"Yes, but I can make [flatulence] noises." Huh, the NYTimes really can't publish the word "fart," even if it's only online? (That interview occurred before anyone saw the video. It's funny to see how nervous and defensive the Times seems before even seeing the piece.)
Also, interesting questions form Itzkoff:
Given that "The Daily Show" is dependent on other news media to provide you with your fodder, is it counterproductive to help bring down an organization that supplies your content?
When you do your on-camera interviews, you have producers on hand who help feed you questions and one-liners. Is it fair that our editors don't have the same support?
posted by Rex at 1:05 PM on June 11, 2009 
I think it's possible that they are transcribing that he made a raspberry noise? Not that he said the word "fart."
posted by Choire at 2:13 PM on June 11, 2009
Oh, I guess that's possible. It looks like "fart" slipped through at least once -- in a Freakonomics blog post! (The other uses all look like names.)
posted by Rex at 2:18 PM on June 11, 2009
FYI, Dave Itzikoff declined via email to comment for this comment section. Smart man!
posted by Choire at 11:28 PM on June 11, 2009
I will say it's strange the way the Daily Show went on the offensive here. I'm not sure why it was so vicious about... about... well, about the failure of the news industry. It wasn't even a criticism of quality -- just of a dying print model.
Jon Stewart has been making some peculiar choices lately...
posted by Rex at 11:31 PM on June 11, 2009
On the offensive?
I didn't get that at all -- I thought it was the standard DS approach of correspondent acting as buffoon, and making the subject of the interview look reasonable by comparison.
The "snarky" bits were all well based in reality, and it was pretty damned funny.
What line do you think they crossed?
posted by alesh at 4:02 AM on June 12, 2009
NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.
