. he doesn't have a job yet but he is pursuing a car. a lot of things have to happen. i get that that's a manipulation, but it is also in some ways a subtle narrative manipulation to just it dismiss that. as a news person -- >> he's doing it on purpose to make people think that the war in iraq was justified because of
9:35 pm
weapons of mass destruction -- >> do you think he really believes the world is safer without saddam hussein even without weapons of mass destruction sdplch i think he believes the world is safer but not because saddam was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, because he wasn't. >> again. that's a belief. that's what you believe. but i don't know that -- i don't know the guy. in the same way about his arguments. i do think he believes saddam hussein was dangerous and a madman and had had weapons of mass destruction. the fact we couldn't find them means he had taken an asthma recess and was waiting until he could do it again because we were watching him. i disagree with the idea that it is -- because one is truly dishonest and border line evil. and i guess that's where i get the point -- like, i'm trying to
9:36 pm
wrap around my head about the idea someone who would say you could water-board isn't evil. that's where i have to go to it roosevelt. interred 120,000 japanese-americans. was he evil? you have to examine your own orthodoxy before you can feel comfortable. but let's really try and fight on the most precise and proportional terms we can. >> okay. >> if possible. >> and on water-boarding, bush in his book says -- >> that's what's next? is that what happens now you? oh my god, what happens to me now? >> he says in his book, he didn't just say yes, water-boarding. in his writing, damn right, water-board the guy. it's hard for me to believe he did it that. he says that's what he did. people arguing that water-boarding/torture is a bad
9:37 pm
thing lost the argument and it's a political asset to brag about having water-boarding. >> i kind of think they were always like that. i never got there was a sense of shame. i got there was a sense of legal maneuvering. i never thought they were covering it up because they thought it was a bad idea or would paint them as evil. >> didn't want to get nailed. >> this comes to the next part. what is his intention? is it truly to save american lives? does that justify everything? maybe it doesn't. why don't you draw the line. why don't they water-board everybody. a lot of people get shot in gang violence in the city. why not water-board gang members? if the police you start frlace he's an evil man who did that it to lie to us so he could take gratuitous pleasure in his own
9:38 pm
masculinity -- >> i'm not saying that. nobody's saying that. >> that's an example of pushing it too far. that's what people do. they take things and go into the next realm. >> i don't -- i just don't think -- i don't agree with that. i can't speak for that. i'm definitely part of this whole machine, primetime and the whole bit. but i think that the criticism of george bush on water-boarding is a precise criticism. i don't think it's this guy is an evil monster. i think, that is wrong for the country and he shouldn't be defending it. >> i don't get the sense than the argument is as passive as that, but that's a fair point. i think it's somewhere in between. i think the argument generally has not been, this is wrong for the country and overstepped a certain line. i think it was a little more. >> reporter: it's impassioned, certainly. this is wrong for the country.
9:39 pm
i can scream it. >> i wouldn't suggest this is necessarily wrong for the country, but you're a badman. >> i think that you are glossing over in the gray areas in a way that isn't fair. >> maybe. >> that could very well be, he says, or -- yeah, there's more. stay with us. more with my interview with john stewart ahead. zards. or get a car that does it for you. ♪ if you're taking an antidepressant and still feel depressed, one option your doctor may consider is adding abilify. abilify treats depression in adults when added to an antidepressant. some people had symptom improvement in as early as one to two weeks after adding abilify. now with the abilify (me+) program, your first two weeks of abilify can be free. abilify is not for everyone. call your doctor if your depression worsens
9:40 pm
or you have unusual changes in behavior, or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens and young adults. elderly dementia patients taking abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles and confusion to address a possible life-threatening condition. or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements, as these could become permanent. high blood sugar has been reported with abilify and medicines like it. in some cases, extreme high blood sugar can lead to coma or death. other risks include decreases in white blood cells, which can be serious, dizziness upon standing, seizures, trouble swallowing, and impaired judgment or motor skills. adding abilify has made a difference for me. [ male announcer ] visit for your free trial offer. and ask your doctor about the risks and benefits of adding abilify.
9:41 pm
the raw tape of my interview with john stewart is online as of tomorrow morning at it includes his reflections on the rally with steve colbert. more ahead. the pringles superstack can makes everything pop! ♪ ♪ whoa-oh-oh-oh ♪ yeah, yeah ♪ hey, hey [ male announcer ] the choice is yours... 100 of these or 100 pringles.
9:42 pm
same cost but a lot more fun. everything pops with the pringles superstack can! ♪
9:43 pm
do you think that "the daily show" functions just as entertainment? i sort of feel like -- satire is more than entertainment. it's engagement and criticism. >> here's what i would say. i feel more kinship to jerry sign fie seinfeld than i do to nbc. he is able to articulate an intangible for people. it's been in my head and i know it's been in there, but i've never put it together in that rhythm. that's hilarious you were able
9:44 pm
to articulate that. he is a craftsman at that. he's the best at being able to craft those moment of those intangible things that connect with people. we try to do the same thing but with a more political/social avenue. if you were to look at our process, he's much more our press than the news is. does that make sense such. >> what i know of your process seems very similar to the way i put my show together. >> you need to it change that. >> because we're parodying a news organization, we have to have the logistics and mechanics of one. the process that the material goes through is not a news process. >> but it's fact-checking. >> we did that, not to be journalists. we do that because it wouldn't be that funny tissue. >> if it was a lie. >> i think it's pronounced
9:45 pm
baltimore. because untrue things stand out like a store thumb. >> even though you identify yourself as fake news and having built with a fake news process, i think -- >> we don't say fake -- fake is wrong. that is -- it's a misnomer that we use. it's glib. it's not. we're not news anything. we're commenting on the news. comedically. >> i think a lot of people who watch your show and cable news is not being that different, which sucks for me. i used to be the mildly moving person using humor to tell the story of the wasteful f-35 second engine on that fighter jet. now i'm the person trying to be john stewart and sucking. >> i love that f-35 you did. that wasteful engine bit. that killed them. that used to be my bit. >> even if you're not launching it in the same way, it's being
9:46 pm
received in the same way. the barriers between cable news and you're satirizing, we're not seeing as being all that different. >> it doesn't worry me. i can understand how it would worry people in the news. but what i do -- i have existed -- i am the highlander. there's been a form of me around in forever. a comedian who with political and social concepts criticizes them from a haughty yet ultimately feckless perch, throwing things. like, that -- the box that i'm in has always existed. the box you're talking about i think is new. so i do think if that's moving towards me, that's okay. but i really feel i'm on pretty solid ground with the footsteps of my ancestors.
9:47 pm
that's all -- i don't happen if the smother brothers don't happen. bill mahr. those guys all paved a way for something that i do. but that's always existed. >> that's a news flash. "the daily show" no longer wishes to be considered fake news. they'd like to be considered as not news at all. ahead, me getting a talking-to about the word "at the bag." you don't think it was funny they were saying tea bag the white house before the white house tea bags you? and then, in one blinding blink of an eye, their tree had given its last. but with their raymond james financial advisor, they had prepared for even the unthinkable. ♪ and they danced. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you.
9:48 pm
nah. we have something else. but if you're hurt and miss work does it pay cash like aflac does? nah. or let you spend it in any way you want like for gas and groceries? nah. or help with everyday bills like aflac does? nah nah nah. [ male announcer ] there's aflac and there's everything else. visit for an agent or quote. aflac! and she's going in with no protective gear? her hands could dry out. [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty. it helps your hands seal in moisture while you do the dishes. dawn does more... [ spongecaster ] so it's not a chore.
9:49 pm
9:50 pm
the caricature of the left being as vociferous as the right is something that -- >> i don't think that's the caricature of the left. i really don't. i think the caricature of the left is one that is slightly
9:51 pm
that -- that -- didn't you hate when the republicans used to use the phrase democrat. >> the democrat party. >> it seemed dickish. democrat party. or when you spoke out against the war, there was a subtle undertone of you're un-american, you don't want to win the war on terror. well, i think what also comes out sometimes from the other side is tea bagger. now that is, i think, derogatory. and i don't think anybody would mistake it for anything other than that. and it's been used on this network quite frequently, by hosts, by guests -- >> you don't think it was funny that they were saying tea bag the white house before the white house tea bags you? >> i thought it was funny for a day. i thought it was funny for a day. >> funny enough to play the john waters clip of the tea backing on a bar? >> for a day. probably wouldn't have run it
9:52 pm
for months. >> i didn't run it for months. >> no, but your -- were criticir months. >> i have the leeway. but the one thing i don't have the ability that you have is the ability to really do something about it. you're in the game. >> you're in the game, too. we're in the same game. >> i don't think so. you're in a better game than i am. >> how? >> you're on the playing field and i'm in the stands yelling things. >> everyone sees you on the field play, too. i think. >> well, maybe. back to the point of the rally, that rally, i could have gotten on the field. and people got mad that i didn't. but that was the point. that rally was to deflate a bubble and to do what i think satire does best, which is articulate an intangible feeling that people are having, bring it into focus, say you're not
9:53 pm
alone, it's a real feeling, it's maybe even a positive feeling, a hopeful feeling. in a weird way it's idealistic, but it's impotent. the next thing i could do is step on the fear. jones, you go over there, brooklyn, you grab the canteens. but i don't. that's my failing and my indulgence, but it's done because i feel like i am where i belong and i feel like i serve the best purpose in my life or in whatever it is that i can. but i don't take any satisfaction in that. and i don't take any satisfaction in just being a critic. roger ebert doesn't make movies. so to say well, roger, you're in the game. no, he's not. he's not making movies. he's sitting in the seat going this movie sucks. that's me. and by the way, very proud to do it. there is no honor in what i do, but i do it as honorably as i can.
9:54 pm
>> in politics, in covering politics, we don't get involved. i don't get involved and tell people what to vote for, who to vote for. i don't tell people, you know, call your congressman, we need to do this thing. i don't do anything like that. so for me, i'm not on the field either. >> i feel like you're defending yourself from things that are not coming at you from me. or from our rally or things like that in a way that again. the really unfair is individuals make -- it's one of those picture where is it's all made up of little pictures and you go that's my picture in there. but again, proportionately to what we do. do you think we're not fair to msnbc? proportionately? >> i really don't. i don't actually think the false equivalence thing that you feel, that you want to talk about and you feel defensive about about the rally is a major issue. i don't feel like you -- but i do feel like the left gets,
9:55 pm
including from you, gets criticized for stuff that we don't deserve because it is more institutional on the right than it is on the left. and the examples that are culled, alan grayson or it's code pink interrupting a rally are not equivalent to sharron angle saying if conservatives don't get what they want, they're going to use guns to get what they want and she's a senate candidate. >> and we've said those are equal? >> i think you've done some of that. i don't think it's the main thing you do when you talk about the media. you don't accept that we're in the same point but i think we are. i remember right after the 2011 election -- and i won't keep you here forever -- after the election, it was something about george bush and dick cheney and you said something to the effect that bush said can we have the recession outside today because the weather is so nice, with the idea being that george bush is
9:56 pm
an idiot. he's an infin tile that thinks recess and recession are the same thing. and after the tea bag the white house before they tea bag you goes on fox news, we talk about what the whole idea is about tea bagging and how funny they don't get what that word choice means. i sort of feel like we're doing the same thing. that you make -- essentially you exaggerate in order to be funny or in order to make a point and everybody understands just a little exaggeration. but there's a commitment -- but i think we both have a commitment to not lying, to telling the truth, even when we are making a point. >> as we see it. >> yeah. >> i think everybody does -- i think it's -- i don't doubt that it's genuine. there is a part of me that feels like there's a high mindedness to news and journalism that doesn't exist. i feel like i have liberties that you don't have and i could lose them by stepping into that, and what i would gain in that is, i think, a little bit more
9:57 pm
dignity, a little bit more -- you know what i mean? i would have a little more skin in the game. and is there's something about that that's more courageous than what we do. so that, i very much admire, but i also think that, though, that there's a part of me that say, like, these rules have existed for people such as me forever, and we're not the ones bending them. i'm not -- >> we're getting to be more like you, you're not getting to be more like us? >> kind of. >> until the rally, then you got a little bit more like us. >> yeah. because i felt in 12 years i earned a moment to tell people who i was. and that's what i did. this isn't going to be me forever either. that doesn't me that you know -- in my life, i also try and get on the field and help people, just in a different way. just not through the show. >> not through the show. you're a mench for spending so much time with us.
9:58 pm
>> can i tell you something, you can edit this out. i like you. i just -- there's -- you know, we can have different points about this is a little bit unfair as it goes in there. and i completely agree. what happens in discourse is not precise. but what is important, i think, is the place that people come from. and it's important to remember, like, when i do those things, doi try and remember where i think people are coming from and i'm trying to do better in my life remembering that, from even those that i really disagree with. and i think some of that is based on, you know, the whole idea -- you know, i don't know if you know this iranian journalist, bahari. >> oh, yeah. >> there are real enemies in the world and really just bad evil things.
9:59 pm
but there are lot less of them than we probably from watching all this stuff think that there are. and that's all that i try and remember in my own head to keep saying. you've got to understand, i watch this stuff like, you know, clockwork orange. i'm strapped to my chair. if you watch local news all the time, you're going to think something terrible is going to happen to your family. you will feel the fear more than -- >> i will definitely be afraid of driving. >> the intestinal flu. here's what's the most amazing thing about the interview. i have not thrown up once while we were doing this. you, my friend, are like ginger root. you are the ginger root of interviews in that you have pulled things out of me that i never knew were there and yet i leave not nauseous. and that is a wonderful gift and a talent you bring to the news world in a way that most people don't and i