Vicente Fox on "The Daily Show": Something lost in translation

First, let's get over the fantasy that "The Daily Show" is not a news program. The nation's TV critics gave it a TCA award for news in 2004, and our decision was controversial then (Andy Heyward, then the head of CBS news, stormed out of the ceremony declaring, "You'll never see us pawning off fake news on the American public!" -- OK, I made up that quote, but he was PO'd at the TCA). But no one would care now. Not with Pew polls finding that more young Americans consider Jon Stewart their Charlie Gibson. Not when Frank Rich borrows Op-Ed ideas from Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Certainly the fact that Stewart invites authors of wonky books onto his show, and then conducts high-minded if amusing interviews with them is a sign that the "fake news" has evolved into a public affairs program for a new generation. And is treated as such by the press and public alike.

So that's why it's worth asking what the hell the "Daily Show" staff was thinking when they booked former Mexican president Vicente Fox for a kit-gloves book-tour interview. (Video above.)

Fox, making the rounds to promote his memoir, Revolution of Hope, was treated like a conquering hero (in large part, I'm guessing, because he's been so critical of President Bush). He opened with a joke about airport security, loosening up the crowd. Then Stewart got right to the heart of the matter: praising El Presidente. "You have spoke from the heart as a politician. That is not usual," he gushed in precise if not precisely grammatical English.

Fox accepted the compliment graciously. This went on for a bit, and then Stewart waded ever so briefly into agua caliente:

"Have they (other Mexican politicians) accused you of corruption, of taking money?"

"For six years," Fox said with a big smile. Stewart laughed and they both admired the softball as it sailed over the center field fence.

Fox then charmingly presented himself as the first Mexican president to make his financial records public, although given the lack of oversight there, his declaration basically amounted to "I made public the financial records I decided to make public." The crowd politely applauded and it was on to the next topic.

Don't get me wrong. The interview, like most "Daily Show" author talks, was sophisticated and well played — a rare thing on American commercial TV. Stewart and Fox covered such topics as 9/11, immigration, NAFTA and Latin American relations, albeit in about the time it would take Charlie Rose to clear his throat.

The interview got a little testy when Stewart mentioned Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Bolivian prexy Evo Morales, who'd been a guest on his show. Fox sniffed, "It's a pity for Venezualans and Bolivians, not being taught to fish but just given the fish." Stewart looked a little surprised by this, and pressed Fox further.

That's when Fox accused Morales of "corruption" and of spending taxpayer money that wasn't his to spend.

Stewart put on his dumb-guy face and said, "Wow, I'm going to have to ask him back, because I didn't ask him any of those questions!"

Hey Jon, while you're at it, put Vicente Fox on the ask-back list, and watch this video of Fox being interviewed by a Telemundo reporter recently. And then, as the old lady said in "When Harry Met Sally," have what that reporter's having.

The reporter, Rubén Luengas, produced papers that he said showed some properties held by former first lady Marta Sahugan de Fox. Seems quite a few people believe that Fox and family spent money that was not theirs on personal enrichment, and Fox has apparently denied that his wife owned what Luengas is saying she owned.

The point is, it was a confrontation, and Fox, who's obviously used to something like the Jon Stewart treatment everywhere he goes, became irritated, then insulting. It was a total stonewall. At one point when he thought the mic was off, Fox even called Luengas "vulgar."

Here is the original transcript and here, Michael Staudenmaier has taken a crack at an English translation.

I don't know the particulars of the case against Fox. But clearly it's not just his old political enemies in Mexico who have accused him of "ineptitude," "indifference" and "corruption" during his years in office. My point is this -- if someone from the Bush Administration had offered himself up to Stewart who'd been accused of such things, it would not have gone as well for that person as it did for Vicente Fox.

Stewart just signed a new deal; he's on cable till 2010 (when David Letterman's contract expires, many have pointed out). He is a force to be reckoned with, and he knows it. But he can't have it both ways. He can't be the thinking man's talk show host and then, when controversial guests are on, act like they're just another person with a Book of Consequence to peddle. He can't avoid asking them the hard questions, then have his friends on and ask them softball questions. Because you know what you have then?

Larry King's job.