>> rose: welcome to the program. it is the end of summer, as we prepare for the next season we bring you some of our favorite kferlingses here on charlie rose. tonight author chris smith and jon stewart talk about the daily show. >> any artistic pursuit for whatever affect it has on its audience or things like that, it is a relatively selfish pursuit, a cath ar sis for the individual. and it's a way to express ideas, and get them out and feel the is he ksh-- the is he duksz 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 is taken. and i think this election could be a great lesson in that controlling the culture is not the same thing as power. >> the daily show for the hour next. >> funding for charlie rose is

provided by the following. >> bank of america, life better connected. >> 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 ste the-- countries smith, jon stewart, thank you for doing this. >> thank you for having us. >> this is the daily show, an oral history, why an oral history. >> yeah, chris. >> rose: yeah, come on. >> why. >> well, the title, you know, if i did it, was taken.

so we had to go with an oral history. because it's an oral history. >> 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. certainly stephen colbert has done interviews, samantha bee has done interviews but the actual process, the making of the show, that wasn't something that was exactly kept secretary represent but-- secret because it was kept close because jon and everybody else was so focused on those four days a weekment 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 lived it. >> rose: so you have to go to jon, to everybody else and say would you do this, will you cooperate. instant for you you said yes, let's do it. >> i have known chris for a very

long time and 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 in other places it always felt invested, but not, you know, purposefully per jor tiff t was really well done. and i thought we were so involved over those 16 years. and people have always said, what was it like, man, what was your favorite part. and i was like, i don't know. >> rose: so you learned something about. >> absolutely. >> rose: the perspective of the guy that were you with, the men and women who made up the daily show. >> absolutely. and 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 is-- there are two separate things it is 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 decent 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: yearly. >> you had to try and keep your own morality and integrity as the beacon for where you wanted the material to go. >> was your instinct almost always right about what would be

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. and other things where you would do a joke and there would be a pundit would come up with a shoulder and the crowd would go a little bananas and would you stop and just kind of look at them, really? cuz we didn't think that that cass -- -- we sent the well day of the kraing this beautiful comedic essay but you liked the pun on the double o seven, 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 a reached as host, craig killborn was the host for close to three years.

and they laid a really good foundation in some ways. the mock correspondents, the sat ire of news, the tone and the focus was very different. it was much more of a par oddsy of local newscasts in a way. there could be a mean spiritedness to some of the material. they were much more interested in celebrity and hollywood and showbiz stuff. >> than political people. >> exactly. and it punched down at times in a way that could be funny but was kind of ephemeral. and one of the things that was interesting in talking to jon, talking to other folks there at the time when he came in in 1999 is he knew 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. >> you said i just wanted to last nine months. >> yeah, he wanted to get-- i've

been fired enough. that was my general goal. >> do you know why you were successful 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 perhaps i didn't necessarily know that at the time but beyond that, cable is a very different animal, especially during that time, the network is. so it has a different level of pressures. and a different level of performance. you are able to use it as the 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. >> they've got two revenue streams. >> yeah. and so 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 in. but. >> but you were running the show too. you were there in the trenches. >> i wouldn't refer to them. >> if you have a crash services table, generally that is not trenches. >> there were occurring things 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 was 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: more than a show. >> yeah, and jon started to touch on this too. it's easy to forget in 2016 what the media world looked like in 1996, 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, a presidential election. >> food came in frozeen dishes and you had to heat it by hand. it was a different time, i say. >> rose: we just went through an election. >> what? >> rose: yes. your reaction to this election? >> surprised. >> rose: fear. >> it all ties together. well, fear, you know, here's what i would-- honestly say. i don't 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

resill consequence, 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 is just another extension of the long argument that we've 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-- ethnostate, and that argument has existed 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, lack, the people on our money had slaves. the people we honor had slaifers. 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 came from a slave-owning state. >> right. so the argument between rural and urban, between the ideals of inalienable rights and slavery, we've had the same argument over and over again. at times it's been more volatile. at times more violent but it's never been easy. and fighting for this, i don't see this as some form of end point. it's a continuation of a long battle to determine what we are. and i think it made me wonder, you know, one of the things that i think 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-- what are his-- . >> rose: he wants to make america great again. nobody said to him well, what is it that makes america tbreat. >> correct. >> rose: what is it that you want to do that we aren't doing now. >> what are the metrics. >> because it seems like from listening to him, the metrics are that it is a competition. and that it is 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. nobody, there are a lot of people. and i think his candidacy has animated that thought, that a multiethnic democracy, a multicultural democracy is impossible. and that is what america by its founding and constitutionally

is. like every other state. >> rose: and it's becoming more and more year by year. >> correct. some people were worried it meant different things for them and that their life was changing because of that. and there was a certain fear. >> oh, i think no question. the insecurities that people feel in, as marginalized population are also felt, you know, a rust belt worker that lost his job in manufacturing feels an insecurity that, you know, you can say to them. but look at all the terrible things that he says. and they might 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 don't think it was her door to open. i think-- you're talking about a global issue. globalization and the pushback of that, now in ed no states it sort of makes more sense that we

have an ethnic identity. but when you live in a state that is an ideal, well then what's is the bar ven entry, the 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 battle that 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-- . >> rose: and whether we have gone off track in some way. >> absolutely. you know, i think 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 is like have you listened to the nixon tapes? like forget about advertising

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 numerous 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 it's-- 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 progressive president maybe in our history, it is roosevelt. franklin del a nor roosevelt who also in turn, asian americans during world-- world war ii. 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's a rally, the wisdom of crowds is never particularly moderate. but to see lock her up and shouting at the media and 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 shall-- 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've gone on too long. you know, charlie, i haven't had anybody to talk to so it's a little-- . >> rose: you've come to the right place. >> all right, i appreciate it. >> rose: did you miss during the campaign. >> god, no. >> rose: not for a second. >> no. >> rose: you didn't want to be there. >> no. >> rose: and being able to do what you just did, tell us what you thought both with satire and comedy and with reason. >> no, not at. >> rose: not at all? >> no. because impotent rage wears on

you. >> rose: meaning that you could be full of rage but it wouldn't make any difference? >> correct. >> rose: like show. >> generally almost any pursuit like this is a-- 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 it's a way to express ideas. and get them out, and feel the is he duction of it is it's going to score or it's not going to score. that's the hit. that's 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 that

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 banging around 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 execute public affairs comedy that means something to me. if i'm going to spend this much time, i had hosted talk shows am i did one on m tv and i did one on like 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 have 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, if i'm 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. >> you go down doing it my way. >> that's right, i'm going to go down the way i feel like i'm 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-- . >> rose: 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 action. i-- traction. i can be confirmed in my belief

that what i was rolling the dice on has come up a winner. >> no. >> rose: 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. >> i would say, you talked to a bunch of people. i would say that it was-- it was never about, like, it was more that would we be able to definitely a process to do that well and you know, it's the inherent juxtaposition of the creative pursuit which is he can we build a machine that is redundant enough and rigid enough that it can sustain inspiration, improve vacation and creativity. >> rose: and five days a week. >> exactly. >> rose: when did that happen, the process kick in that you knew. >> here's my problem, that wasn't my-- that wasn't my concern. >> rose: yeah. >> the process-- . >> rose: when did that happen? >> november 3-- no, no.

well, it really took shape through the 2,000 campaign and the recount, the day to day process. like jon says, the technology eventually caught up with what the daily show was doing. they pioneered it in some ways. not just the form but the assembly of these kinds of montages. what was equally important was not simply the process of okay, we're halving a meeting at 9:00 and we need these clips. 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 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 am one had very mainstream press. >> the other had a nicer-- was air conditioned, had a bathroom. and they go to cindy mccain and cindy mccain is appalled at the rollover bus conditions and says okay, come on, the pain 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 john shifted field pieces away from in his phrase abject crueltiy to cruel point of view. and they, carrell 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 world-class talent. >> if you ask this question and he says x, here is how you respond. >> rose: right. >> the deficit in this is one of many deficits. is you have world-class improvisers working with

civilians who don't know they're in an improv. >> rose: you are doing a scene with someone who doesn't know are you doing it. >> i got it. >> so they deal of all these questions of what they will ask mccain and moses are softball like what kind of tree would be-- you be. and what became famous at the end of that piece, and a turning point in the development of the show was carrell askeds mccain, senator, you have been a strie dent opponent of pork barrel spending. how you can justify when you are the 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 carrell 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 carrell had not remembered it until i talked to him, they-- mckinney and carrell found that question in time magazine driving over to the shoot. >> rose: right.

>> and that kind of structure and last minute improvisatory genius was something jon created that held throughout the run of the show. >> but it also brings up an interesting, which is the kruks of the-- crux of the daily show par a docks which is in that moment, you hold to account a senator whose ep tire identity is based on a hypocritical behavior. i am against this type of pork barrel politics unless it's-- right? >> rose: unless it benefits the good people of arizona. >> we nailed you, and 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 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 construction of your-- crux of your identity as a politician and expose it for everybody to see and then i have to make a joke about it and walk away. and you're going to laugh and it will humanize you. one of the deficits of this is sat ire 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 warranted. and once that started to happen, i think you began to question if it is a good thing or a bad thing. and i know it's not a black and white issue. but controlling the culture is,

and for as much funs alike we can make it the tea party, like while we were up there passing around viral videos of eviscerations, they were off a highway taking over a school board. and we just had an election where the democrats won the popular vote 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 governorships they don't control state legislatures. this may be the largest disconnect between majority rule and majority power that we've had in this country in ages. and i'm in no way saying like and we're responsible. >> and i'm responsible but what i am saying is there is a comfort in culture that can be mistaken for real power. there are only two towns in the world that i have ever been in that i thought were delusional. one was washington d.c. but 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 is where it is, man. and the irony of this election. >> rose: dc they have power. >> they have power. >> rose: la they just believe they have power. >> that's correct. >> rose: but the same arrogance exists. are you saying that whatever we have seen about culture and the influence you had on the culture, in the end it is not political power and in the end it's not. >> correct. and in the end it is not real cultural influence either. it's a story we tell ourselves about the rightness of our position. but it is argument. and it is not without weight but it is not with so much weight. it's-- 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 that in a mall ef lent way. i mean that in i have no experience with thisment i done know what that is. so exposure to that can be positive. although generally in an entertainment sense the exposure is shall-- . >> rose: do you think people came as guests. >> yes. >> rose: because they a wanted the numbers 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, yeah, he-- . >> to that point, i mean chris wallace is 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 the ticket to that club, that's power.

>> to a-- it's power in a way that a bouncer has power. i was a bouncer, you are absolutely right. i was a bouncer at a club that did pretty well. but i got to 2e8 you, drive down 14th street, by second avenue, pal addium ain't there any more. >> rose: no studio 54. >> it is a condo now. >> when i came over i walked past fox news world headquarters and there is a marching band, dancing girls, free jello shots. apparently they won. but. >> 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 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,.

>> or fair and balanced. >> which maybe 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 healthy vitamins for children. like it's completely not that. fox news is reactionary in a way that 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 hidern. >> rose: okay, but did you see what you were doing is simply offering an alternative to what fox is saying because. >> no. >> rose: okay g ahead. >> we saw it as a, so the headline for it on huffington post would be stewart 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 licked your chops when you saw hypocrisy like you hadn't seen before. if you thought it was hypocritical that would be the point where you would just say. >> it was animated by viseral feeling, no question. yeah, because that's the stuff that-- this show is basically just, if you imagine in general and i hate 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 satirical expression of me sitting in my underwear yelling at the television. and now i get to just go back to doing that. >> except now i'm surrounded by farm animals with thrns is a point 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 reasons the feel good foundation. >> right. they walk us through what jon and others did to get the pem nent extension of the bill a little while back. and jon at one point-- . >> we can debate influence and power. there were points where the daily show had real world impact. and jon does not get up and raise his hand and say i did that. but you know, there are a lot ok said in some ways the we date for zedroga 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 isn't this-- isn't this happening. and i think. >> if is a common sense argument. >> yeah, 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, to minimum wage. all sorts of things over the years. >> cat in ance yes. and at one point there is a former correspondent named dan boxadol who wasn't on the show for a long period of time and in some ways had a very unhappy experience there. but in some ways people who had and happy experiences think deeper about what worked and what didn't. and boxadoll 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 that jon and the daily show defined. i think that's 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 curse. >> yeah. >> there were a lot of people in this campaign without walled bull [bleep], and you know, the, annotating lies, 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 kint to filtering through the media culture. >> but you have to meet force with force. around the daily show is, what i would say we are, and again, i'm not saying this to den grate

what we did. i'm so incredibly proud of, this was the best iteration of for me what i could do with sat ire and-- sat ire and we prosecuted it to its fullest extent as far as i was concerned, as far as my brain could go one of the reasons i left is i was just going to be re-- redundant and going back and forth with the same thing. i'm going to really do a terrible analogy. but we were patrick swaizie 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 focused 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. >> you want to talk about the

pottery scene now? >> but do you understand what i am saying. >> yes. >> we're impotently raging the scene, zedroga was ten years of back-breaking labor by john feel and these 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 heroes 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 star and went bing, and got way more credit for it than was deserved. they deserve that. and continue to. and the ultimate irony of this

election is the cynical strategy of the republicans, which is our position is government doesn't work. we're going to make sure that it doesn't work, but they're not draining the swamp, mcconnell 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 is not a republican. he is a repudiation of republicans. but 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 suddensly realize that you know what, government authority, it is actually not tyranny when we've won it. it's actually authority. and it's consent to the people. and you know what, if you want an infrastructure project, let me give that you and tax cuts.

and let's see how far we can take that. and that's the irony of it. >> rose: when we began this conversation you were arguing that this country has had a long and tortured history of dealing in back and forth on these debates. >> no, not on that debate, on race. that is a different debate. >> rose: just on race. >> 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 like with immigration. >> rose: men. >> white anglo saxon protestant men. 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 for women, she is a hero. people vote for hillary they were putting stickers on her grave but she was also steeped in racism. 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 is-- those are the inherent contradictions. does that neglect ate 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, hire arj-- hierarchy of needs and not they gate people for the worst statement that they ever did, or in-- in the liberal community you hate this idea of creating people as a mono lith, don't look at muslims as a monolith, this reindividuals and it would be ignorance. but but everybody for voted for trump is a monolith, is a racist, that is again like, that hypocrisy is also real in our country. and so this is the fight that we wage gengs ourselves and each other because america is not natural. natural is tribal. we're fighting against thousands

of years of human behavior in history to create something that no one has ever-- that's what is exceptional about america and that's what, like this ain't easy. it's an incredible thing. >> and one of the things i hope the book does isity straight that in some small way. jon and the show made over the course of the years as the show he solved a very determineed 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 senac, an african-american. >> i remember. >> and we go into some detail about how and why that happened. and i think it is 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, in creative environments. and a fascinating total coincidence when this wyatt cenac story broke publicly, tanahasee coates happened to be jon's guest, friend of i would ad cenac, wasn't aware of any of this back story. i interviewed coats 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 as good intentioned and

progressive in every way. >> rose: to create diversity there. >> yes, when are you faced with that type of criticism, your first response is generally definsiveness. 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-- just very, very witty and people who did very well in the sat's and all went to the same-- and wrote for their rivals, parody 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 you see the gientds game last night, yes. and then we would go back to the

marvel universe. when you are in it, sometimes the systems that perpetuate different forms of either racism or pait arc 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 yourself. so an article came out that said they don't have any women writing for the show, and hon and on about that sorlt of thing. the, and my first response to it was they don't understand, you know, there are women here, they are empowered. this is not a sexist environment, i was raised by a single mother. i went through every little, you know who do they think. and there were things in the article that i thought were cheap shots. what are they-- and then i sat in the writers room and i looked around and i was like oh. we're all just white dudes. like various forms of like facial hair, like i took that as diversity. what i looked at as the metrics

of diversity in the writing staff, that guy is a one line guy, can great wreat one-liners that lie thinks in structure, that guy say pretty good narrative guy, this guy is crazy. we're going to stay out of his way. >> every three weeks will say something an we're going to go that's great. that justifies your existence. >> right. >> so we had had a policy at the show that you don't put your name on your sub mission. we thought that is what made us prg ressive. but what we forgot was the system doesn't fun el you, women, it fun els you the same people it had been fun elling for 20, 30 years it is a self-perpetuating system if i call a bunch of agents and go i'm looking for writers, they're going to send me a hundred white male writers. now i'm not going to look at their names because i don't want to be prejudiced. but what you forget is change is effort. and it's not effort for effort's

sake it is 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're 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 ta sit in its complexity with the system. >> by doing so you are ignoring half of the population. >> and you're not getting the best stuff. >> right. >> and this is something 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 veterans. >> rose: so what did you do. did you lead that aha! moment in

the writers room? >> no, this is all-- . >> rose: did you change it and go in and say look, i realize. >> everybody has blind spots. and it is very hard to overcome your own ignorance. and that's what i had to face in myself. which is you know, it's governing sometimes. >> you do you think because of all of this, and you found the right expression is a word i used earlier, that you can find something that is equally z right for you again, or are you just simply hit a homerun there. you found the perfect place for you and it was 17 years of yes. >> and i'll 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 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, 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 fement like the only way that we could do it. but at a certain point you have to hang up your cleats and go i got out of this more than anybody my cup runnette over. and it's time to see 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. >> rose: did you find that joy in making movies? >> work is work. you know, people say like oh, when are you not working, man, when something happens and are you not at work, do you think like oh, i wish i was at work. and i am like, has that ever happened to you in your life. where are you not at work and you think to yourself oh, wow, i just heard there was a-- i work in a bar and i heard a bus load of people came in for drinks man i wish i was back there. >> rose: what is the most insightful thing in the book from all these interviews people the people part of the daily show family that you had a privilege to talk to and to get their sense of what was going on? >> i don't know that it is 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 much the outside world was paying attention. because the grind is actually doing the show day in and day out and thetteos, ethos that john said, running around saying we 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 of the show to me was really kind of surprising. >> you do accept this idea that because of the audience, even people who said it was their source of news as you know were

influenced by the daily show in terms of their curiosity and mindset and that those yung people especially are going out now and doing things, really interesting stuff. and have been influenced by you. >> right. >> as a teacher. >> if it stimulated a curiosity for people to make arguments, you know, if it stim heated 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 television and what she see in political campaigns, i would consider that an incredible compliment to the show and to the legacy. >> and do you reasons as my name was on it, but i would also caution anybody that it did kosm from our perspective. and there were a lot of people out there, who thought it was unfair. and you know one of the big thins, people say oh when people push back you say i'm just a

comedian. i never really said that. >> i can't claim to see and hear every utterance of jones in 20 years but he-- i will vouch for that. he never said i'm just a comedian. he took responsibility in all kinds of ways forp the point of view as well as the jokes. >> and the material. you about i think it came from on crossfire, i'm on comedy central. but the point of that is not to say this is comedy t doesn't matter. the 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 juxtaposition that are a k udgel when the news mdia might use a scalpel. but that we stood by our arguments. and when our arguments were wrong or if we thoit you know what, that was unfair and we did take that out of condition text, 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 your argument in a really interesting and smart way that was funny but that was also like as unassailable as it could be on the facts. >> what do you come away from from the book and this conversation is that km de and saffire ain't easy. it's hard. and the pursuit of it is a daily demand and requires a process. >> i think what i try to come out of it is excellence is hard. and competent tense is hard and the pursuit of that is that process. and that weather it be saffire or-- 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 delve 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-- ethoss not just as satire but any profession people are going. and if your aim is to challenge yourself and be excellent and improve and truly try and, one of the things i hated about the movie reviews that i got was that they came out after the ofie. because you would read through it. some of that you thot was unfair but you would hit something and go why didn't you 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 drafts, first draft, second draft, third draft revision. and that's what i feel like. it's just a methodology that you can apply to anything that is 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 disebt. >> the book is the daily show the book an oral history as told by jon stewart, the correspondents, stafer 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.

[ bells plplay tune ] [ theme music plays ] -♪ i think i'm home ♪ i think i'm home ♪ how nice to look at you again ♪ ♪ along the road ♪ along the road ♪ anytime you want me ♪ you can find me looking right between your eyes, yeah ♪ ♪ oh, i think i'm home ♪ oh, i think i'm home -today on "cook's country," julia and bridget make show-stopping cider-braised pork roast, jack challenges bridget to a tasting of sauerkraut,