Here's what's the most amazing thing about this interview. I have not thrown up once while we've been doing this. And I believe that maybe the longest and 24 hours that I have not. You, my friend, are like ginger root. You are the ginger root of interviewers. There was, in fact, no barfing, not at all. That and even bigger, better surprises ahead. Stay with us. There's a lot of people on the right who have made this decision that they'll only talk to media who agrees with them. That's their greatest triumph. Yeah. And that's new. They were only, I think they're only able to do that now because the conservative media is big enough that they can still use it to get their voice out. You know, I don't think that's a new concept. And I don't think that's a Republican or right-wing concept. I think they've executed it pretty well. I'd say Bill Clinton was pretty good at deligitimizing. The great thing that they've done, I think the brilliance of Fox is, they've deligitimized the idea of editorial authority while exercising incredible editorial authority, which is amazing. And they also have the game that they're all out to get us. So any criticism of them can be filtered through the idea that it's persecution. This isn't criticism, it's persecution. And that's a tough distinction to make. But nobody likes to be criticized. People that I like and respect go, you know, that rally was useless. It did nothing. And in fact, you're crazy or wrong. But I understand that I put something out there. I made something and people should have a chance to go, this is what I thought it was. I just want to make sure that I'm clear about what I thought it was. Not what I thought it was, what it was because I made it. But then what do you do with the noise? Like what do you do with second-minute remedies with the Korean burning pastor with the, you know, the terror babies? And Louie, I mean, if you don't cover it, it doesn't go away. How did Fox delegitimize media by just relentlessly? I think biased. That's right. And so the answer to that is, well, why don't we form just a more ideological network? That's fighting fire with fire to some extent. I don't know that that was the answer, though. I mean, I don't think that we... Do you think MSNBC has changed over the last five years? You know, there is a genetic linkage between Keith... Keith was the first, and it was a voice like in the wilderness. People were like, what? Oh my God, you can say that, you know. And then you came on and, and Ed, and again, now I'm talking about climate as opposed to weather. But it does create a linkage that I think it would be hard for you to say, like, geez, I don't know if we're really doing that. Well, no, I think what happens, I think the media, having been derided for so long as being liberal and biased and being very afraid of that charge, when Keith spoke out the way he did, he essentially came out of the closet as a liberal, and it didn't... Nothing bad happened. It was okay. He still knew his audience, if anything. And so I think it gave network executives some courage to say, okay, people who are liberals can be on TV as long as they call themselves liberals. I think that... And then the network executives work on courage is... I think what they did is they went, why is Fox News kicking our asses? We need to fight this with a similar or sensational. You know, this is an arms race. But you know, it's not... I mean, being here and here, talk having those conversations that never happens. What happens is, look, Keith's making money. How can we do more of that? I mean, that's more the conversation than... That's what I just said. But no, you said that Fox is beating us. How can we be more like Fox? Well, no, no, no. How do we... Keith is making money and it seems like... I don't think you can separate the atmosphere of Fox and think that network executives don't look at. Nothing succeeds like excess or whatever it said. Nothing exceeds like excess. You know, if that was a measured network and a measured tone, I don't think you would see people raising the bar on graphics and all those other things. People are fighting. The problem with 24-hour news cycle is it's built for a very particular thing, 9-11. Other than that, there really isn't 24 hours of stuff to talk about in the same way. Now, the problem is, how do you keep people watching it? Oh, Jay's not going to kill someone every day. So, that's gone. So, what do you have to do? You have to elevate the passion of everything else that happens that might even be somewhat mundane and elevate it to the extent that this is breaking news. This is developing news. This is breaking developing news. The aggregate effect of that is that you begin to lose the lexicon. You begin to lose any meaning of what breaking news means or urgent or look at this or dangerous. That was our montage at the end. It wasn't saying this is crazy. Just pipe, pipe, pipe, pipe, pipe. Right. It was the language then has to become sharper, louder, to cut through more and more of the noise. And what I'm saying is, maybe there is a way to not engage in the idea, not to accept the premise. There is a premise out there. The premise is we are all on this kind of axis of left-right. Maybe there's a different premise. And I don't mean that in the way of partisanship. I mean it in the way of they cover politics. Politics is a democratic and republican game. It is left and right. I think the conflict that would be more appropriate to a news channel to be corruption and non-corruption. And that I don't mean corruption necessarily in the classic sense of this man has $90,000 in his refrigerator. We should really check that out. He's a congressman. That too. It's sort of like the, you know, one of my favorite things. Anderson Cooper does. Yeah, I think he does a really nice job. He's fun to watch. And you as well. And I like on an individual basis a lot of this stuff. Again, I watch way too much. I really do. And that is in itself corrupting. But he's got a bit on a show that I love called Keep in a Monest. Yeah. Which is just so funny to me because isn't that this context of it be like me introducing? I've got a new segment called Telling Jokes to an audience. It just felt, you know, whenever you hear that, you're like, isn't that what this whole thing is? Well, that's only true though if you accept the premise that you're criticizing. Which is that the thing to do to attract an audience is to point out conflict, to point out hypocrisy, to point out things that are on. I think the thing to do, if you are going to add an ingredient to news, and everyone seems to, there is news. News exists. Yeah. The nightly news, those things, that does exist. If you're adding an ingredient, and I think if you're going to be on the air for 24 hours, you're going to need some ingredients. None of us are on for 24 hours solid. We're all of the piece of it. Yeah. You know, even on the weekends, really, do I have to see another guy, another guy's brains on MSNBC in a lockdown cell? Yes, you do. But do you know what I'm saying? You have to fill it with other ingredients. So maybe the ingredients would be that not to necessarily just amplify that one aspect of the battle. I do think there's a difference between having a point of view and being a partisan. I agree with that. I mean, I am a liberal. It doesn't mean that I think of Democrats as being on my team. But the cops are not partisan either. They're really not. But they never criticize George W. Bush for anything, even when he was doing things that were sort of not conservative. They never criticized him. But they're not, but that's, they are ideological, but they're not, I don't know that they're partisan. It certainly falls under the rubric of partisanship, but it's not, there's a lot of Republicans that can't get on board. That they won't shine their light on. They pick between Republicans, see me. I think that's right. Will they ever pick a Democrat? I think they would. Yeah. I think Lieberman would be a guy that they would pick. They would pick a guy that they felt gave them credit. Everybody picks people to give themselves cover. You always like the most valuable person in the world is a turncoat. Because he's the guy that can come on and you can go, this guy was a Democrat. This guy was a Democrat. Now he's sitting here saying, you're right. Right. Obama is nuts. What I'm saying is not so much that the distinctions don't exist. Is that they have been so blown. You talked about proportionality. Yeah. It's surprising to see somebody, you know, again, this is the unfair criticism because you're one person. But proportionality is not the strong suit of the 24 hour news networks. Right. I always wonder, I think to myself, how would they handle the moon landing? Because could they give it more coverage than they gave balloon boy? Because balloon boy was kind of everywhere. So what would they do? What would their font size be? Right. The New York Times has a font size. The differences, newspapers and blogs are an active process. You have to look at them. They can make editorial judgment. But you are an active participant in it. You pick where you want to go and where you want to read and how you want to do it. Right. The TV tells you it's a passive experience. Yeah. Our top story. You know what's always great, a great exercise. Look at the difference between the top story and cable news and top story and the newspapers. You'd have thought Juan Williams killed people. Right. It was everywhere. And what it was, the reason why it was everywhere is because it fell so beautifully into the narrative of left and right. Liberal conservative. It felt perfectly into the only fight that they seemed to feel matters. And all I'm saying is that is in many ways a fun house mirror of what actually really matters. I went into this interview today with John Stewart with a handful of questions about the media. And then I was going to say, so John, are you sick of talking about the media? You are? Me too. Let's talk Pakistan. But there was no getting sick of talking about the media. So there was no Pakistan. But there wasn't unexpected diversion into trying to understand George W. Bush. On waterboarding. Yeah. Bush in his book says he didn't say he didn't say that. Oh my god, what happens to me now?