>> rose: welcome to the program, as 2016 comes to a close we take this time to look back upon some of our favorite programs of the year. tonight an encore conversation on politics, comedy and culture with jon stewart. >> any artistic pursuit, for whatever effect it has on its audience or things like that, is a relatively selfish pursuit t is a cath ar sis for the individual. and st a way to express ideas and get them out. and feel, the is he duction of it is it is going to scr or not going to score. that is the hit, that is the adrenaline. but what begins to wear on you is where it's taken. and i think this election could be a great lesson in that controlling the culture is not the same thing as power. >> rose: jon stewart for the hour next.

>> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> christmas, jon stewart, thank you for doing this. >> thank you for having us. >> this is the daily show, an oral history, chris, why this, exr why an oral history. >> yeah, come on. >> well, the title, you know, if i did it was taken. so we had to go with an oral history. because-- . >> rose: because it's an oral history.

>> yeah. and the voices of the people who wrote and performed this show are so interesting and are really not terribly well-known outside of the 22 minutes a night that jon and everybody else did for 16 years. you know, certainly stephen colbert has done interview, samantha bee has done interviews am but the actual process, the making of the show, that wasn't something that was exactly kept secret. but it was kept close because jon and everybody else was so focused on those four days a week. and just getting it done. and that's a really hard job that the actual process, the making of the show, the evolution, the growth internally and externally was a story best told by the people who lived it. >> rose: so you have to go to jon, to everybody else, and say would you do this, would you cooperate. instant for you you said yeah, let's do it. >> i have known chris for a very long time. i have always enjoyed his reporting because i thought it

was always-- it was never-- he always came at things from a really thorough and fair. when you were reading his work in new york magazine and other places it always felt invest but not purposefully really thought well done but we were so involved over those 16 years and people have always said what was it like, man. what was your favorite part. i don't know but-- you learn something about. >> absolutely. >> the perspective of the guy that you were with, the men and women that made up the daily show. >> absolutely. >> an if it was going to be told, i want it told as thoroughly and as fairly, warts and all, as it could possibly be. and i thought chris was a great-- a great reporter to be able to do that. >> rose: over the 16 years how did the show evolve? what did it become that it was not at the beginning? >> i mean in truth i think the

evolution of the show, we just became better at doing it. so it is not that it's, you know there are two separate things. it's what the show became and what people thought of the show and the outside perspective of it. and that was the thing that, i think, you know, i talked to chris a lot about which is you had to ignore. you know, what we tried to develop was a desent internal barometre of what worked for the show and how well we could execute it. so you know, you could never look at a piece and go like i don't know if this is emmy-worthy. and we're an emmy award-winning show. >> rose: yes, indeed. >> you had to try and keep your own morality and integrity as the beacon for where you want the material to go. >> rose: was your instinct almost always right about what was funny and what would not be funny? >> i think we got better at

that. there is something fragile about comedy and some what musical and one man's meat is another man's prat fall. so i don't know-- i can say that there were things that we wrote that i thought were really funny, where the audience might not, you know. and other things where you would do a joke and there would be a pun that would come up and the crowd would go a little bananas. you stp and look at them, really? cuz we didn't think that that was-- we spent the wol day crafting this really beautiful, comedic essay but you really-- you liked the pun on the double o7, how? okay. >> in terms of the evolution of the show one of the things that was fascinating to go back and look at in great detail, people often forget the daily show existed before jon arrived as house, craig kill born was the host for close to three years. and they laid a really good foundation in some ways with the

mock correspondents, the sat ire of news, the tone and the focus was very different it was much more of a parody of local newscasts in a way. there could bemean spiritedness to some of the material. they were much more interested in celebrity and hollywood and showbiz stuff. >> rose: nonpolitical people. >> exactly, yeah. it punched down at times in a way that could be funny but was-- was kind of ephemeral. and one of the things that was interesting in talking to jon, talking to other folks that were there at the time when he came in in 1999 is he new he wanted it to be more substantive. but he didn't have a master plan. he didn't really have a blue print of okay, here's where we are going. >> rose: you said i just want to last nine months. >> yeah, he wanted to get-- i've been fired enough that was my general goal. >> rose: do you know why you were successful at this time?

was it the best extension of your talent? >> i believe it was the best extension of what i know how to do and prapsz i didn't necessarily know that at the time. but beyond that, cable is a very different animal, especially during that time, than network is. so it has a different level of pressures. and a different level of performance. you are able to use it as a laboratory in ways that you wouldn't be able to do on a network. the network lives or dies by the overnight. whereas in cable they had this crazy deal worked out where they live and die by the carriage. >> rose: they have two revenue streams. >> yeah. and so they're-- their goal was to throw things out there. so you had-- i knew that we had more time and i think maybe that allowed me a little bit more confidence to push it. and i had to push them as well because it wasn't necessarily the direction that they wanted to go. but-- .

>> rose: but were you running the show too. i mean you were there in the trenches. >> i wouldn't refer to them as. >> if you have a crash services table, generally that is not trenches. >> the recurring hinge in the reporting of the show-- . >> rose: what was it. >> it was the number of digestive metaphors that were involved in the creation of the daily show. at times uncomfortable. >> rose: what did it become? it became for all of us a kind of cultural event. >> yeah. and that's interesting. >> rose: mr than a show. >> and jon started to touch on this too. it's easy to forget in 2016 what the media world looked like in 1996, 997-- 1997, 1999 where comedy central was, you know, still kind of a sketchy proposition. where msnbc and fox news had just launched at the same time that the daily show was coming into being. facebook didn't exist and now

it's had a major, influence on an election, presidential election. >> you had the to heat it, by hand it was a different time. >> rose: we just went through an election. >> what? >> rose: yes! your reaction to this election? >> surprised? >> surprised. it all ties together. >> rose: fear? >> well, fear, you know, here's what i would honestly say. i done believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago or than we were a month ago. the same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. the same country that elected

donald trump, elected barack obama. and those contradictions are-- this election is to me just another extension of the long argument that we have had from our founding. which is what are we? and that's, you know, are we an ideal or are we some form ofette no state. and that argument has existed for-- so on a philosophical and theoretical level, i feel badly for the people for whom this election will mean more uncertainty and insecurity. but i also feel like this fight has never been easy. and i think it's odd, it's like we're a couple and we met and the first fight we had when we met was, i mean look, the people

on our money had slaves. the people we honor had slaves. the people who wrote all men are created equal had slaves. and it's not like they didn't know it was wrong. >> rose: many of them came from a slave-owning state. >> right. >> so the argument between rural and urban, between the ideal of inalienable rights and slavery, we have had the same argument over an over again. at times it's been more volatile. at times it's been more violent. but it's never been easy. and fighting for this-- i done see this as some form of end point. it's a continuation of a long bat toll determine what we are. and i think it made me wonder, you know, one of the things that struck me odd about this election, and maybe i just missed it, was nobody asked donald trump what makes america

great. and that was the part that i-- . >> rose: he wants to make america tbreat again, and nobody said to him what is it that makes america great. >> correct. >> rose: what is it you want to do that we're not doing now. >> what are the metrics. because it seems like from listening to him, the metrics are that it's a competition. and that it's wins ands wills. we're going to win more and is that what makes us great. and i think what many would say is what makes us great is nobody-- america is an anomaly in the world. there are a lot of people and i think his candidacy has animated that thought, that a multiethnic democracy, a multicultural dem-- democracy is impossible. and that is what america by its founding and constitutionally is. >> rose: and it's becoming more and more by year. >> correct. >> rose: some people were

worried it meant different things for them and that their life was changing because of that. >> right. >> rose: and there was a certain fear. >> i think no question. the insecurities that people feel as marginalized populations are also felt, you know, a rust belt worker that lost his job in manufacturing feels an in-- insecurity that you can say to him. look at all the terrible things that he says and you mate say look, i live in an area that voted for him. >> rose: but the question then is did democrats and did secretary clinton open the door for donald trump because she did not or could not speak to them? >> whether or not she opened the door or not, i done think it was her door to open. i think-- you're talking about a global issue. globalization and the pushback of that, now inette no states it sort of picks more sense that we have a-- an ethnic identity. but when you live in a state that is an ideal, well then what

is the bar of entry. the bafer of-- bar of entry is i agree with you, people have inalienable rights and you can and so can i come in. and as long as you behave within that manner, but let's not pretend that this isn't a bat theal has been revisited time and time again. and that's why i feel we have a resilience to it that we have to continue to fight. >> rose: but do you think it's healthy that we have this now. that in fact this battle, this real sense of finding out who we are. >> yes. but i also know-- . >> rose: and whether we have gone off track in some way. >> absolutely. you know, i would rather have this conversation openly and honestly than in dog whistles. somebody was saying there might be an anti-semite that is working in the white house and have you listened to the nixon tapes. like forget about advising the president, the president, like, have you read lbj? do you know our history. you know, this is-- and we also

have to caution ourselves to the complexity of that history. that i thought donald trump disqualified himself at numb rouse points but there is-- neum rowses points but there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric. and i think-- i think it's a big mistake. and i think that our relationship status with our own worst impulses is complicated. and you have to remember, who is the most aggressive president maybe in our history, it is roosevelt. franklin will del anker -- del ano roosevelt who ints interred asian americans during world war two. so we are a complicated and real people. i know the hardest thing for me during this election was the disconnect i had between watching the rallies, which i think animates generally because it is a rally, the wisdom of

crowds is never particularly moderate. but to see lock her up and shouting at the media, u.s.a. and some terrible things that happened. and his inability to in anyway tamp that down and in some cases inspire it, to view that with my own experience with real people that i knew were voting for trump who are friends of mine, who i don't tolerate because they're-- well, they're irredeemable and deplorable, i love. like there are guys that i love that i respect, that i think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of mexicans and not afraid of muslims and not afraid of blacks. they're afraid of their insurance premiums. and they have-- and i-- this idea that you know, that they

represent, they have given taskity approval to a dictator and a madman, you know, look at your phone, man. look at everything that we have. we make those kinds of compromises every day for exploit atif purposes. i have gone on too long. >> rose: no, you haven't. >> yeah, so-- . >> rose: you have come to the right place. >> all right, i appreciate it. >> rose: did you miss 2 during the campaign? >> god no! >> rose: you did not for a second. >> no! >> rose: you didn't want to be there. >> no vz and-- . >> rose: and being able to do what you just did, tell us what you thought both with sat tire, comedy and with reason. >> no, not at all. >> rose. >> no, because being enraged wears on you. >> rose: meaning you could be full of rage and it wouldn't make any difference.

>> correct. almost any pursuit like this is a-- any artistic pursuit for whatever effect it has on its art, is a relatively selfish pursuit it is a catharsis for the individual. and it is a way to express ideas and get them out. and feel the is he duction of it is it is being to score or not going to score. that is the hit. that is the adrenaline. but what begins to wear on you is where it is taken. and i think this election could be a great lesson in that controlling the culture is not the same thing as power. and a viral video eviscerating racists is not the same as a grass roots movement that seeks to have common ground with people and create a multiethnic coalition that understands it. other people's hierarchy of needs is not necessarily your hierarchy of needs. >> rose: but the idea of what the daily show became was not

something that was in your head when you took this job, or was it? >> well, what was banging around in my head was, is there a better way to executed public affairs comedy that means something to me. if i am going to spend this much time, i had hosted talk shows. i did one on m tv. and i did one on lake a syndicated. and i was spending 12 hours a day on things that weren't-- didn't feel substantial or meaningful to me. so this was a chance to, can i express my comedy about things that i care about in a way that is entertaining enough that i won't get fired. because i had been fired. and when you get fired and your name is on the show, it's hard not to go oh, you might suck at

this. and you have to reevaluate. well, you know what, am if i am going to put myself in that position then, i'm going to lay it on the line. and i'm going to put out there what i care about. and it could get rejected but. >> it could go down doing it my way. >> that's right. i'm going to go down the way i feel like i am going to do it in the way that i think is the best iteration of my abilities and if that goes down, you know, i can bartend. >> rose: yes, you could. was there a moment in which, was there a time, was there an event, whether it was the florida recount that you said we've got it. we have traction. i can-- be confirmed in my belief that what i was rolling the dice on has come up a winner? >> no. >> not in terms of success but

in terms of the confidence that what i wanted to do and what i was insisting on doing has been. >> you talked to a bunch of team. >> right. >> i would say that it was-- it was never about like-- it was more that would we be able to develop a process to do that well and you know, it's the inherent juxtaposition of the creative pursuit which is can we build a machine that is redundant enough and rigid enough that it can sustain inspiration, improvisation and creativity. >> rose: an five days a week. >> exactly. >> rose: when did that happen then, the process kick in that you knew was the process-- here. >> that wasn't my concern. >> rose: yeah. >> the process, it grew and-- . >> rose: when did that happen? >> november 3rd well, it really took shape through the 2

thousand campaign and the recount, the day to day process. like john says, the technology eventually caught up with what the daily show was doing. they pioneered in some ways not just a form but the assembly of these kinds of montages. what was equally important was not simply the process of okay, we're having a meeting at 9:00 and we need these-- . >> rose: no, we're not. >> what they found early on was a tone to what they wanted to do. and while events went on in the outside world, that changed what they thought, they found a tone in a piece steve carell did with john mccain on the straight talk express in late 1999, where carell-- carell does a preamable where he is chasing the bus and trying to get on the bus. >> they wouldn't let us on there, they had a main bus, two press buses. >> right. >> one had. >> the other had a nicer air

conditioning, had a bathroom. >> right. and they go to cindy mccain and cindy mccain is appalled at the roll over bus conditions. and says okay, come on the main bus with john. and what you don't know from watching the finished piece is all the work that went into this. and it became a prototype of how jon shifted field pieces away from in his phase abject cruelty-- abject cruelty to actual point of view. and they-- carell and the producer of that piece, a guy named nick mckinney had laid out a series of questions. and carell was a world-class improviser. so that if-- . >> rose: and a world classical ent. >> so if you ask this question and he says x, here is how you respond. the deficit in this is one of many deficits is you have got world-class improvisers working with civilians who don't know they're in an improv. >> you are doing a routine with

someone who doesn't know they are doing it. >> so they develop all these questions of what they are going to ask mccain and most of them are softball like what kind of tree would you be. and what became famous at the end of that piece and a attorneying-- turning point in the development of this show was carell asked mccain, senator, you've been strident opponent of pork barrel spending. how can you justify when are you chair of the commerce committee you okayed billions of dollars in pork barrel spending. and mccain freezes. there is a deer in the headlights moment. and then carell bursts the tension by saying oh, i was just joking. i don't even know what that means. now what was fascinating to me and carell had not remembered it until i talked to him, they-- mckinney and carell found that question in time magazine driving over to the shoot. >> right. >> and that kind of structure and last minute imprfisatory

genius was something jon created that held throughout his run of the show. >> but it also brings up an interesting-- which is the kruks of the daily show par a docks. which is-- paradox which is in that moment, you hold to account a senator whose entire identity it based on a hypocritical behavior. i am against this type of pork barrel politics, unless it's-- right? unless it benefits people in arizona. >> we nailed you. and then what do we have to do at that point? we let you go. it's catch and release. because we have to undercut it with a laugh. and it-- it gets to the joy and frustration of doing that type of job. which is, and it's when we realized too that access didn't help us. so it is that idea of i got you. and here's my one moment.

and i'm going to with a scalpel go at the kruks of your identity as a politician and expose it for everybody to see. and then i'm going to have to make a joke about it and walk away, and you're going to laugh and it's going to humanize you. one of the deficits of this is satire began to take the place of reality-- i think this has been given a greater place in the discussion. and a larger role in the discourse than is warrantedded. and once that started to happen, i think you began to question if it's a good thing or a bad thing. and i know it's not a black and white issue. but controlling the culture is-- for as much funs alike we can make at the tea party, like while we were up there passing around viral videos of

eviscerations, they were friendlies offer the highway taking over the school board. and we just had an election where the democrats won the popular point by probably more than a million votes. and they don't control the presidency, they don't control the house, they don't control the senate, they don't control gov norships, they don't control state legislatures. this may be the largest largest-- disconnect between majority rule and majority power that we have had in this country in ages. and i'm in no way saying and like-- and i'm responsible. but what i am saying is there is a comfort in culture that can be mistaken for real power. there is only two towns in the world that i have ever been in that i thought were delusional. one was washington d.c., the other was los angeles. and the only difference between los angeles and washington is in los angeles they actually believe they have power.

but d.c., like that's where it is, man. and the irony of this election-- . >> rose: d.c. they have power. l.a. they just believe they have power. >> that's correct. >> rose: but it is the same-- are you saying in a sense that whatever we're saying about culture, and the influence you have on the culture, in the end it's not political power. and in the end it's not. >> yeah. and in the end it's not real cultural influence either. its he a story well tell ourselves about the rightness of our position. but it is argument. and it's not without weight but it is not with so much weight. i believe that culture played a good role in marriage equality. i think it brought a story out that had been, so much of what occurs with inequality is ignorance. and i don't mean it in a mall ef lent way, i mean it in the experience of i have no experience with it, i don't know what that is.

so exposure to that can be positive although generally in an entertainment sense the expews sure is-- . >> rose: do you think people came as guests. >> yes. >> rose: because they a want the number you had, wanted to reach the audience you had. >> yes. >> rose: or because they enjoyed it. it gave them a certain kind of sense of being part of something that was hip and in. >> i will say they did not enjoy it. >> rose: really. >> yeah. >> yeah. to that point, i mean chris wallace, fox news said almost exactly those words to me, that his kids were never more impressed with him than when he went on the daily show. and if felt like you had been invited to become a member of a hipper club. >> rose: and you had to take it to that club, that is power. >> to a club. it's power in a way that a bouncer has power. i was a bouncer. >> rose: were you a bouncer. >> i was a bouncer at a club

that did pretty well for awhile. but i'm going to tell you, man, drive down 14th street by 2nd avenue, pal addium ain't there any more. >> it is the tongueo now and. >> on the way over here i walked past fox news world headquarters. and there is a marching band there is dancing girls, it's free jello shots. apparently they won. >> rose: speaking of fox news, it was the gift that kept on giving. >> it was not the gift that kept on giving. it was the relentless offerer of-- they-- they were a good foil because they were offering cynicism. which they continue to offer. there is no more cynical enterprise than fox news. now forever they want to say about the liberal media,-- . >> rose: or fair and balanced. >> which may be the most cynical expression of any slogan in the

history of slogans. that's like if coca cola went out there and their slogan was haley vit minutes for children. like it's completely not that. fox news is reactionary in the way that, by the way, the daily show is reaction area. in the way that a lot of this new media is a reaction to what they see as either unfairness or something hidden. >> rose: okay, but did you see what are you doing as simply offering an alternative to what fox is saying because. >> no. >> rose: okay g ahead. >> we saw it as so the headline for it on huffington poses would be stewart he vises rates-- eviscerates arguments against gay marriage. and we would think of it as daily show comes up with a somewhat humorous look at what they think is a hypocritical stance on personal freedom. and that is the weight that it

should be given. but-- . >> rose: you lick your chops when you saw hypocrisy like you hadn't seen before fsm you thought it was hypocritical that would be the point where you would just say. >> it was animated by viseral feelings, no question. yeah, because that's the stuff that this show is basically just, if you imagine in general, and i hated to do this to your audience and i don't know if this is pbs so you want to do a trigger warning, but the daily show was a satirkal expression of me sitting in my underwear yelling at the television. and now i just get to go back to doing that. except now i'm surrounded by farm animals. >> there is i appoint in the book where a lot of different people among them a guy named john feel who has been a leader in pushing for health care for 9/11 first responders. >> the feel good foundation. >> right. they walk us through what jon

and others did to get the permanent extension of the-- bill, a little while back. and john at one point-- . >> rose: this is where i saw the passion to from you on an issue. >> yeah, which we can debate influence and power. there were points where the daily show had real impact, real world impact. and you know, jon does not get up and raise his hand and say i did that. but you know, there were a lot of first responders who are going to have their medical bills paid in large part-- of his focus on this. but in that discussion jon at one point in the book says, in some ways the debate over sedroga is what the daily show for me was all about. a lot of people looking at something in a common sense way and saying isn't this crazy that this isn't getting done. you know, why is-- isn't this happening. and i think-- . >> rose: the common sense

argument. >> yes. and i think he and the show were ahead of the curve, and people talk about this in the book, in recognizing on the left and the right how government was not functioning for a lot of average americans. and they pointed that out in all sorts of ways from the health care debate, to the government shutdown, minimum wage, all sorts of things over the years. katrina. and at one point there is a former correspondent named dan boxadal who wasn't on the show a long period of time. and in some ways had a very unhappy experience there. but in some ways people who had unhappy experiences think deeper about what worked and what didn't. and he talks in there about how he doesn't think bernie sanders would have been possible if not for the daily show. that there is a generation of people who grew up thinking about government and hypocrisy and politicians in terms of jon

and the daily show defined. i think that is true in a media sense too, that you have a lot of younger reporters who grew up watching the daily show. and in this campaign maybe it was too little too late. maybe it was more print than tv. but can we-- can we curse? >> yes. >> there were a lot of people in this campaign without called bush-- an but you know, annotating lies, you know, footnoting every lie in a donald trump speech was something that jon and the daily show had done with bush, had done with obama, all along. and that kind of thing, you know, you can point to filtering through the media culture. >> but you have to meet force with force. and the daily show is, what i would say we are, and again i'm not saying this to den grate what we did. -- den grade what we did i am so incredibly proud.

this was the best iteration for me what i could do with satire and we prosecuted to its fullest as far as i was concerned, as far as my brain could go. i was just going to be redundant and keep going back and forth with the same thing. i am going to really do a terrible analogy but we were patrick swaizy after he died in ghost. we were in the subway yelling at dead people. and raging and no one could hear us. but if we to kuses everything that we had in one moment at just the right time, at just the right moment, with everything we had, we could move the can just a little bit. >> rose: you want to talk about the. >> but do you understand.

sedroga was ten years of back breaking labor by john feel and theetion first responders. it was corruption at a government level at the highest order, that could be done. it was the people that had been hailed as heros that ran into burning buildings that were told by our government, the epa that the air was safe but the air was not safe. they are dying. they continue to die to this day. they were forced with all their afflictions to go down and hat in hand knock on doors to people who wouldn't even meet their eyesight and those ten years of working, they did all the construction. and at the very end cindy lou who came in with just a little-- and went-- and got way more credit for it than was deserved. they deserved that and continue to. and the ultimate irony of this election is the cynical strategy of the republicans which is our position as government doesn't work.

we're going to make sure that it doesn't work. >> draining the swamp. >> they're not draining the swamp. mcconel and ryan, those guys are the swamp. and what they decided to do was i'm going to make sure government doesn't work and then i'm going to use its lack of working as evidence of it. donald trump is a reaction not just to democrats, but republicans. he is not a republican. he is a repudiation of republicans, that they will reap the benefit of his victory in all of their cynicism and all of their, i will guarantee you, republicans are going to come to jesus now about the power of government. they are going to suddenly realize that you know what, government authorities-- is actually not tyranny. when we have won it. it is actually thortd. and it is consent to the people. and you know what, you want an infrastructure project? and let me give you that and tax cuts and let's see how far we can take that. and that is the irony of it. >> rose: when we began this conversation, you were arguing

that this country had a long and tortured history of dealing as back and forth on these debates. >> no, not on that debate, on race. that's a different debate. i'm talking about the foundational creed of the country. which is we are not, you know, originally we were just white anglo saxon protestants. and then with immigration-- . >> rose: men. >> so look, you know who symbolizes the complexity and frustration of this country is probably almost more than anybody susan b anthony. susan b anthony was a suffragette, she fought desperately for women, she was a hero. when people were voting for hillary she put stickers on her grave and all that but she was also, i think, steeped in racist and did not want black men to vote before women got to vote because that wouldn't have been fair to her because white women, white is better than black men. so it-- those are the inherent contradictions. does that they gate all the good that she did.

of course not but it tells the story with the complexity that it deserves. and hopefully allows us to see each other more clearly and have an empathy and compassion for the complexity of people, you know, hierarchy, and not neg ate people for the worst thing they ever did. or you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. don't look at muslims as a mono lith, they are individuals and it would be ignorance. but everybody who voted for trump is a monolith, is a racist-- racist, that is again like, that hypocrisy is also real in our country. and so this is the fight that we wage against ourselves. because america is not natural. natural is tribal. we're fighting against thousands of years of human behavior and history to create something that no one has ever-- that's what is

exceptional about america and that's what is-- this ain't easy. it's an incredible thing. >> and one of the things i hope the book does is illustrate that in some small way, jon and the show made over the course of the years as the show evolved, a very determined attempt to diversify the ranks from off camera to on camera. and near the end of jon's run there, there was a little hubbub about a confrontation he had with one of the correspondents, wyatt cenac. >> rose: i remember. >> and we go into some detail about how and why that happened. and i think it's a fascinating illustration of how people with good intention, of strong values, these are tough things to wrestle with day in and day

out in workplaces and creative environments. and a fascinating total coins dense when this wyatt cenac story broke publicly,-- tona hase coates, friend of wyatt cenac, wasn't aware of any of this back story. i interviewed coates for the book. and he said i thought something really interesting, he said you know, people struggle with racism in good ways all the time that we don't see and hear about. we hear about the confrontation, the conflict. and to him, yeah, what jon did over the course of a number of years sometimes didn't make everybody happy. but was moving the ball forward, was of good intention and progressive in every way.

>> to have diversity fair. >> when are you faced with that type of criticism your first response is generally defensiveness. and that is what i, you know, when we first started the show, comedy was the, especially late night, was the realm of late night ironists, just very, very witty and people did very well in the sat's and all went to the same-- and wrote for their rivals par oddee papers at their colleges. >> right. >> and the room was pop lated with a variety of relatively unathletic white men. >> rose: who loved sports. >> who did not love sports. and you would find, usually i would have one guy, did you see the giants game last night. >> yes, and then we would go back to the marvel universe. when you are in it, sometimes

the system that perpetuate different forms of either racism or patriarch or any of those things, you don't even realize you are in it when are you in it, right? and you certainly don't think of that of yourself. so an article came out that said they don't have any women writing for the show and on and on about that sort of thing. the-- and my first response to it was they don't understand, you know, there are women here threrks in power, this is not a sexist environment. i was raised by a single mother. i went through every little, who do they think. >> there were things in the article that i thought were like cheap shots and what do they do. and then i sat in the writer's room and looked around. i was like association. we're all just white dudes, like various forms of facial hair. i took that as diversity. what i looked at at the metrics of diversity in a writing staff, that guy say one line guy, he can write some great one-liners that guy thinks more in terms of

structure. that guy is a pretty good narrative guy. this guy is crazy. we're going to stay out of his way, but every three weeks will say something and we're going to go, that's great. that just fies your existence. >> right. >> so we had had a policy at the show that you don't put your name on your sub missions. we thought that is what made us progressive. but what we forgot was the system doesn't fun el you, women. it fun els you, the same people that had been fun elling for 20, 30 years it is a self-perpetuating system fsm i call a bunch of asians and go i'm look for writers, they're going to send me a hundred white male writers. now i am not going to look at their names because i don't want to be prejudice. but what you forget is change is effort. and it's not effort for effort's sake. it's effort because it makes the show better, stronger, different view points are what gave the

show strength. so what we had to say is by the way, thank you for saying those things. send me your women. get me those sub missions, please. the same with when we are adding correspondents. but you have to do that actively. and you deserve no credit for that. but it is, you have to, to a large extent inertia is passive in its complexity with the system. >> and by doing so you are ignoring half of the population. >> and you're not getting the best stuff. >> and this is something that i don't-- it was certainly not publicly known. jon in a variety of respects over the years felt the need, okay, i'm going to be out there talking about veterans. i'm going to make jokes. i should go to the va and actually talk to some veterans and see-- . >> rose: so what did you do, did you leave that aha! moment

in the writer's room. >> no, this is all-- . >> rose: you go in therend say look, i realize. >> everybody has blind spots and it is very hard to overcome your d that is what i had to face in myself which is you know, it's gut wrenching sometimes. >> rose: do you think because of all of this, and you found the right expression is the word i used earlier, that you can find something that is equally right for you again or do you just simply hit a homerun 24r? you found the perfect place for you. and it was 17 years of. >> yes. and i will never have that again. but i shouldn't. like it was a gift that was-- that i was fortunate enough to be graced with for all that time and to be in contact with all those ingred-- incredible people. but i don't expect to find that

again. but what i found is a more balanced existence that where i get-- there is a difference between satisfaction and joy. this gave me great satisfaction. and it gave me great confidence. but joy, joy, driving a couple of knuckle head kids home from school that i get to listen, joy. and you need to have that as well. and this was an obsession that i think to be able to do it as well as we did, to me felt like the only way that we could do it. but at a certain point you have to hang up your completes-- cleats and go i got out of this more than anybody, my cup runnette over. and it's time to feed that to someone else whose enthusiasm and vigor and intellectual curiosity will carry this forward. and evolve it in new ways. and

bring it to a place that it needs to be that i am incapable of doing. >> did you find that joy in making movies? >> work is work. you know, people say like oh, ti work in a bar. and i just heard a buses load of people came in looking for drinks. man i, i wish i was back there. >> rose: what is the most unusual insight from the book from all of these interviews, all the people that were part of the daily show family that you had the privilege to talk to and to get their sense of what was going on? >> i don't know that unusual so much as striking, that so many of the people working there were unaware is too strong. but didn't realize or didn't

take in how of the outside world was paying attention. because the grind is actually doing the show day in and day out and thetteos that jon set was, you know, we're not a run around saying we want won all these emmy awards, aren't we speaking truth to power. it was about showing up and doing the best show that day possible. sure, they knew people were paying attention. they knew, you know, they would go out totemmees and accept awards. but the ability to stay in the moment of the creation-- creation of the show to me was really kind of surprising. >> rose: do you accept this idea that because of the audience, even people who said it was their source of news. >> right. >> rose: as you know, were influenced by the daily show in terms of their curiosity, in terms of the mindset and that those young people especially are going out now doing things,

really interesting stuff and are influenced by you. >> right. as a teacher has an influence. >> if it is stimulated a curiosity for people to make arguments, you know, if it stimulated a curiosity for people to look at, to look behind the vail of what is seen publicly and try and deconstruct what they see on tferlings and what they see in political campaigns, i would consider that an incredible compliment to the show and to the legacy. >> rose: and do you-- to you. >> as-- my name was on it. but i would also caution anybody, like it did come from our perspective. and there were a lot of people out there who thought it was unfair. and you know one of the big things people say oh, when people push back to say i'm just a comedian. i never really said that. >> i can't claim to have seen and heard every utterance of

jones in 20 years, but i will vouch for that. he never said i'm just a comedian. he took responsibility in all kinds of ways for the point of view as well as the jokes. >> and the material. but i think it came from on crossfire, i'm on comedy central but the point of that is not to say this is comedy, it doesn't matter. e point of it is to say that the language of satire is different than the language of news and the language of media. that our weapons are hyperbole and satire and hard juxtapositions that are a ku dgeal when news media might use a scalpel. but that we stood by our argument and when our arguments were wrong, or if we thought, you know what, that was unfair and we did take that out of context, we had to own it. and apologize for that kind of thing. because that's not the intention.

the intention was not to prop gandize, the intention was to see if you could make the argument in a reall this conversation is that comedy and satire ain't easy, it's hard. and the pursuit of it is a daily demand and requires a process. >> i think what i have tried to come out of it is excellence is hard. and competent tense is hard and the pursuit of that is is that process and that whether it be satire or whether it be interviews or whether it be news is that you know, every artist that i have ever really admired and i del-of-into their process, it's always the same. it's always deconstructed, some what obsessive and intentional.

and i think you can translate thattetteos not just to satire but to any profession that people were going. and if your aim is to challenge yourself and be excellent and improve and truly try and you know, one of the things i hatedded about the movie reviews that i gt was that they came out after the movie. because would you read through it, and some of it you thought was unfair, every now and again would you hit something and go like gah, why didn't they tell me that before. you have to be able to handle and sin they size constructive criticism because that's what makes you better. all processes are drafteds. first draft, second draft, third draft, revision. and that's-- that's what i feel like. it's just a methodology that you can apply to anything that's done. that is why i have great admiration for people who excel at what they do. because i know what goes into it. nothing is an accident. >> rose: the book is the daily

show, the book, an oral history as told by jon stewart. the correspondents, staff and guests written by chris smith, forward by jon stewart. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

>> young composer, singer, and entertainer ethan bortnick celebrates the power of music. >> ♪ it's all about music... ♪ >> with special guests "glee's" damian mcginty... >> ♪ when you need a friend >> and grammy-nominated singer jane monheit. >> ♪ what about us [playing "minute waltz"] >> ♪ crocodile rocking is something shocking when your feet... ♪ >> join ethan in sharing with the world the power of music, next. >> ♪ we are the children >> the frankenmuth brewery, founded in 1862 and located in the heart of historic frankenmuth, michigan's little bavaria, serving families and making memories for over 150 years. [cheering and applause]