Why does it seem so easy for comedians to conduct satisfying interviews of politicians and so difficult for mainstream reporters?  For example, check out Jon Stewart’s interview of the RNC’s Ken Mehlman.   Stewart’s recent interview of Mehlman powerfully painted members of the current administration as a pack of lying conniving hypocritical thieves.  

To contrast, the mainstream media usually stumbles out of the gate.  Even when mainstream reporters ask clear questions, they receive heavily spun non-answers which they often treat as answers.  As we all know, these heavily spun non-answers reported by mainstream reporters are not valid perspectives regarding important issues. Such spin-doctored statements are actually filler–opportunities for politicians to claim that they answered questions that they didn’t answer at all. 

What Jon Stewart does on the above video clip is satisfying because he repeatedly indicates to the audience that Mehlman is failing to answer his straightforward questions.  Yes, Stewart does his work as only a good comedian can do, by rolling his eyes, smirking, joking and being sarcastic.  But his work as an interviewer is effective because the audience is constantly being reassured that the questioner (Stewart) is aware that the interviewee (Mehlman) is not really answering his questions.  Stewart’s questions, e.g., about the metric of success in Iraq or the identities of the oil executives with which Dick Cheney secretly met, deserve real answers. How strange that we get more dependable and important information from five minutes comedian interviews than from reams of newsprint and hours and …