I listen to WTF with Marc Maron, although I'm getting annoyed with him, he's a bit too intrusive and fawning. But he's done some great interviews in the past, like with David Simon, the writer of The Wire, and Bruce Springsteen. He gets fantastic guests. I just wish he let them talk more.
Terry Gross has never had me on her show and you know, it's her show; she sets the agenda and that's not Hodgman. But I'll still listen to it.
One of my personal favorites [potential guests] would be Darren Criss from GLEE. I think that guy is so talented, and he’s fast. I think that’s the thing — we don’t have people just because this guy is a star on blah, blah, blah show; you want someone that has personality and can put two sentences together and that doesn’t take themselves quite so seriously.
By insisting on having your bottle pointing to the north when the cork is being drawn, and calling the waiter Max, you may induce an impression on your guests which hours of laboured boasting might be powerless to achieve. For this purpose, however, the guests must be chosen as carefully as the wine.
There's fierce competition between all the networks to get the guest who can bring the most pertinent information about whatever the story of the moment happens to be.
I think what irritates both conservatives and liberals alike is when news outlets pretend that they don't have an agenda but then clearly do, be it in the editorial decisions they make and the guests they have and the material that they cover.
I only do a show when there's somebody I want to talk to.
When we're discussing who to invite to a dinner party, my wife Chaz and I sometimes use the shorthand, 'good value for money,' which indicates guests expected to be entertaining.
I don't require that the main guest [of StarTalk] have any science knowledge or background at all. It's just, I have a conversation with them, it's long and winding, and we find out what parts of what we learn about the person lend themselves to further scientific discussion with an expert who is brought into the studio. So that's how that comes together.
Some talk shows have become so exploitive and tabloid, I wonder if I can believe some of their guests. Where do they find these guests, and why do they deserve air time?
Bill Maher is anything but an impartial host. He sucks up to Hollywood liberals because A) he needs to get them back on the show, B) he usually agrees with them, and C) they tend to be wildly ignorant.
Ideally, each week, I'd like to have rad, intelligent, creative, funny guests with different takes on the world of music. I will ask them all what their favorite blink-182 song is, and what they like best about me as a person.
I'm more likely to not invite someone back for not talking. If someone talks a lot, I can usually shut them up and control them. But with people who don't talk, if they don't really want to talk, they probably shouldn't be on this show, and that's fine. They're talented people with things to say, but sometimes people say what they have to say through other means than arguing.
I never think of access or good will. I just want a good interview. I want guests to be informative and entertaining. I've never been concerned about someone's liking me tomorrow.
I love having the ability to do podcasts because of the long format, informality, and the opportunity to decide what is said, how the show is laid out, and who the guests are.
The success of the dinner depends as much upon the company as the cook. Discordant elements - people invited alphabetically, or to pay off debts - are fatal.
I'm really interested in, who's booked the guests, who's decided to have Lena Dunham and to have the mothers of sons who were shot - sons and daughters who were shot by the police and, you know, the other performers, Paul Simon and Alicia Keys.
If I was doing a talk show, I would do the kind of show that comes on just once a month, with amazing guests.
