TV Interviewers who are embarrassing to watch

Seems like I read somewhere that Fallon is drunk most of the time.

 

Well, he got his mike cut permanently.

 

Many people seem to be under the impression that talk show hosts like Fallon, Corden etc are supposed to be “interviewing” their guests. Talk show hosts don’t interview people, they chat with them. It’s just supposed to be an entertaining conversation, not a probing examination. That was just as true of Johnny Carson... the show was intended to be light amusement for people on their way to bed.

 

That promo spot where ABC's David Muir asks the Pope, "What words do you have for America?" really grates on my nerves for some reason. The mute button is your friend.

 

Exactly and they are prepped ahead of time by staff as to what the topic of conservation might be (unless it's some sort of surprise) which is why, for example, when Madonna went on Letterman (or pick your guest who acted strange) he was baffled by their discussion.

 

Either way you want to define it, it's still embarrassing and cringe worthy to watch them. And this has a lot to do with their lack of conveying confidence in making the audience feel relaxed and to make them believe their sincerity and interest in their guests just like an old friend at a dinner table that clearly demonstrates a skill in the art of conversation. This requires a natural ability gained more from life experiences engaging with people and I didn't see that skill honed in any of both Fallon's SNL and movie performances and Cordon's British TV acting.

As the quote goes from top show biz folks like George Burns, Groucho Marx, etc... "The secret of success is sincerity. Fake that and you’re in." I'm not seeing this skill in those two.

They're skilled actors that should be able to lie in an engaging style that conveys an inner knowledge of the human condition that doesn't insult the audience's intelligence.

I still don't see why Fallon was pegged as a talk show host by NBC executives.

 

All these people mentioned may indeed be lousy or annoying at what they do but they have an audience who are apparently fine with them. Maybe it's the viewers who have lost their ability to appreciate thoughtful and insightful discourse? Then again, look at the celebrities they have on.

 

Doesn't really matter whether the subjects discussed are thoughtful or insightful. It's how they're discussed. There's got to be some natural flow and consistency in how guests and interviewers address any topic. Make up your mind!..

Do you want to party? Or do you want to talk about serious subjects? At least make it look natural.

 

I came here to post this. He was always on auto-pilot.

 

Charlie Rose, hands down probably the best at interviewing in a way that brings out new and interesting information out of a guest.

We all know what happened to him, unfortunately regarding the art of conversation and fortunately for women.

 

Being the geezer that I am I found most of the guest being interviewed on late night talk shows just as annoying as the halfwits interviewing them. At least I found that the case before I stopped watching.

 

disagree on cavett, he could be hit or miss (his interview with paul newman who never does press was a missed opportunity) but he could be very funny and take the interviews in unexpected directions and when he was on he was one of the best (and great guests)

 

Charlie Rose was a fantastic interviewer on his PBS show. I never saw him on the morning show he hosted before leaving.

 

I cannot think of his name. There was a cringe worthy George Harrison interview on VH-1 a few years before his death. I believe George was there to support Ravi Shankar's new album or something and the whole interview turned to George.

 

John Fugelsang?

 

can't find any that aren't these days...

 

is this online anywhere?

 

John Fugelsang, and this did turn out to be George Harrison’ last television interview and performance.

 

That was the Dick Cavett Show. I recorded this interview of the air in Nov. of '71 with a cassette recorder and had it for many years.
He was on the show for the full :90m, along with Ravi for a short period. George's real intention was to promote the Ravi Shankar album "Raga", (he even brought a copy onto the set with him). At no time did Dick Cavett ever let George really get started talking about that particular album. They spent a fair amount of time going over the Bangladesh concert, (even showing a couple of clips), talked a bit about Beatles, Monty Python, and current affairs, amongst other topics. Now you could interpret Dick's reluctance to talking about Ravi's album two ways: he being a lousy interviewer who didn't let the guest talk about what he wanted to talk about, or, he was a savvy interviewer who figured that the viewers would rather hear about the topics mentioned rather that Ravi's latest album. You be the judge.

ps. There was an excerpt of this interview shown on VH-1 at some point.

 

Ahh yes, this one. John Fugelang was embarrassing to say the least on this one.

 

just god damn awful! what was the network thinking?

 

Ratings that would bring in a certain segment of the audience already sympathetic to her, buying the time for the current audience to get comfortable with her. Thus far, neigher has happened, or at least in the order they'd hoped.

 

Chris Cuomo can get on my nerves pretty quick. If he's interviewing someone he doesn't like or agree with, he won't let them get a word in. I'm not quite sure why anyone would agree to be interviewed by him.