On with Kara Swisher - Isaac Chotiner on Confrontation, Curiosity, and Being the 'Interview Assassin'

Episode Date: January 5, 2026

As the principal contributor to The New Yorker’s “Q&A” interview series, Isaac Chotiner has earned a reputation as “the interview assassin.” His persistent questioning has made for some awkward — and revealing — conversations with high-profile guests over the years, but Chotiner also rejects the caricature of the “gotcha journalist” that’s often applied to him. Kara and Isaac talk about his interviewing style, how he prepares for difficult conversations, and his recent viral Q&As with the legal scholar Cass Sunstein and former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. They also talk about some of the stories that are likely to dominate headlines in 2026. Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm more explicit than you are. I'm like, what you're doing here is this, and you look like an idiot. And I actually say you look like an idiot. And it tends to work, especially with men. You can try it here if you want. No, that's okay. You're not. I don't need to.

I would if I had to. It's on. Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Isaac Chautner. He's a staff writer for the New Yorker and a principal contributor to the magazine's Q&A series. Chotner is famous for his intense and sometimes relentless ways of questioning his guests. Last year, he went viral for contentious conversations with former White House press secretary,

Corrine Jean-Pierre, and legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Chotner also isn't afraid to call out other journalists when he thinks they're reporting lacks substance, something I completely endorse. I like what Isaac is doing, and one of the things I'm going to do this year is focus on people whose work I like. And of course, since we do interviews all year long, I want to talk to someone who I think is one of the better interviewers these days, in fact, one of the best. He's doing a lot of things that other people aren't, which is sort of celebrating his own idiosyncratic style, and also really drilling down and getting real answers out of people, something I try to do and not always successful at doing, and he often, often is.

Let's get to my conversation with Isaac Chotner. Our expert question comes from Anna Sale, host of the Slate podcast, Death, Sex, and Money, also an amazing interviewer. Don't Go Anywhere. Isaac, thanks for coming on. Pleasure to be here. Do you know why you're here? No.

Because you're one of my favorite interviewers, and I interview for a living, and I've decided to please myself in 2026. Well, it's very nice of you to say. Yeah, so I want to talk a little bit about your craft and a bunch of things. And one of the things I was at dinner last night with a lot of people, and they are also fans of yours, but they don't know anything about you at all, which is really interesting. And, of course, I'm like a promiscuous blabber about myself and my family and everything. So I want to talk a little bit about that, but let's talk about the craft itself first. You have a reputation for getting powerful people to tie themselves into verbal and intellectual knots on the record. It's earned you a pretty intimidating nickname, The Interview, Assassin.

I don't know. Are you amused by that characterization, or does it miss something about your approach? You know, it's fine, I guess. I try not to do the majority of my interviews, that type of interview. which tends to kind of be the ones that go, you know, more viral on Twitter or whatever else. But, you know, it's nice that people are reading and enjoying the work, I guess. Do you think about it when you're doing it or do you feel like you have to live up to that or not at all? No, no, not so much. I, you know, I guess maybe I kind of have an aggressive style in terms of asking questions, but, you know, it's just sort of the way I do interviews, I guess.

So I don't think about it consciously too much. Do you think it's because most people do interviews and not in that way? or that are too soft, I think that's the case. Well, you know, there's certainly a lot of interviews that are too soft, but I think that there are different ways of doing interviews that are hard hitting or whatever else. You know, I think one advantage that I have is that I get to do a lot of interviews over the phone. I do some in person, and I do some with video over Zoom, but a lot of them are phone interviews where I'm just talking to the person, I'm not seeing their face.

And for me, that's much easier to do an interview that can be confrontational or, you know. It's like the old joke about how it's easier to, you know, break up with your spouse over the phone or whatever else. It's easier to, uh, it's easier to have a confrontational interview. So I, I think for, for those types of interviews, I'm fortunate to be able to do them over the phone. And what do you pick that as I think is, as I think, as I think of, I think of interviews as being kind of one of two categories. This is obviously very broad. The first is you're interested in the person you're talking to and the second is you're interested in their expertise. And, you know, if a news event happens and I'm interviewing someone about, you know, a coup in Turkey or something, usually the person I will interview, it's not that people are interested in what this historian of Turkey, what their personal life is like or what their office looks like. They're interested in the news they have to offer, the analysis they have to offer. And then there are interviews where you're talking to Jonathan Franzen or Zadie Smith or whoever else. And I think people then are more interested in kind of a little bit of scene, a little bit of, you know, what this person was. like, where you met, so on and so forth. So I tend to think of the interviews in one of those two

ways. And do you choose who interview? How much input and how does that happen? Talk a little better at the process. Yeah, you know, I talk to my editor, who's a wonderful editor named Micah at the New Yorker, and he and I talk about it. I get, you know, I get ideas from my boss, from other editors at the magazine, from colleagues. I'm always asking people, my friends, you know, who would be an interesting person to talk to, what's a subject matter I should be looking into. Yeah, it strikes you're fancy because some of them are off the beaten track. Some of them are people that are in the news, essentially. You know, it's some combination of what's in the news, things that personally interest me. I think if you read my interviews, you'd get some

sense of subjects that I'm particularly interested in. And then, you know, just things that seem interesting to me that someone brings to my attention and, you know, it's the way I get a lot of stuff. Let's talk a little bit about your influences in the genre. You mentioned David Marquesi. I like him very much of the New York Times as someone whose work you like. Yeah, very much. I would say Tom Snyder, I know it sounds crazy from way back when. You don't know who that. Maybe you do. Of course, he was after Letterman. I used to watch his show all the time, yeah.

Yeah, back in that was sort of the early days when I was a kid. I know it sounds crazy, but I always enjoyed Barbara Walters. There's all kinds of people, like different things that they did that made me laugh. Obviously, Dick Cavett was a big influence on me because I'm old. Who do you look up to? That's a really good question. You know, Tom Snyder's an interesting one. I hadn't thought about him, but he would have these absolutely fascinating

interviews. One person who I think is actually an incredible interviewer, and I've thought about trying to not mimic, because that's, for obvious reasons, is Howard Stern, who has an ability to get things from his guests that I don't feel like I totally understand how he does it. But I've thought that there's something, I think it's something about the kind of vulnerability he shows, the self-deprecation he shows. There are other aspects of Howard Stern, which I'm less interested and mimicking. But there's something about how he talks to people of vulnerability that I think really lets people open up. And I think that that's, you know, I don't go into my personal life when I'm interviewing someone. No, you don't. Trying to show that vulnerability is, I think,

important. Which is kind of impossible without being personal, right? Yeah. I mean, you can be self-deprecating. You can make a joke, which I think my theory about making jokes with people you're interviewing, you know, to start things off is they either think it's funny, which is good, or they don't think it's funny, but therefore they kind of look at you with a certain amount of pity, which is also a source of vulnerability. That's what you're true. So, you know, I think there are ways to do it. So that would be another example. And what is your trick there? Because that's a trick, right? I have a bunch of it. Is that a trick? Oh, I don't mean that I'm like writing down jokes before an interview to come up with. No, I'm saying, is that something you think

works for you? Or what works best for you? I think trying to set a lightish tone to start off is important. Yeah. It doesn't want to seem too severe. At the beginning. Yeah. So let's talk a little bit more about what makes a good interview and your style. We're going to talk about your reputation in a minute, but tell us more about process, because we have a process here. I have had one for a long time. It's changed over time. And again, you don't do as many high profile figures, as you said, they're more informational with an expert on this subject. What do you think makes an interview a success for you? And talk about beforehand, because I don't think people know, everyone's always asking, Do you prepare before? And I'm like, well, obviously we, like, what do you think? We just, like, sit down and just start blabbing away. I mean, I guess they're used to cable news or something. I'm not sure why they think nobody prepares. But talk about your prep.

Well, I guess I should start by saying, you know, it's very different for a subject that you have some knowledge of or versus something that you're kind of coming into fresh because of the news. And so, you know, some interviews take a lot longer than other interviews to prep, you know, during COVID. I was doing a lot of interviews in the first. year and I'm pretty stupid about medicine and science and all these things. And, you know, I thought that at least in that case, a lot of people were coming to the subject fresh and didn't know much about it. And so I would sort of play the role of smart person. No, no, no, not the smart person. The person who didn't know and, you know, didn't know what was going on and was asking these experts questions, you know, just the way average people, I'm being one of them, thought about, were wondering what was going on. And then there's subjects where you know more about, and so it's easier in most cases. But, you know, for me, I think part of what I try and do with these things is on subjects I'm interested in, be constantly reading and trying to find people who I think are saying interesting things about these subjects. And so then when I decide to do an interview about, you know, I have sort of a list of people or people in mind to turn to. Do you feel vulnerable in those moments to admit you're not an expert? is that, because a lot of reports try to come off as a lot smarter than they are, I've always notice when, in fact, they aren't, or I don't know is never used, and I do it a lot. I'm like, I don't

know. Yeah, I mean, I think one aspect of sort of whether you're a commentator or writer is that part of, part of journalism is you sort of inherently come across as knowing more than you do. I remember I reviewed a book about the history of sugar. This was probably 15 or 20 years ago, and I remember my grandmother saying to me, like, I had no idea. that you knew so much about the history of sugar. And I said, well, I don't. This is just what happens when you review a book and you can sound that way. It's all bullshit to some degree.

Right. But no, I don't think, I think journalists should be up front about things that they don't know. And I think that there are some things that I don't know that I would not want to do interviews about because I would just feel too deep in the weeds. I feel like I couldn't do it. And then I think in other areas, like I said, kind of when COVID was starting, I think there's a way to try and use your lack of knowledge and say, most people reading this don't have great knowledge of it, and I'm going to kind of use that to inform readers in some way.

You also have to, though, ask the smart. You can't be dumb, right? You can't be someone who has no curiosity. It's a curious person. Yes, yes. That's a good distinction, I guess, is curiosity versus some deep insight or knowledge of the situation, yeah. So in an interview with the Columbia journals, where you said that one of the reasons you really like the Q&A format is because you're able to bring both reporting and opinion. Talk about that, the distinction for people who don't think about it, though. Well, you know, I mean, I, I, I, I'm lucky enough to be able to do, you know, as are you, to do interviews where I don't think people are confused about what my opinion is on various subjects, you know, about the Trump administration or so on. And so I can ask questions that I think reflect, make it clear what my point of view is and not feel like that's violating the terms of the interview.

But, you know, to get to a point where I'm asking those questions, it often requires a certain amount of reading or reporting or talking to other people about what those questions will be. And so I like the fact that I can kind of do sort of traditional, some at least traditional reporting things before an interview to sort of get my prep. And then in the course of the interview can put that to use and also do it in a way where I don't feel like I need to sort of hide what my opinion is in a way, which is great in some ways, but can also feel stifling. But talk about my opinion is important to you because it also puts you in a position of potentially coming up as partisan. I answer these questions all the time. I'm like, well, I think it's fair to the readers. Do you think it turns off readers? Or I think it brings them in myself, but...

I mean, it's a good question. I don't know. I'm sure it turns off some people and brings in other people. You know, I just think that, broadly speaking, allowing your own perspective to not sort of ask all these questions completely neutrally, just allows for a broader range of questions and ways of asking the question, which I think makes for a more interesting interview. Right, right. I mean, I think hiding a point of view.

has always been a mistake, right, jokingly at the side of fair and balance. There's no such thing. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you can't be fair if you don't, you know, I think Christiana Amunpore was, I think she said, a truthful, not neutral, essentially, which I thought was a pretty good way to figure it out. But when you're doing that, I think you get more trust at the same time. When you do that with subjects, have they taken advantage of that from your point of view? In what sense? Meaning, like, oh, you don't like Trump and therefore you're not going to listen to me. Oh, um, he's a perfect person. That's a Rorschach test on everybody. Oh, that's, yeah, that's

interesting. You know, not so much. I think, you know, people who would feel that way probably make that assumption before they start talking to me, just thinking, oh, he's, you know, working for the New Yorker or whatever else. I mean, I will say, you know, it's gotten, it's gotten harder and harder to get Republicans to talk in the 10 plus years I've been interviewing. And I think most of those reasons are not the fault of the media and are probably inevitable given the way politics is going. But, you know, there are other times where I think, you know, maybe if I had had fewer opinions about something in a previous interview that, you know, maybe someone has seen that it would be easier to get this person to talk and I regret it. But as I said, I think most of the

reasons for that are way beyond one person or one news institution's ability to fix or change. I agree with you on the Republicans. Some do, though. Some are, but you're right, they're harder to talk to and talk to in a normal way. But how do you convince them to come on then? It's a good question. I mean, the truth is that the most people that I try to get to come on who don't, I'm not dealing with them. I'm dealing with their people. And so, but, you know, just try and be honest and say you hope for a good conversation.

And I mean, you know, the thing is that you can't promise things that you can't promise. You can't say things are going to be off limits. You can't. So there's a limited amount of things you can do. You can just say, I really think. this would be an interesting conversation, and I hope you'll, you know, just try and be sincere about it. It would be easier if you could say, you know, we're not going to talk about X and then you talk about X, but we don't do that. No, we don't either. Yeah. You know,

what's interesting is I try to reach the person themselves rather than their people. I don't like talking to the people most of the time or the initial outreach is to the person. I can find their phone number or whatever. Yeah, no, it's great. I actually prefer text if possible. Text. Yeah. It's a person's phone number. It just, it feels. more informal, goes back to what we were talking about earlier. So talk a little bit more about research. You've talked about how the main thing that makes a good interview is research. I agree with it, and you do a lot of it. But another element of a good interview is the conversation between two people. And that means as an interviewer, you also have to be flexible. So how much time

are you relying on questions you written beforehand versus letting the conversation flow organically, even if it takes unexpected turns? Well, I mean, yes, I don't actually write all my questions out beforehand for most interviews. I write, there are sometimes that I'm doing an interview that I'm worried about how it's going to go or that, you know, go off the rails or I need to quote specific things to the person. And so I write out very specific questions. Other times I just have kind of notes in front of me with things I want to ask and some

structure for the interview because I hope that the form the interview takes like, you know, a story will have sort of a beginning, middle and an end. But I try and keep it flexible enough that I'm not just reading questions to them. because for me that feels a little bit stifling. And my hope is that I've kind of done enough background work that I can feel comfortable talking without having to look at the questions. I will say there are sometimes where I'm doing a subject that I'm not a great expert in. A news event has just occurred, you know, some Supreme Court decision that I'm talking to a lawyer about. And just because I want to quote the decision accurately and I want to phrase things a certain way that I will write it all out.

But it's not always the case. Interesting. You don't have the script itself. No. Not usually, no. Yeah, because you're probably listening, actually, for the next, for something interesting. I think a lot of people don't go off their scripts, essentially. You know, they won't.

It's not really the follow-up question, because that's the sort of weird canard. You didn't ask a follow-up question. You're not listening in the first place in order to move forward. Well, no, I mean, I should say, though, about the listening thing is, obviously I try and pride myself on listening, not just in my personal conversations with friends or whatever else, but also an interview. See, that's where I don't try to listen, but go ahead. Oh, good, good, good. But whenever I'm typing up an interview, whenever I'm transcribing it, I'm always surprised that there are things that no matter how close I thought I was paying attention, there are things that I missed or nuances that I missed. And so that that's one

of the things I actually like about transcribing stuff is that it makes you realize that they're, you know, you're paying attention less close than you think, or at least I am. Right, that there's something that pops out into it. So your Q&A's where people don't know are printed, but you used to host a podcast for Slate called I Have to Ask. Talk about the pros and cons of written versus audio. And do you feel a push towards being forced back into audio, I guess? You know, I haven't felt it yet, but maybe my, I'm expecting the phone call from my bosses at any moment. Video is it? Yeah, exactly. I haven't gotten the push yet, but, you know, maybe it'll come. You know, I didn't love doing a podcast just because, you know, going into a studio and the kind of extra stuff

around it didn't particularly interest me. But I gather it's easier now even than when I was doing it six years ago. Yeah. But eight years ago, whatever it was. But, you know, I like that people can hear the conversation. That part of it is fun. I mean, the thing you do have to keep in mind is that it's uh or i always try and keep in mind is um written words can be misleading right um people can give responses that if when typed out literally seem hostile when they're not that's right they can people say things that don't make tone tone tone gets lost yeah uh people have weird phrases people say yeah no like things like that which if written out yeah no doesn't make any sense but you know what they mean when you're talking to them so they're all all these things are

you know worth keeping in mind and uh but to me that that's an interesting part of the q and a is how to how to have as much of what we actually said while not being misleading in any way and so that editing challenge i actually find quite interesting do you ever feel it puts you on your back focus a lot of people say that's not what i said it's not how i said it like when you put this stuff i haven't had that really happen i mean there was one guy who said that the interview was more or less fake i think um but i guess that is always a concern i mean but again but again Again, it's one reason you have to have to tape the interviews. Right, exactly.

So do you feel like you want to go into audio now that it's sort of the thing or video is really the thing now? No, definitely not. Definitely not. You're going to stay retro in that. Well, I mean, I don't know. It's got to make a living. So we'll see. We'll be back in a minute.

Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from Grooons. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Grooons. Grooons is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. Their convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitam and a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Groon's ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications,

while generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins, grunes, have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients, which include nutrient dense and whole foods. That includes six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients grunes does into just one gummy. Plus, that makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day.

kick off the new year right and save up to 52% off with the code carra at grooms.com. That's code Kara K-A-R-K-A-R-U-N-S dot CO. So let's talk about your interviewing style just a little more. As I mentioned earlier, you had a reputation of being a tough interview. In the fall, you had some contentious conversations with legal scholar Cass Sunstein and former White House press secretary, Corrine Jean-Pierre. In Jean-Pier's case, that interview was called Career Ending and an absolute train wreck.

I was sort of shocked by it. Talk about these interviews. How much do you follow the afterlife of, say, the Carine Jean-Pier or Cass Sunstein? In that case, I did, the Corrine Jean-Pier, because I guess people were interested in some media organizations, reached out for comment about stuff. And I guess I followed the afterlife of that

in part because the same reason that I did the interview, which is that I was very interested in how, and maybe this gets back to, you know, me being able to express my opinion. I was very interested in how the Biden people were reckoning with what has happened in the last year and what happened in the six months before the election. And so I was really interested in that as a subject, which is why I wanted to interview Karin-John-Pierre and why I read her book and decided to do it. So, yeah, no, I definitely followed that one. So you said your goal isn't to make people look foolish. What does it feel like when you do? Well, because that was a clear in the case of Kareen-Jean-Pierre, you made her look foolish. But she made herself look foolish.

I'm sorry, let me be fair. Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, I don't, I guess I don't think of it as look foolish. I mean, the part of the Sunstein interview that I maybe you're referring to or were alluding to is this part about Henry Kissinger, which came up at the end of the interview and his friendship with Henry Kissinger. Right. And I don't think of it is that like Cass Sunstein should look foolish. I thought of it as like, here's a guy who's written a book about liberalism, and Henry Kissinger is sort of the figure pre-Trump that I think of as being, if you count his record in places other than America, one of the most illiberal figures in recent American history.

And so I wanted to kind of, I wanted to talk about that. And I wanted to sort of bring those two things together in the interview. And again, it's not to make someone look foolish. It's just I felt that that was an important thing to bring up. Right, then he had to square that circle. Yeah, exactly, exactly. You know, explain this. And we all, we all have contradictions and we all have hypocrisies and they can be

uncomfortable to be pushed on, but they're often helpful to be pushed on, I think, not just intellectually in your personal life, whatever else, because I think it helps, you know, it's good for people to be aware of that since we all have it. And so I thought it was, it was. Oh, it's fair. Yeah, it's fair. So you told, in fact, the Columbia Journal's Review, if you're asking questions that are meant to highlight contradictions.

you have to set it up early in the interview. When you know you have a guess where the interview could be contentious, how do you strategize around that and try to anticipate the ways in interview you may dig themselves into a hole or try to dodge that line of questioning? Yeah. I mean, you know, I think this gets to the question of gotcha questions, which is a phrase I don't like because... You don't either.

Okay, good. I, you know, I don't really know what a gotcha question is. you know, if people have some hypocrisies or contradictions, then they can say, yeah, I'm a hypocrite, or they can say, yeah, that's a contradiction, or they can explain it, or they can say, this is why, this is why you're wrong about this. But for me, at least, I think highlighting those things is a really interesting way of looking at, you know, where people's blind spots are and also where kind of the blind spots of different intellectual traditions or political parties or whatever else is. And so I find that a really interesting thing to focus on. And I think it's important to try and set it up. I mean, I was thinking about this because I did an interview with the French political philosopher Bernard Henri Levy a number of years ago. And he had written a bunch of stuff about women in the Islamic world and the lack of respect shown to them and why this was an important issue.

And I wanted to talk about that, but also I wanted to talk about his support for some Frenchmen who'd been accused of sexual misconduct. I believe it was Roman Polansky and Dominique Strauss-Con, if I remember correctly. And so the only way I could think to sort of set this up was asking the questions about women in the Islamic world and what he'd written about them early on and then bring up the Polanski stuff later on in the interview. And I do think that it has a gotcha feel. Yes, a callback. Yeah, exactly. But, you know, to me, I don't quite know a different way of going about that. And as I said, if, you know, he has a response, he's welcome to give it.

And, you know, but to me. You could ask right after, I mean, the next question after you set up the thing, but you waited. I waited. Yeah, I waited because I wanted the interview to kind of have a narrative arc to it. But, yeah, no. So I do think about that. those questions, but generally I think gotcha questions are fine. Yeah, I agree. I don't think they're unfair necessarily. I mean, there are questions I wouldn't ask. There's some types of

questions I do think are unfair, and I try to stay away from those. Such as, give me an example. You know, certain types of personal questions, people's consensual sexual behavior, you know, I think that I would not ask someone to criticize their place of work or colleagues unless I thought that their place of work or colleagues was doing something, you know, quite horrible, you know, unethical in some way. I wouldn't say like, you know, I think so-and-so writer at the New York Times is a bad writer. What do you have to say about that to someone at the New York Times? It's like they're not going to criticize their colleague, nor should they, you know, so something like that. But broadly speaking, that's not what we're talking about. Right. No. You know, I have forever lived with,

I made Mark Zuckerberg sweat, for example. Or I made him say, dumb things about anti-Semites, right? Or Holocaust deniers specifically. People come back to it again and again. Do you feel that overestimates this assassin idea? I find it tiresome. You know, you made him sweat. You almost made him faint.

I'm like, I didn't. But he did sweat. I didn't make him sweat. You know, I mean, it's an interesting thing because it sticks with you. And I wouldn't say it's a bad thing necessarily because it makes people nervous in the beginning, I guess. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, most people I interview don't know about me or my work or whatever else. Most people don't read bylines. And, you know, I think this is also one of the advantages maybe of doing print interviews rather than, you know, is that I think that, you know, people have more of a sense of who you are if you have a podcast or you have a whatever else. And so I don't feel like I'm reckoning with that too often when it comes to actually doing interviews. No, I think people know exactly who you are. I'm sorry. I think they do.

I think people in, like, journalism and stuff do. Yeah, I think subjects do. I think your subjects. Many of the people who work for your subjects certainly do, or PR people certainly do. So every episode we get a question from an outside expert, here's yours. Hello, I'm Anna Sale. I'm an interviewer, the host of death, sex, and money. And on our show, I'm often talking to people about things that they haven't talked about at length before with interviewers.

And I think of you, Isaac, as someone who is particularly gifted at getting public people, public figures, to talk about things in ways maybe they didn't intend. And I have some questions for you about that. One is just if you approach interviews thinking of that as a goal to pierce the self-presentation of public people for your readers. I also wonder if that's more fun for you when you don't necessarily feel aligned or don't really like the person you're interviewing, if that makes you think a more incisive interviewer, more skeptical interviewer, and thus you get a better interview. Thanks. Yeah, it's a good question. I definitely feel like when I'm talking to public figures or politicians that what I want to do is get them to say some things that they haven't said a million times before. And one helpful way of doing that is to look at previous interviews that they've given and think like where would I have tried to ask a follow-up that the interviewer didn't, you know, same is true for my interviews.

Whenever I read them, I think, oh, I should have asked this follow-up and I, you know, I forgot to or I didn't. So that's absolutely a goal is to try and get people who I feel like sometimes I'll be thinking during an interview like, I don't actually say this to people, but sometimes I'll be thinking during an interview like, you know, if you just repeat the same talking point for six times in a row, we're just going to cut it. So why are you even telling me this? You know, we've heard this five other times in the interview. See, I do say that. I say that out laughing. There you go ahead. So, yeah, that's definitely a goal.

It's to get them off of these talking points. Yeah. And what about the, besides piercing the self-presentation, which is talking points, I think, that's what she's talking about. Is it easier when you're not aligned with them or is it harder when you are aligned with them? Oh, you know, I mean, I guess you could say that unconsciously people you're aligned with, you're probably less aware that they're saying talking. points because it's something you agree with, so it seems less propagandistic or whatever else. So I think that I think that's absolutely something that if you're more aligned with someone that you're talking to or you think you are, that it's definitely worth trying to remind yourself

that, you know, that you may be not paying as close attention as you should to them being propagandistic or saying talking points or whatever else. Anna had a second question, too. She wanted to know if you have any ridiculous stories of being iced out or intimidated by someone when you interviewed or their publicist for including something they wanted to take it out in an interview. That's happened to me innumerable times, and I've said no, unless it's factually inaccurate. Yeah, you mean, I'm trying to think about, like, I'm sure there are stories. I mean, the most, the most intimidated I ever was in an interview was I interviewed the novelist V.S.

Nypal, it is House in London, and he was, this was pretty early in my interviewing career, and he was quite bullying of me. And, you know, I think it actually made for a pretty good interview that, he, because his personality in bullying me, the way he kind of did everyone, came across. But, and in fact, I've often thought that, you know, if I had been 10 years older, I might have been less bullied, which may have actually made for a less good interview in that case. Bullying was interesting. Yeah.

Yeah, but that was the most kind of intimidated I'd ever been and or have ever been. What did he do to bully you? Oh, I mean, he was just, you know, he's a very grumpy guy and he would just, uh, he would just say like, this is a silly question, you know. No, yeah, that trick. Or he'd answer a question with, you know, nothing. I think nothing about this, you know, that sort of thing, which for me and as someone who looked up to him, I got all of his books right behind me on the shelf, it looked up to him a lot and still do as a writer, not as a person. Right.

It was, it was, that was definitely, it was definitely hard. Well, it can also be incisive. I mean, one of the, I just have an experience with Kamala Harris where we were joking about something backstage about Robert Kennedy Jr. and circumcision and autism, the link. He was making a link, which is not. there. And it was so weird, it was like, oh, that's so fucking strange. And then when I got on stage and mentioned it, because it had just been in the news, right? And she looked at me dead and said, this is nothing to laugh about. And she had just laughed about it. And then she went into this sort of high-handed kind of thing where she was like yelling at me for like even asking the question. I was like, I'm going to kill you. I literally can't believe you just did

that, which was interesting. And I thought, it was a real insight, actually. I sometimes get the sense that she doesn't realize her political career is over. I don't know. Yeah, yeah. It was so funny. I was like, where's the person backstage who just had a very insightful comment about this? Like, it was really an interesting, well. Perhaps telling about her electoral performance.

Yeah, I was like, be the person backstage, because that's the person who gave a great answer, actually. One of the things you also do, which I think is interesting, is you summarize what your guests are saying or ask if the summary is accurate, which I think is a power. play, actually. You use phrases like, I'm trying to understand. What specifically do you mean? Is that strategic? Because I think it's very, when I read it, that's very funny. It forces you to have your interview, say what they're, what they're saying is accurate and not go back on that. It seems like, but maybe you're not doing that. Yeah, no, I think I, I think I probably am doing that. Sometimes I am doing that to sort of get them to sort of say up front what it seems to me that they're hinting at or suggesting.

because sometimes they don't want to say it up front. I should also say, you know, it's also to go back to the thing about listening to other people. It's like when the interview is going on, you're listening to the other person, but you're also thinking about how much time is left and what else you have to ask and you're also thinking about, you know, you're thinking about these other things about the context of the interview. So sometimes you don't feel like you actually got exactly and you want to be clear. And so that's, that's often the case too. Maybe I'm telling on myself by saying that, you know, I want to, you know, not totally sure what the other person says. but because you're often, you're trying to do a million things at once, that's definitely the case. Do you ever decide it's time to back off either because your guest clearly doesn't have a good

answer or you need to move on or they're getting upset? Do you get rattled by that? I do not. I don't mind them getting upset in front of me or being upset or being rude back at me. I don't mind rudeness. Am I trying to think? Like that's a dumb question. Like that drives me crazy.

That makes me double down. Oh, no. Oh, no, I, you know, this goes, again, I think if more stuff was in person, it might, it might shake me more, but over the phone, it doesn't really. Most of the time, these interviews are not particularly, I mean, the two you brought up, Cass Sunstein and Karin-John-Pier. I think Karin-John-Pier felt that, you know, she and I were not seeing eye-to-eye about some of the things she was saying, but the interview didn't feel tense, and neither did the Cass Sunstein one at all. So, you know, I think it's interesting. I mean, I sometimes think the interviews read more tense than they are, or sometimes maybe it's that I just have more of a tolerance for being uncomfortable in a phone conversation than other people. They don't feel that way to me, usually, even when they read that way.

So, you know, I don't know. It's a good question. I should think more about that. Are you ever surprised when that, if you didn't think that was a tense one, and then everyone was like, oh, my fucking God. Well, no, I guess what I mean is that like, it's like, you know, you could get into a debate with someone and, you know, that. and shake hands afterwards, and it doesn't feel tense, and sometimes, and I guess just sometimes, like Corinjean-John Pierre, I thought she was very polite answering the questions, and even though I was asking somewhat aggressive questions, it just, it didn't, it didn't, it didn't

read, there have been interviews that I've done that did actually feel tense. Like who? Newt Gingrich once when I interviewed him. Oh, he's a pain in the ass. Yeah, a couple kind of Trumpish people. One thing about what's happening in the world now with Trump and what's happening in the country is, you know, in my opinion, it's all these things. It's horrific and it's depressing and so on. But it's also ridiculous. And a lot of the people defending him in public are ridiculous. And there's only so

much you can do about this that's dead serious where, you know, it's like arguing that the earth is flat. And so I try and sometimes those interviews that I feel like would be more tense with those types of people to try and make them funny or tongue and cheek, whatever, because, you know, as I said, there's only so much you can get it pounding the ground. Right. You don't want to take the flat earth thing seriously, is what you're saying. Well, I'm not even saying that. It's like, it's more just that like, it's just not that interesting to read people arguing about whether the earth is flat. And there's something so absurd about it. We'll be back at a minute.

So you also have a reputation of being quite critical of other journalists on social. media, which I completely endorse. I agree that journalists should be more critical of each other. They sometimes tend not to. But you were in a fight on X with semaphores Ben Smith, who is a disputatious person over the outlet's coverage of the Saudi Crown Prince on the outlets. Gulf vertical, you wrote on X, quote, you would have to be brain dead to read the space and not immediately wonder who is funding semaphore Gulf. Smith criticized you for the insinuation the post was sponsored content. I'm with you on that one. I've had that argument with them off screen. Talk about why you do this.

I often get into fights with reporters sometimes. What are you hoping to highlight there? Just the obvious? You mean why I like will criticize other reporters sometimes? Yeah. Jeez. It's a good question. You know, sometimes it's probably just being dumb, but it kind of, it's a way of engaging with the world.

I don't know. It's probably too critical, too critical a way of engaging with the world, but it's a way I kind of engage with the world. And because, you know, maybe my pop psychological explanation of this would be that, you know, media tends to listen to other media criticism, I feel like, whereas, I mean, I wouldn't do this for various reasons. But, you know, I could tweet out that, you know, I'm upset about what's happening in, you know, Sudan or Gaza or wherever else, Ukraine. And nobody, you know, nobody cares. Nobody's paying attention. It feels like, you know, with journalists, they pay attention to what other journalists say. and I hope, you know, certainly I take criticism from other journalists and, you know, take it

seriously and hopefully other journalists do too. So maybe it's a way of feeling like you can actually be heard in a way that you can't in other ways. Yeah, possibly, possibly. There's also, and this is not a, this is not about the Ben Smith stuff. There's just, you know, there's a lot of terrible journalism out there and seems worth paying attention to. Pointing out. Making it better, yeah. Yeah. You know, part of the reason you get into media is because you're interested in engaging with it and you're, you want it to be good. And, you know, we all have like our. mini dramas with the newspapers and magazines we've been reading for 25 years and we want them to be better and we love them and whatever else. So journalists face a lot of challenge though

when it comes to access right now. It's absolutely true. As you noted, politicians and other powerful people can choose to sit down with friendly media outlets, which they're doing, like, extremely, or else they don't need it at all. Like, there's direct, direct a customer essentially. Do you think that is just, that's going to be the case all the time that they'll find their friendlies and the people will just do it by themselves or, or edit things out. Does that make it more difficult to land these interviews in this climate? How do you hold powerful to account when they're competing against influencers and these partisan outlets? Because it's a lot easier for them to do that, essentially.

Yeah, I mean, I, you know, I wish I had a good answer. I'm not optimistic about it. Meaning? Oh, I mean, I think what you said is accurate and it's going to be harder and harder to get access. And, you know, that I think is a real problem. Who have you recently gone for that you haven't been able to get? Marjorie Chelle Green in our case. Oh, interesting. I think she doesn't want – because I've said explicitly – I'm going to ask her about the other things.

Like, I agree with her on a couple of things, but let's ask about trans again. Let's ask about this. And I'm sure the PR people have heard it, me say it. Like, why isn't anyone asking her about the other 93 things she has heinous opinions on? like because she happens to be reasonable about five, you know, that we can all agree with, which seemed to be the lowest bar of all time. You know, I appreciate her doing them, but at the same time, it doesn't negate all the other things she said, essentially.

Right. Yeah. No, I mean, you know, I've, you know, I was just going through a bunch of Republican senators who I'd been trying to get at various times and haven't had any luck with that. And I mean, I've stopped trying as much as much as I used to just because it's just so hard to get Republican politicians. Who would you love to get, for example? Who have you not been able to get?

Well, Kissinger died. He was number one on my list. You could still do that interview. I could. Talk to the corpse. Talk to the corpse, yeah. Narendra Modi is someone who I've tried to get for a long time. Not going to happen.

Tony Blair is one. You're not missing much. Fair. You know, so yeah, there have been a – I'm trying to think, though, who else? I was able to interview Imran Khan. the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. So that was interesting. He was on my list for people I really wanted to talk to. I don't know, Sean Connery's dead. My list is quickly, quickly getting smaller. Right. Is there anybody that you're number one person? People always ask to me.

I think Modi would be number one. Really? Why? Why Modi? I just, you know, I'm very interested in India, travel there a lot and I've written about it some. And so he's always interested me. Gosh, mine is Dolly Parton and Taylor Swift together, but okay, well, you know, together, only talking about business, nothing else, nothing else. Because I think they're business people. I think we don't talk about their business acumen as much as we talk about their songs. Yeah, that's interesting. I don't know anything about either one of them, I'm sorry to say. That's okay. That's all right. You'll probably get them before I will. So journalists are under a ton of pressure from executives who are looking to appease the Trump administration right now. There's example after example late last month, CBS News editor in Chief Barry Weiss by a 60-minute segment on Venezuela and deportees who were sent to a maximum

security prison in El Salvador. Weiss defended her decision and denied politics played a role saying she wanted to improve the piece. Some of her suggestions were fine. I don't think necessary, but fine. But the timing was certainly odd and she changed her opinion in the middle of it, right?

CBS is owned by Paramount, which is owned by David Ellison. He and his father, Larry, are currently trying to buy Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns CNN, and he deal would need regulatory approval. They have touted the fact that they will be able to get it easily, publicly, and quite officiously, I think. Talk about those pressures right now and what worries you most. I assume you've never had that pressure. I have not that I can think of, even working for Rupert Murdoch. Talk a little bit about what the moment is right now. Yeah, I mean, I'm fortunate to

not have had those pressures either. I had a, when I worked at the New Republic, we had a owner who was crazy and bigoted and which one of Marty Peretz was his name uh and uh and not a very nice guy and so there were pressures that came down but it wasn't of the sort that uh you're referring to yeah it's really it's really it's really it's really bleak and depressing times and you know i think that um the trump white house has very smartly understood that um the way to sort of exert some pressure on the media is not to, you know, not to do what he did in his first term, which is just sort of berate people, but to, you know, make regulatory approvals conditional on, you know, kissing

the ring or whatever else. And I think that that's definitely very scary and, yeah, depressing. I, you know, I wish I had something more interesting to say about it. I mean, it's, it's, it's bleak and, you know, quite worrisome. If that was presented to you, if you were Sharon Alphonsei, for example, what would you do? She wrote a really terrific memo, obviously. Yeah, I mean, I think it's incumbent on journalists if they feel that they are being censored for political reasons to, you know, essentially go public with it. I mean, without specifically weighing in on exactly, you know, what we know and don't know about that situation. I mean, I think there's a broad matter.

That's absolutely the way to go about it is to sort of go public. So in that controversy, because it's the most recent, which one of the people would you want to interview? Oh, I mean, Alfonzi probably less than Barry Weiss or David Ellison. But, you know, just because I feel like Alfonzi's perspective is clear. But, yeah, Barry Weiss or David Ellison. I mean, David Ellison, I think, is a very interesting figure and would definitely enjoy interviewing him. See, I would pick Larry Ellison because he's the smart man. Yeah, I was about to say Larry, actually.

That would have been a good answer. He does the dying-as-go-tee thing, which I find interesting. Yeah, he's a character. I've interviewed him many times, but he's the brains of the operation, as far as I can tell. And do you perceive that he has actual deep interest in Paramount-Aquiring Warner Brothers, or do you feel like... I don't. I was actually out with a bunch of people last night, and we all know him really well, and we're sort of surprised that he's continuing because it's such a nothing business for him, for someone like him. And so I think he's trying to please his son. I don't even know. I'd have to ask him. I'd love to know. Like, why?

Well, yeah, I mean, this is something that, you know, maybe one of my colleagues that the magazine will do, but a sort of profile of that father-son dynamic seems psychologically rich, to say the least. Yes, absolutely. It's so dumb for him. Like, this is a dumb deal. And it's dumb after. If he gets it, it's dumb. And so, like, he never does dumb things, really. So you're like, why are he doing this dumb thing? So that's who I would interview. It's a good answer, yeah. I want to end by looking at some of the big stories coming in the new year. In 2025, you wrote a lot about the Middle East and the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. And Trump recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to talk more about the war in Gaza, Syria, Iran, and more. Officially a ceasefire with Hamas is holding, but both sides have been accused other violating it negotiations around the second phase have stalled. And Trump and Netanyahu are reportedly at odds over what happens next, although they affirm their bond during this latest meeting. Where do you see that relationship heading in the next year and what could it mean for the ongoing conflict in Gaza? And who would you think is important to talk to for this? Yeah, I mean, there is going to be an election in Israel later in this year. So that will be interesting, which is an important election for Netanyahu, variety of reasons having to do with his trial of corruption trial and political legacy and so on.

In terms of that relationship, you know, I thought that what happened at the White House was indicative of it in the sense. that, you know, Trump is shown a willingness to push Netanyahu in the Israelis in short-term ways, especially earlier in 2025, about coming to some sort of ceasefire in Gaza, even though, as you say, it hasn't exactly held. It's held in some ways, but certainly not others. People are still dying. You know, to me, what that sort of showed was that I think Netanyahu, and I think this is true of Putin to some extent too, correctly perceives that he, you know, he can sort of make a somewhat of an effort to act as if he is going to do what Trump wants, but there's never quite enough follow through. And so Netanyahu can sort of keep getting what he wants from

Trump, which I assume is continuation of the American-Israeli relationship, support for Netanyahu politically, and dragging his feet on any sort of long-term solution in Gaza. And like I said, I think Putin correctly perceives that this is the case, too, that he can sort of make noises about peace or call Trump once every few weeks and, you know, therefore keep up the pressure on the Ukrainians without having to truly commit to a peace deal. And so I think this is a smart way to deal with Trump in both cases. And I think it's what we'll sort of continue to see some version of the status quo dragging on and on and on. And who do you think an important interview during this time is? If they would do it, what would be the most important to you? Well, you know,

I mean, maybe this gets to what we're a version of what we were talking about earlier. I don't know if this is a great answer. But I'm just more interested in terms of just to mention Ukraine and Gaza to ongoing conflicts. I'm less interested about White House decision making and talking to the principles there than I think I would have been. I think part of the reason I've been interesting talking to Biden people in the last year about Gaza policy is that it felt their policy, which, you know, was left a lot to. be desired, in my opinion. It was interesting to talk through how they were thinking about it in a way that I just sort of, I want to read investigative stories. Like I want to read investigative stories about the Trump administration's business deals in the Middle East or Steve Whitkoff's business deals in Eastern Europe. I'm less interested in sort of hearing from principles, you know, talking to Marco Rubio about how he's thinking about Gaza. That that sort of interview in the Trump administration just feels completely null and uninteresting to me. Yeah. Although I think which Wakeoff would be interesting. Wakeoff would be interesting. Here's why. Is he dumb? He seems dumb. So I'd like to know. That's like I'd like to talk to him to find out like essentially. How dumb is he? Because that's what you get from people or a letnik. Is he a moron? Because people say moron to me a lot when talking about his friends actually, which I'm always like. I find this with all conversations. The reason I want to talk to people is to find out if they're dumb. So far, you're smart. So next year is also an election year within the Democratic Party. There are primaries pitting more establishment candidates against progressives.

I'm thinking of Senate primaries in Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota. There's a lot of issues that Democrats have not resolved that divided them in the wake of the 2024 election. Is there areas you're interested in probing with the Democrats? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I'm interested in kind of this generational and ideological divide that seems to be showing up or will show up in certain primaries. Main Senate race being an example of that. Obviously, some of these questions showed up in the. New York mayoral election. And I'm just interested in broader questions about, you know,

where the Democrats should be going, what is the right political strategy, how they're going to go about winning races in purple or red states for the Senate, which they're going to have to start doing if they want to ever get the Senate back. I think my gut feeling is that these issues are kind of going to be largely papered over in 2026 because it's an off-year election and the president's party usually suffers defeats and that Democrats, whatever they do, are probably going to have a pretty good election. But I think for the 2028 primary, these issues will certainly come to the four in a more kind of urgent way. Is there anyone you're very intrigued by at this moment? I just have to talk to this person. Oh, God, you keep asking me if there's anyone

I feel like I have to talk to and I realize I don't have good answers for these questions. Most of the people I consider the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, if you were just to look at the like Vegas odds for I think they're all pretty pretty interesting as possible interview you know Gavin Newsom Josh Shapiro Ocasio Cortez whoever you know these people I think all of them are pretty interesting actually have you interviewed Gavin News no you'd be good with Gavin News I'd read the hell out of that I'll tell you my colleague tad friend wrote a profile of him uh in 2018 I think for the New Yorker which I think of is like one of the like uh most brutal pieces I've ever read.

It is. He's a complex person. Yeah. He's a complex. It's very interesting, though. I'll tell you that. I always tell him he's really interesting for a handsome person. Often they aren't as interesting as less handsome people, but he is very handsome and very interesting.

There's many more big stories from 2025 that will carryover into the year. You mentioned Russia's war in Ukraine. As is recording, there's no peace deal despite some recent activity. There's also the AI race in China. expansion of presidential authority, political violence, escalating tensions with Venezuela, a grueling civil war in Sudan. Obviously, the end of Trump himself. It's moving in that direction very clearly. What are the big questions you have heading into 2026? I mean, I would say that Ukraine and Gaza are two things. But beyond that, I think, yeah, you know, we touch on this earlier about the question of

what's going to happen. You know, there's the next president going to, he's going to be. making regulatory decisions based on, you know, how much people come and kiss up to him, just, you know, where the country's headed is, seems like, you know, in some ways the big question. And that's a question of where the Republican Party's headed. And, you know, I think the kind of question, at least in my mind, that hangs over kind of everything. I feel like I think about this in some version, you know, every 20 minutes is like once Trump is no longer on the scene or once he's no longer president, like, is the country going to revert to. some sort of normal normalcy in whatever that meant pre-Trump and I don't know the answer and but there's so many ways in which I think about that and it's also related to the question of just you know Trump is is certainly unique in most ways but there are you know similar politicians or politicians with similar kind of ideological affiliations winning across the globe and how much is that sort of a permanent thing or not so I think those two questions, I think definitely interests me. It's something I've talked a lot about in

interviews, done a lot of interviews about. And so I think that that sort of hangs over most of the intellectual questions I have about where we're headed. What next is what you're essentially saying. Yeah. What next? So that's sort of last question. You're doing the exit interview Trump. He picks you. What would be your first or your last question for him you get to pick? Well, you know, I'll just say, I, I, I'll just say, I don't know, but I will answer that question by saying, I've often thought about what I would do if I interviewed Trump. And I don't know what I would do. But I think the one thing that I thought of would be interesting is just to choose one small subject and just ask him a million questions about

that subject, whether it would sort of be like Trump in race or Trump and women or Trump and his parents. And just to sort of go on one specific thing and to steer clear of what we're what was in the news that day or whatever else and hope that by kind of nailing down you could get something and focus him in a way by asking the same question about the same subject because I think that there's something about the kind of sort of what's the worries I'm looking for sort of hyper there's so many questions and you're asking him so many questions and he's switching subjects all the time right anyway this probably would not work I'm almost sure it would not work but it was the only only idea I had for how to make a Trump interview interesting

that's a good one yeah drill down on one thing i think i would my first question would be did your parents hug you enough yeah it's a uh it's definitely uh definitely a question would freak out it would set him it unsettled him right away um actually i'm going to ask one last question tell me something personal about yourself that people don't know uh okay um i'm a big houston rockets fan and uh yeah sorry about that one but no i'm a big houston rockets fan and uh very very anxious fan don't handle my emotions well about it so yeah okay well we'll start with that next time next time i appreciate it all right isaac thank you i really appreciate your time and i'm excited to read your interviews over the next year yeah that was so much fun today's show was produced by

christian castor roussel michel eloy megan bernie and caylin lynch Nishot Kerwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Sheena Ozaki, Bradley, Sylvester, and Madeline LaPlante, Doobie. Steve Bone engineered this episode, and our theme music is by Tracademics. If you're already following this show, you're an interview assassin. If not, you're on your talking points. Get off of them. Go wherever you listen to podcast, search for On with Kara Swisher, and hit follow.

Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Box Media Podcast Network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.