Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Story of the Year | Women Today »

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

“I’m not criticizing your book, I’m criticizing your philosophy of life.”

posted by on October 3 at 10:02 AM

Jon Stewart smacks down Chris Matthews, who declares their interview to be the worst of his life. (Sullivan declares the interview the best since Stewart’s filleting of Tucker Carlson.)

RSS icon Comments


But but... that's not IT!

Posted by Carollani | October 3, 2007 10:11 AM

new york mets?


Posted by kim | October 3, 2007 10:14 AM

Seconded. Tis not the Matthews interview.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Posted by Carollani | October 3, 2007 10:18 AM

Okay, it's not Eli's fault. Comedy Central fucked up the link. Just go to the page and click the Chris Matthews one.

Posted by Carollani | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM

No, no, dudes. THIS is it.

Posted by Meagan | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM

I've fixed it.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM

I thought the Mets segment was great, but the Matthews interview blows that out of the water. Here, here, I'll be Matthews, okay?

"HAH! HAH!" *impotent*

Posted by Katelyn | October 3, 2007 10:37 AM

As much as I think Matthews is a blowhard and deserves to be cut down to size, there's something about this interview that bugs me, the same thing that irked me about his infamous CNN appearance. Jon Stewart, as smart and witty as he is, often has such a hard time making his points clearly. The best he could do on Crossfire was "you're hurting the country" and the best he does here is "it's a recipe for sadness." Mildly amusing lines, but if you're gonna be rude and take someone down to size, you should at least do so with pinpoint accuracy.

He has so many interesting and great guests on, and the interviews should be great, but so often they're let down by Stewart sort of bumbling through questions, or trying to rephrase something more clearly with little success. I know it's got to be difficult to make an interview both funny and interesting, but he should really get on top of his game. With guests like Clinton, Morales and Musharaff, we should really be more intrigued by the conversation.

Posted by Gabriel | October 3, 2007 10:45 AM

It is sad that some people will read a book like that and actually take its advice to heart. It reminds me guys who to this day actually believe that "real" men should not eat quiche or ask for directions. Matthews blows!

Posted by Heather | October 3, 2007 10:46 AM

Wow. I don't particularly care for Chris Matthews, and generally I find Jon Stewart funny and smart and engaging, but damn, he sure treated Matthews like shit during this interview. He didn't really even give him much of a chance to defend or explain his book.

The book does sound awful though.

Posted by jameyb | October 3, 2007 10:48 AM

As much as I love him and his show, between that interview and Lauren Weedman's piece, he's got to be some kind of arrogant prick. He just had Matthews on to sandbag him. I'm no Matthews fan, but he's right about that being a terrible interview.

Posted by spencer | October 3, 2007 11:18 AM

The bully in me loved it.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 3, 2007 11:26 AM

This was the interview Chris Matthews deserved. I applaud Jon Stewart for getting the confrontation skills required during a time when the media (particularly Chris Matthews) is choosing our candidates and creating the atmosphere for war. Matthews wasn't chosen by the people and he has no check on his power. Stewart realizes this and is providing one.

Posted by ellen | October 3, 2007 11:35 AM

I thought it went well. Besides, I'm sick and tired of watching late night shows only to see the host suckin' the guests ass all night.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 3, 2007 11:49 AM

Great interview. Stewart challenged the Mathew's underlying thesis. This was not a "bullying" interview. Mathews thesis was challenged. If you want his side of the story, read his book. But Stewart has no obligation to let him come on his show and propound a morally dubious thesis.

MoStewart simply illuminates that this thesis is not new by referring to Machiavelli's "The Prince." Yes, you can be successful, but do the ends justify the means? That isn't bullying or sandbagging, that's reasoned debate.

Posted by Medina | October 3, 2007 11:53 AM

I thought he was correct. There is something deeply disturbing about Chris Matthews, and his world view is in fact one of darkness pretending to be light.

Even I, who frequently will push a point, recognize that Jon is right on this.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:06 PM

I wish that once a month, I could select someone for John Stewart to destroy. It'd be great fun. Careers would be ruined. Up first, Bob Novak.

Posted by superyeadon | October 3, 2007 12:25 PM

I've got to get on my soapbox for this, Matthews is completely distorting the point of the Prince in comparing his book to that. As noted in the Prince, if the people are not dealt with correctly, then the Prince will not have power. It is a careless reading that comes up with "the end justifies the means". Machiavelli goes on in the Discoursi to discuss how a republic should be started and structured. Matthews should have focused more on that reading!

Posted by chicken crossing | October 3, 2007 12:29 PM

Anybody who has suffered through Hardball has to appreciate Stewart's treatment of Matthews in that interview.

Matthews is as much of an overbearing, leering boor as Rush Limbaugh. Can Matthews ever have a conversation that doesn't at some point reference Bill Clinton's relationship with women?

Well done, IMO.

Posted by abracapocus | October 3, 2007 12:40 PM

It's like reading the Art of War and not realizing that it's not suggesting that constant war and instability is a good thing. But something to be used when needed.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:53 PM

12 - you think the Lauren Weedman piece made Jon look bad!?

Posted by piminnowcheez | October 3, 2007 1:16 PM

"Self hurt book". LOL. Nice one.

To anyone complaining that Stewart sandbagged Matthews, have you ever watched Matthews? The guy is a monumental asshole. He regularly treats his guests much worse.

Jon Stewart owes him nothing. Matthews was on his show for one purpose: to whore his book. Authors do it all the time. Write a new book, go on every talk show you can to blab about it, sell lots of copies. Stewart is under no obligation to prostitute himself to endorse this Matthews' book. He read it (which is more than most interviewers do), disagreed with it, and challenged the author rather than just allow his show to be a glorified ad for the book.

Fuck Matthews if he can't handle a tough interview. He, of all people, has no right to complain about a tough interview. If he wanted a softball interview, he should never have agreed to go on.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 3, 2007 1:42 PM

Oh man, 20 is so right:

"Matthews is as much of an overbearing, leering boor as Rush Limbaugh. Can Matthews ever have a conversation that doesn't at some point reference Bill Clinton's relationship with women?"

He is clearly obsessed with how Clinton got women, the Clinton's marriage, ... Creepy.

Posted by ellen | October 3, 2007 1:45 PM

Notice how Matthews, when he first shakes Stewart's hand, LITERALLY looks down upon him. Matthews is a bully and an asshole and is what is wrong with America today.

Posted by DOUG. | October 3, 2007 1:57 PM

Jon was an absolute prick, wouldn't let Matthews explain, tell the story he wanted to, or defend himself against Stewart's hateful and senseless trashing. That was uncalled for in so many ways. I wasn't expecting that out of Stewart at all, and I watch him daily. What's more sad is you all seem to celebrate it. For what reason, exactly? Because the style of Hardball doesn't appeal to you? What a bunch of bully pricks.

Posted by anthony | October 3, 2007 2:23 PM


In short, he did to Matthews EXACTLY what he does to most of his guests. Serves the glass-jawed bully exactly right, in my book.

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 2:26 PM

The interview is only 6 minutes long. Matthews had no chance to tell the story he wanted to. There was absolutely nothing hateful about the way Jon spoke to him. And he gave him plenty of time to try and explain his point of view, and Matthews chose a few poor examples to do so. Why do people have a problem with simple conflict, especially on an entertainment show?

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 3, 2007 2:42 PM

mathews hosts a show called hardball, yet he's whining about how tough the interview was? boo-fucking-hoo. stewart has no obligation to be nice to that guy. i think it's kinda funny that there are people who view stewart as a prick because he didn't pamper mathews through the interview. grow up, confrontation is not the end of the world.

Posted by douglas | October 3, 2007 3:07 PM

If Matthews wanted to be treated fairly, he should have done that to guests on his show.

Karma - it's a beeyotch.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 3:35 PM

It was just a proper debate, or at least much closer to the real thing than most politicians get these days. Is it really better to trash someone's ideas behind their back than to their face?

Posted by Lythea | October 3, 2007 11:26 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).