Fun with Three-Part Interviews

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Heh, As’ad Abu Khalil has some highlights from the three-part, six-hour interview al-Arabiyya is doing with Egyptian president Husni Mubarak. (Hey, will all the other Egpytian candidates get a six-hour televised interview? Oh, hush. No need for such questions.) My favorite part:

And Adib [the al-Arabiyya host] is as sharp and penetrating an interviewer, and as challenging to people in power, as is…Larry King. One of his questions to Mubarak (I am not making this up): How do you reconcile between your firmness, strength, punctuality, and discipline, and between your good-heartness, civility, good-naturalness on the other hand? (“Experience”, answered Mubarak).

Now that’s hard-hitting! Why, it reminds me of one of my favorite sequences from George W. Bush’s own three-part interview with Bill O’Reilly last fall:

O’REILLY: Philosophically, let’s talk philosophically. Do you think you get a fair shake?

BUSH: Look I, that’s up for the people to decide that. You know, I — I just tell people what I think. And I try to be as clear as I can be. You know, when it’s all said and done, and people look at this campaign, they’re going to have to decide whether or not they want somebody who tells them what he believes and doesn’t change positions based upon pressure and polls or, or articles in newspapers.

O’REILLY: A guy over at “Newsweek,” Evan Thomas, one of the editors over there, said eighty percent of the elite media favors Kerry.

BUSH: Yeah.


O’REILLY: That doesn’t surprise you, does it?

Hm…. Ah, just kidding, of course. In fairness, looking over the O’Reilly interview, he was a lot more confrontational than the sycophantic Egyptian press. Or at least “quite a bit more” confrontational. Yes. I don’t know if Fox wants to use that as a tag line or anything, but they’re welcome to.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend