I haven't seen said interview, but do you think it would've been different had Jon Stewart been in that chair?
On Friday, August 9, 2013, PGage wrote: > John Oliver had a really interesting show last night, and what I think > will go down as at least one of the best interviews in the history of the > Daily Show (I am giving myself some wiggle room there, pending seeing a > list of the other contenders). In the end he did not get any new or > specific answers to his questions, but just seeing the clear, direct > questions being asked of a politician was striking - not just for an > entertainment interview, but even for a real, hard news interview. > > Oliver interviewed NY junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who by now is for > TDS an official "friend of the show" after Stewart has had her one several > times for very laudatory appearances. The first segment last night was > similar in tone to those, complimenting her good work on trying to fight > sexual assault in the military. In the second segment he switches to the > Historic and Ongoing Wall Street Scandal. He starts with kind of a general > question, and she gives a general, standard center-left Democratic answer. > Then, without really changing his tone or giving us much of a warning, he > asks her a really direct, specific and tough question: > > "Help me understand the relationship between banks and politics, because > on the Venn diagram of that, you are right in the middle. You were the > number one recipient of money from Goldman Sachs in 2011 to 2012 for all > sitting congressmen. JPMorgan was your number two corporate donor over the > last five years. What I deeply want to know is, what do you have to do for > that? What is required of you for that money? Because it makes me > uncomfortable." > > Later, he says: > > "The thing that concerns me is the money and the politics thing, because > it's chicken and egg. Are there opinions that you have on Wall Street, do > you get the money because you already have those opinions, or do you need > those opinions to get the money?" > > She deflected both questions deftly, like the skilled politician and > former high-powered securities lawyer that she is, pivoting to her support > of public financing for US elections. She also mentioned, appropriately, > that she represents New York, the implication being that it is not unusual > that she would get donations from major interests in her state. > > In the third segment, on the web (see: > http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews), Oliver continued, > mentioning that she took $86,000 from Goldman Sachs, then asking "Is there > anything we can do to have you not take that money?" > > He mentions that it might be easy to ask these kinds of questions of > politicians that he does not like, but that he really does like her, and > wanted to understand why someone like her is taking so much money in ways > that are clearly not illegal, but undermine the integrity and confidence > the public can have in the political process. > > He also asked her about a letter she wrote in early 2012 to the leaders of > five regulatory agencies (see > http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/gillibrand-enters-volcker-rule-fray/?_r=0) > about the "Volker Rule", in which she seems to be opposed to it, or at > least to specifications that would allow it to be enforced rigorously (The > Volker Rule is part of Dood-Frank, and bans proprietary trading by > commercial banks). > > The part about the letter illustrates why it is hard to get into the > substance of complex issues like this in any short form television > interview. Oliver stumbled a bit when he summarized her position as being > against the Volker Rule, which allowed her to say that no, she was in favor > of it. In fact, she did vote for Dodd-Frank, and she did support the Volker > Rule, but the question is, is she also trying to get the details of its > enforcement provisions to be written in a way that are as loose and > sympathetic to the interests of Wall Street as possible? The questions > Oliver was trying to get her to answer basically these: > > 1a: Is she trying to water down Wall Street regulations like the Volker > Rule because she has taken so much money from Wall Street, or > > 1b: Does Wall Street give her so much money because they know she > genuinely believes in watering down regulations of their activity? > > 2. Even if the answer is 1b, wouldn't congress be more ethical, less > sleazy and inspire more confidence if representatives refused to take so > much money from the large interests they regulate? > > Like Oliver and Stewart, I generally do like Gillibrand. But if you don't > ask these tough questions of people you like, you can't really ask them of > people you do not like with much integrity. Also, Gillibrand is not really > the kind of soft-hearted do-gooder she sometimes appears to be in the > national media (I don't know what her NY persona is). She was a partner in > David Boise's Law Firm, and represented among others Phillip Morris. That > does not make her a bad person (if I had legal problems, and a shit load of > money, I would want David Boise to be my lawyer) but it does make her a > very, very hard assed, high powered attorney. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
