Transcript of 'The Interview': Fox News Wanted Greg Gutfeld to Do This Interview. He Wasn’t So Sure.

Hey, it's Lauren Dragon from Wirecutter, the product recommendation service from the New York Times, and I test headphones. We basically make our own fake sweat and spray it over and over on these headphones to see what happens to them over time. We're going to put on some noise canceling headphones and see how well they actually block out the sounds. I have 3,136 entries in my database. Kids, workout, what version of Bluetooth? At Wirecutter, we do the work so you don't have to. For independent product reviews and recommendations for the real world, come visit us at nytimes. Com/wirecutter.

From the New York Times, this is the interview. I'm David Markezi. Why can't Conservatives break through on late night TV? For years, that was an open cultural question. The Left had The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, not to mention other liberal-leaning hosts like David Letterman, Steven Colbert, and Jimmy Kimmel. The Right had no one. That is, until Greg Gutf Gutfeld. Formally a health and men's magazine editor, Gutfeld joined Fox News in 2007 to host a later than late night chat show called Red Eye. Then he worked his way up the schedule until 2023, when his new show, called Gutfeld, it's got an exclamation mark at the end, moved to weekday nights at 10: 00 on the East Coast, and started dominating. Its format is a little different from traditional host-driven late-night shows, because rather than chat with celebrity guests, Gutfeld presides over a roundtable of regular panelists, Kat Timf and Iris, chief among them. The overall vibe is insult-heavy, defiantly anti-woke, and relentlessly pro-conservative. It's a highly successful formula. The show averages over three million viewers a night, numbers that dwarf its competitors. But if Gutfelt, who also hosts Fox's daytime show The Five, can now credibly call himself the King of Late Night, his kingdom is in turmoil.

Earlier this year, CBS announced it was canceling The Late Show with Steven Colbert. And as you probably know, Jimmy Kibbel's show was briefly suspended after comments he made related to Charlie Kirk's murder. Both decisions were viewed by many as politically motivated and also as possible threats to free speech. This is coming at a time when questions about the future of Late Night as well as censorship and comedy, are thick in the air. All of which Gutfeld, in highly provocative fashion, had plenty to say about. Here's my conversation with Greg Gutfeld. Greg.

Yes.

Thank you for being here.

My pleasure.

I want to start with the biggest story in Late Night this year, or biggest stories, I should say, which are the impending cancelation of Colbert and Kimmel's suspension. Do you remember what your immediate reaction to the news of both was?

I guess, why did it take so long? Because I had crushed them like bugs, David. I'd crushed them and I'd thrown them into the wind, and they were still here. I call it entertainment welfare. The only reason why they were around for so long, despite the fact that their numbers were dropping, was the fact that they toed the line. I guess when I heard that they were gone, it really didn't surprise me because the numbers were saying it. I don't think it was political. I didn't know anybody, and I'm counting by many liberal friends who watched them. I think it's because it It wasn't entertainment anymore. It was more like a therapy session for people that were upset at the world.

So you don't give any credence to the notion that there were larger corporate political considerations that went into there, it went into happen with both Colbert and Kimmel?

I think people understand that there's never been anybody who's ever really folded because of Trump saying, You suck. You know what I mean? If the numbers were there, it wouldn't make any difference. Was it extra noise in the story? Probably. But I honestly think that this stuff was... The grumbling was already there.

You described both their shows as being akin to therapy sessions for people who are mad at the world? Yes. Is there not a way in which your show functions similarly?

Oh, no. Our show is fun.

But you're going to be fun and mad at at the same time.

Yeah, you can. But generally, I usually like to be at least part of the punching bag. I encourage that among the guests that if I come off as petty about something, that they have to come after me for being equally as absurd and stupid. I enjoy that. The teasing makes it fun. Also, I genuinely like people that I tease. In fact, if you want to know the people I don't like, it's the people I don't tease. People know that when- So you must love the women on the view then? Yes, I love Whoopy. I like the other lady.

Rosie O'Donnell, you must be a big fan.

Rosie, I love her. But I mean, personally, I don't I don't... I guess I put the people I don't know are in a different room, but I make fun of everybody that I love and relentlessly. There are a lot of, and I won't mention it, but there are a lot of, say, conservative commentators who will not be teased. This is a very serious vocation. I think the success of my show and the success of the five is based on the ability to tease. People try to replicate the five, and they don't understand. It's so obvious. The secret sauce is that we make fun of each other. I think that is something that you don't see in the left at all. I think we're the only people doing it. You asked me something else. I forgot what it was. I do think there are issues that upset me, but I have to always step back and go, this thing cannot take over my life. I'd say that Trump derangement syndrome is now an addiction. It's moved into something that is creating a filter, which everything that you look at, the people that you know, your coworkers, your relationships are all seen through this.

If you don't see this my way, we're going to have a problem. I try to My reflex is to always, no matter what the story is, is to always put it back in its box so it doesn't become something that I think about and change the way I view people.

You don't think there's a Is there a way in which your show also sits behind a Trump filter? And if people don't agree fundamentally with the positions that are sympathetic to Trump that's upsetting for people?

Not I look at it- It's like you're saying it only works one way.

And to my mind, watching the show, it seems like it clearly- I think that the difference is- Trump influences in both directions.

Yeah, but there's a key difference here is that, let's say, I may think you're wrong, you might think I'm evil. That's where the difference is. The teasing and the ridicule is not your Hitler or you're a fascist or an authoritarian. If I'm to insult you over the top, it's because it's obviously a joke. But I don't put a target on your back.

To be clear, I think you're being a little disingenuous. Am I really? I read all your books. Really? Yeah. I would go through and mark it. The most blatant counter-example to what you're talking about is you literally use the phrase, The Left are dumb, fascist mother effers.

What book was that?

I want to say it was in your most recent one, The King of Late Night. I could be wrong, but it It's in one of your books.

Yeah. I'll have to look back at that. What was the context?

The left.

Yeah. Who was I talking about? The left. It was a blanket statement. No, but I'm saying that.

I don't remember this specific context.

What did you pull it out of? Was it part of some amplifying narrative where it's like, these people are a threat to democracy. It's going to lead to World War III. This is the most damaging thing that has happened in the United States, I believe, because if you look at everything from the Palisades fire to Charlie Kirk getting shot, these are all the product of amplified narratives. The repetition, the brainwash, the persuasion of being told over and over again. I'd have to look at that and see what I said. I imagine that it was in some paragraph of hyperbole where I was having fun because if it was in all caps, especially, or I could have been mocking the actual language. I don't know. I'd have to trust you on that. You seem like a nice guy for now anyway. Anyway, go ahead. Because I know where you're going.

Where do you think I'm going? I was going somewhere else.

Oh, good. Then go somewhere else.

But where did you think I was going?

I thought you were going to bring... Because you were talking about insults. I figured you were going to go into the world of insults and ridicule.

That was not where I was going. That might come up later. You've been the top-rated host in Late Night for a minute now. You did right at the top of our conversation, you hold that up. It's like a triumph over- Yeah, but I'm having fun. You're having fun.

It's like this same thing that Trump does where he says, I got the biggest crush. It's just something fun to say. But more people say it to me than I say it to anybody else.

A lot of people, when they have commented on your success, they fold it in with this idea that prior to Gutfeld, there hasn't been a hit, conservative late night show. Do you think there's something that you cracked the code with, or do you think it's just your right time, right place because of changes in the culture? Why hasn't there been?

I think it's a little of both. One is that late night shows were not political, and then they became political.

There's, let's say, half of the population that doesn't share those politics.

So they're for the taking. They don't want Kimmel or Colbert in their living room telling them they're stupid for voting for Trump. So there's all those people. But then the other thing is what you said of the change in the culture. It's like everybody was walking around going like, Am I going to get canceled? Am I Do I have to be scared of not just what I'm saying, but what I'm thinking? And do I actually change my behavior? I had always been about sharing the risk that somebody's got to do it. Like JK Rowling in the Trance movie, she obviously is a billionaire. She can share the risk. She has FU money. But I thought, somebody has to break the ice and say, I'm here and I'm going to do this. Whether it's Rogan or Tim Dylan or Theovon, who's the guy from the show tires. I always forget- Shane Gillis. Shane Gillis. Shane Gillis is a great example. He was a guy that was shoved off to the side because he didn't fit the right formula for SNL. And then he comes back, what, four years later and is hosting it.

But do you actually see Kimmel, Colbert, and Fallon as competition?

Not really.

Because you do very different things, but you do seem to need them in a way as foils.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I know myself enough that I do need foils. Why? I talk about this with Jessica Tarloff a lot. When I'm writing my notes for the five, I have her in my head She's my muse. That like, okay, what is she reading? How is she going to respond to this? It's very helpful just to have that rather than just writing for... I write stuff anyway, but When I was in men's magazines, my foils were like, Esquire GQ details, and I just made fun of them all the time. I think it was maybe it helped sharpen my identity and it reminds me of what I am, which is not them. I know that's circular, but- Is there any actual animosity there?

No. Because I just was looking up stuff you said about Colbert. It's like you call him a smug loser or something like that. The one that stood out for me about Kimmel was, let me make sure I get this right. If that man was any more full of shit, he'd be a colostomy bag.

Yes.

It doesn't tip over into personal animosity? No. Or you don't have some?

This is where I thought you were going to go earlier. I have this thing called the hierarchy of smears. That means if you, at the hierarchy of smears, you call somebody a fascist who's going to destroy the world, I can call you anything. I made this point in an article by the New York Times, but they didn't include it, which bummed me out, which was the cat timp article. The writer had asked me, she was in the audience, the Gutfeld audience, watching the show, and she said, During the show, you made all of these fat jokes. There were so many of them, and I'm sitting in your audience and I'm saying, There's some overweight people. I said, Yeah, but they didn't call me Hitler. That's the difference. It goes back to the framing, which is, I think you're wrong, you think I'm evil. I'm never going to call somebody fat because they're fat. I'm going to call you fat if you called me Hitler. The hierarchy of smears, that's way down here. The best part about that is it hurts them. It hurts them more than if they were to call me Hitler because they have to look in the mirror every day.

I know I'm not Hitler. They know they're fat. It's funny because Kat makes- It's charming.

Yeah, what? It's a charming way of looking at things.

No, Kat, it makes fun of me over this. It's Greg, you're trying to turn calling people fat into a heroic endeavor. It's like, yeah, pretty much. But again, just stop calling me, a Nazi or Hitler or a fascist, and I'll lay off the physical stuff. But the physical stuff doesn't come close to ascribing this moral evil to somebody that then generates animosity among people who might do something to you, who might come to your house. I think about that when I call somebody a name, I go like, this fucker deserves this shit. Does that make sense?

I understand what you're saying. That's not the same as saying, I think it makes sense, but I understand what you're saying.

I'll take the, I understand what you're saying as making sense.

If you were asked to consult Colbert and Kimmel's writers about how they could make fun of you, what would you tell them?

Okay, so height doesn't work because a lot of people make fun of my physical stuff, but I do that, too. I do that, too. I guess I think you could- Where's your soft spot? Where is my soft spot? I don't know. That's funny. I would like to think that you could make fun of me about everything. But But I guess it's weird because I just explained that this is the thing in my hierarchy of smears. Maybe that is what it is. Maybe it's what gets me is when you call me Hitler, that might be my soft spot.

That's the line.

That's the line, I guess.

I think there's the idea that you're willing to take risks in things you say and push against various orthodoxies. What would be the risky thing to say to your audience? Are those risks you're willing to take?

What I don't say, Kat says, Kat and I disagree in a lot of stuff. She's more in the live and let live mode of the trans stuff. I am not. I believe in live and let live, but I think that there's a compelling pressure behind this preferential treatment that is disturbing and can lead to other things. I'm always trying to figure shit out when it comes to spirituality, but I have offended my audience if I'm too flippant on religion. But I think that my audience is pretty generous because think about it, my audience didn't exist until I got there. And so they're aligning with me in a way. So it would almost be surprising if there was something we disagreed on. For example, I say I'm pro-life. Most of those people are pro-life. Maybe that's why they came to me.

Do you remember what it was about religion that you said that offended your audience? God.

Might have just been using the Lord's name in vain. That will always piss people off. Also, religious people are such nice people. They make you feel bad. They don't write angry letters. Well, you The New York Times, product of the devil, David. Let's be honest.

Because this is going to be in audio, too, I just need to make it clear that I made an extremely skeptical face when I, Craig, said, religious people don't write letters.

No, I said, no, they write letters, but they're so polite. Though the ones I get, I'm telling you, man, the ones I get, it's like, Greg, we always respect your opinions, but I must ask you, please refrain from using the Lord's name in vain. Then they will try to... It's like Penjilette said to me, he He's an atheist.

Someone who works at Planned Parenthood might have a different opinion about how polite the religious letter writers are.

Well, I mean, they are killing children. That's part of the game. In your face.

There are There's a book of yours from 2015 called How to be Right. Oh, yeah. And in there, you wrote that ideological purity on the right creeps you out. Where do you see that ideological purity on the right today?

You know, it's funny. You notice that it's been destroyed. That's weird. I haven't reread that book because I'm afraid that there'll be things in there that I have changed my mind on. And I should because I've learned more in the last 10 years than I have in my entire life. Ideological purity would be like drugs. This also shows you how you can flip so many times. I went for decriminalization. I believed that all drugs should be legalized.

Basically, the libertarian position.

Yes, the libertarian position. In a weird way, people like me who make decriminalization arguments have the safety net. I'm not If I end up getting super high tonight, I'm not going to end up on the street tomorrow. So I have that luxury. What about everybody else?

It was an easy for you to make.

It's an easy thing for me to make. In a way, it's like a cool virtue signal. But then you look around, you go, wow, there's a lot of people here that are fucked up.

But you're bringing this up as an example of an ideological position you held that has changed. Yes. I'm more curious about ideological positions that you might hold today that don't seem in line with contemporary, conservative, Orthodox. Oh, okay. You're saying the purity test thing is outdated. Give me an example.

I think Foreign policy is a good one. I'm definitely... America first, I had to be sold on. I'm still wait and see on tariffs. Tariffs was an ideology. Anti-tariffs was an ideology. I just thought they were bad.

It's also a libertarian position. Yeah, exactly. Anti-free trade.

Yeah, anti-free trade. And yet, did that keep me from wondering if it might work or not? I don't know what happens. I still don't know. I know that it's a tool that you can moderate, modulate, or whatever, but I don't know.

You gave two examples, drug decriminalization and tariffs that are, like I pointed out in line with a libertarian slant to your thinking. It's clear from reading your books that there has been a libertarian thrust to your political thinking. It's very easy to make the argument that President Trump's policies are problematic when it comes to libertarian politics.

Yeah, I don't think he's in any label. That's the thing.

My question, though, is knowing that you do have this libertarian slant, are there aspects of what President Trump is doing that give you pause or cause for concern?

Yeah, I guess the flag thing does.

What's the flag thing?

Going to jail if you burn a flag. I get it if it's somebody else's property, but if it's your flag, you can do whatever you want. That, to me, is a mistake. It's funny. I still don't really see Trump in any political party. I see him as, ultimately, the way Trump was before he was in politics was like, Do whatever you want. Just don't bother me.

All Are there things that President Trump does that infringe on people's freedoms?

Let me think. I'd say the flag thing is a potential thing. I think sometimes when he cleans up a mess, it can look like it is. But it's like, who else is going to do it? It's like we're cleaning up a mess that was for five years. Illegal immigration is a good example of like, Dude, if you made this mess, you can't stand off on the side and criticize the way we're cleaning it. I think, is there a softer approach? Maybe, but it's like you got to build credibility back to be able to criticize that.

You worked for a long time in Men's Health, that Men's Health magazine, and then also you worked at Prevention magazine. Yes. I'm curious to know, given that experience, and you're familiar and had seen a lot of health fads come and go, what make of the Maha movement, Make America Healthy Again?

Well, it's weird because when I was working at prevention in men's health, you would get... There's all sorts of movements, and the anti-vax movement was very tough. It was always focused around this Lancet study. There was this one Lancet study that made this tie between autism. I think it's been completely debunked, but it still existed. So that used to drive me crazy. But I talk to people and I understand about the grouping because my wife is like this. My wife worries about the grouping of vaccines. There are questions about other vaccines, whether it's COVID or is it B or Hep C? But I have a fairly skeptical eye There was some weird shit working in health magazines that you come into. The reverse circumcision movement, guys who wanted their foreskin back, that was the thing. There was a woman that once tried to convince me she could use sound waves to cure AIDS. I would run into the weirdest stuff.

Given your skepticism about that, doesn't it seem like there's a lot that's ripe to be made fun of with the Maha movement and anti-vac stuff? And why don't you do it?

I do. I actually do. You give a comment every now and then.

You let one slip, but you don't consistently make fun of it.

I've always said I'm critical. The autism thing, I'm really worried about, but I'm waiting to see what happens.

What would you need to see happen?

To make it more- They say that it's not vaccine-related, which I don't think it is. But I do think at least the dude's fit.

You're talking about RFK.

Yeah. They're talking about exercise and they're talking about diet. It's this whole weird world, I guess. From the Rogan Sphere to RFK Jr. And just Pete Hegset. It's a renewed sense of taking care of yourself. It's not a bad thing.

From your book, The Bible of Unspeakable Truths, I don't know shit when it comes to medicine, but that shit is still more than people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And everyone else who thought that vaccines caused autism. Yes. No. And now you're saying, at least he's fit. This feels like a good trade off to you.

You can have two thoughts in your head. I still think I'm still critical of that, and I wonder if he is, too. I think he has pulled back from that. But I thought that was, I felt, a really serious issue because it was feeding into people's beliefs about vaccines. But if he's willing to pull out of that, which I think he is, at least they're investigating it. But I still feel the same way. I don't think there is a... I would be shocked if they find a link. So I stand by that. Nice job, though.

I hate to keep just going back to your books, but there was something in particular that was interesting to me in a book you wrote a couple of years ago called The Plus, where you lamented a problem that you called the opposition toxin, which is the inclination of the media to always see two groups in conflict. Could Gutfeld, the show, or your career be possible, or could they exist without the opposition toxin?

Yes. As long as it's funny, there are so many stories that you can cover without being either or. I think I do plenty of them. It's the thing that you have to always be a party pooper with nuance. It's not exactly this way. I call it the prison of two ideas. Almost everything can be placed in that prison. Everything. Foreign policy, feminism, whatever, gay rights, you name it. Anything can go right in there. You're either for or you're against.

We can't help but view the world through our personal context, and particularly our personal emotional context. Emotions are where all ideas come from. I have some questions about your formative years. I know that when you were growing up, your dad was sick with cancer for most of your adolescence, and I think you wrote about how you would come home and help clean his wounds and do physical therapy with him when he was yelling in pain. How does that shape someone?

I I think it probably maybe kept me from having kids for a while. I think maybe that... From a personal level, it was probably like, you never know what's going to happen with your family. I don't want to be in... Maybe I had done my childcare when I was young. For your dad? Yeah, and maybe that was it. I don't I don't know if it steered me into the health journalism, but I was definitely interested in health and I was interested in fitness. My dad's illness probably got me into that, maybe. I had a curiosity about... I remember taking genetics at Berkeley, and it was fairly new because of that. I think it made me curious about medicine, and it probably made me reticent about starting families because you never know, which is a really stupid reason not to do it.

You have a one-year-old now?

Yeah, well, she's 10 months.

Ten months?

Yeah.

Are there ways in which being a father has changed your disposition to the world or what you would like the world to look like?

I don't think it can make me more anti-crime than I already was. When I'm walking around, I go like, Do we have to move out of the city? What happens if we get this new mayor? Okay, that's the whatever. But it makes you forgive everything bad you did prior to that. Because you can't have a regret. You can't have a regret for something. If you were to change that, this person wouldn't be here. Obviously, I wouldn't even know that Mirreya existed, and I would have Joey in Geronimo. But the thing is, I don't, and I have this, and I'm like, Fuck. I wouldn't change anything, which is great because if you spent decades being a reprobate, I can now say to myself, it's like, Well, I was an asshole for these four years. These other years, I was vacant, but it all led to this. By the way, it's 12: 15, dude. I got to go to work.

I know. We're scheduled for another 15 minutes. Oh, really?

Those bastard didn't tell me that.

Sorry to interrupt. Also, just so you know, then we talk a second time.

Well, it's fact-checking.

No, it's a whole second part of the interview. No, it's not. It's shorter. Don't worry. I'm not joking either.

I don't believe you.

It's true. There were two stories in a book you wrote called Be Cool that stood out for me.

Or Not Cool.

Was it Not Cool? Not Cool. I'm sorry. I have the specific title because the whole title really is important. Yes. Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You. Struggled with that one. In that book, there are two anecdotes that you mention still linger with you. One involved a group of kids in the fifth grade. Yes. The Sharks.

The Sharks.

Do you want to quickly tell that story?

Yeah, it's almost like the first real experience I had with groupthink. I think it was an episode of Happy Days or something where there was a gang in it, and everybody the next day wanted to be in a gang, and they just decided they were the sharks. But I wasn't going to be one. I think I was mad because I wasn't even included in it. It was the first time I ever felt that. You were being excluded. Yes, being excluded, and also how stupid they were acting as a mob. I think that has always been following me around a little bit.

In that book, you say your experience with this gang of kids is you were banished and you've been banished ever since. Then you also tell a story about a kid named James. Do you want to tell me about James in kindergarten?

Oh, yeah. Boy, you're pulling shit out. That Black kid? Yeah. It was weird because we were best friends. Then I run into him, I don't know, maybe seven years later, something like that, and he was like, saw me as a completely different person. I didn't exist. It was just like, what happened? I think that was what I was talking. Basically, I was talking- What do you think happened there? I think that he realized we were two different races and that he had no need for me. That was basically it.

When I read those two stories, and again, it's because you single both them out as being formative in the book, I thought, these stories are about resentment at being rejected. I wonder how much resentment and also a desire to preemptively reject before you're rejected drives what you do now and formed your identity. Because the subtext, all your work, I've really immersed myself in it for a while, it's all F you to this other group, all of it.

I think that's simplistic, but there is a kernel to truth. I do think that almost all resentments have your role in it, right? I think it's fair to say.

It takes two to tango. Yeah.

I do think that Why do you get mad when somebody gets a promotion over you or you get fired and you get resentful? It's usually self-doubt, maybe, that I may never... Maybe I'm not good enough. So I do think there's always going to be- Is that what you feel? No, I'm saying that that's... I think that's what I think- I'm asking what you- I think that's what I would say in that example of, let's say somebody gets a promotion over me, I would say, Is that person better than me? I think that's a normal human thing, and I think I can feel that. I can feel that. I don't think I feel that anymore. But I'm sure back in the day I did. It's like, why is this person... When I would get fired, I would be pissed off, and I would forget the fact that when I would get into my next role, it would be better. I didn't have faith in myself to actually do better.

Do you have long-term ambitions beyond what you're doing now? Is this what you want to be doing five years from now?

God, I'm '61. There are no long-term ambitions. I'm happy doing this. I imagine that the vehicles might change. It feels like things are always going to be changing. But I have a feeling this is what I'm doing for now. Now it could be until I'm, I don't know, 75. I think 75 is a good year. I look great for '61, let's be honest. I mean, look at this.

Debatable. Thank you for taking the time today. You got it. We are speaking a second time. That's part of the deal. You can get mad at your publicist after. I am. I'm going to get mad. It'll be next week, so you have a little time.

The walk back to the office is going to be very, very cold and sharp looks back and forth.

But thank you again for taking the time. You got it. And I'm looking forward to talking with you again. You got it, buddy.

Good to see you.

Don't forget my pen.

After the break, we do indeed talk again. This time, I call Greg up at home, and he makes his case for how the right got cool.

What is considered, I don't know, fun is whatever upsets your teacher. This is where I think the real Trump fandom came into play among young people was how much it pissed off their teachers.

This is A. O. Scott. I'm a critic at the New York Times. These days, there are so many movies and books and television shows and songs that it's hard to make sense of it all. At the New York Times, what the critics do is sort through as much of that as we can to come up with advice, with recommendations, to guide you toward the stuff that's worth your time and attention. But we don't only offer guidance. Critics are here to help you make sense of things, to get you thinking about the way a movie connects with history or politics, the way a song opens up emotion, how a piece of art illuminates the world in the magical way that only art can do. Really, what I do and what the other critics here do is part of the same project that all of the journalists at the New York Times work on every day to give you clarity and perspective and above all, a deeper understanding of the world. When you subscribe to the New York Times, it's not just here the headlines, but, Here's the way everything fits together. If you'd like to subscribe, please go to nytimes.

Com/subscribe.

Hey, Greg. Thanks for taking the time to speak with me again. I appreciate it.

My pleasure.

So this is something that's been nagging at me. Earlier, you expressed this idea that a lot of damage has been done in the country as a result of what you called amplified narratives, politically oriented repetition, persuasion, like brainwashing. And the thing that's been nagging at me is, help me understand how it's not at least a little bit hypocritical to say that, because even if it's nominally comedy that you're doing on Gutfeld, you're repeating the same ideas over and over again with slight variations. Those The idea is basically being the idiots on the left are ruining the country. So how are you not part of the problem that you're diagnosing?

I do my best not to call people Nazis.

I do my best not to put targets on people's back.

Now, there might be times that I violate that, but I pretty much try to hold myself to that standard. So I don't think it's hypocritical. And when you call somebody Hitler, if I believe that you are Hitler, I would be morally wrong not to do something. And by the way, this is not an uncommon thing. Everything from the Democrats, when it comes to trying to persuade, is always, and it's a good way of persuasion, fear. But It's a threat to the planet. It's a threat to democracy. It's a threat to your children. If you do not agree with our beliefs on trans, this child will commit suicide. What would you rather have? A live daughter or a dead son? That's the rhetoric that I hear all the time. I try my best not to use it.

My dogs, don't throw up. He's listening to me, Gus.

When people talk to me about... Well, clearly, there's people on the right that do this stuff. There's no question there are crackpots, but the crackpottery on the right It's usually driven from an internal paranoia, an internal conspiracy. It's not welcome. It might be welcome in some chat rooms, but it's not welcomed in the media. In fact, we have a pretty good track record of distancing ourselves from crazy people.

Well, the Dominion lawsuit would suggest otherwise.

Well, I don't know. That's above my pay grade. I had nothing to do with that in Why did you bring that up? I mean, it's like, Hey, you score a point with that, but you know that has nothing to do with me. Well, I think- That's a cheap shot. You can ask any questions that you You thought it was an unfair comparison. What does that have to do with me?

I thought we were talking in a larger context about messages on the right and the left.

But I'm trying to figure out. I'm confused by that That example, because what's the Dominion lawsuit involving people saying we need to kill people? I'm talking about a narrative that causes people to act violently.

Hello.

Sorry, I have a little dog here that is driving me crazy.

There you go. That's okay. I understand the narrative you're bringing up. I thought- Yeah, sorry.

Can I just finish? Since you get to bring up, since You get to bring up something. I get to bring up something, right?

Okay, sure. Yeah.

When we were leaving, this is the only thing that stuck with me was when we were leaving and you had... You could tell me if this is off base and edit it out if you want. You said that you have a hard time getting people from the right on your shows. And you said it's probably because they feel that they don't need to do it or they know that there's a risk involved. And I understand that because I encountered the same thing with my show. There are people that will want to do my show, but they won't do it because there's a risk involved. But I still did this this interview with you, even though I felt that there was a risk involved, and because of that, I didn't want to do it. But you know who persuaded me to do it? Who? Fox. Fox wanted me to do this because any time there is something like this, Fox will say, This is a great thing to get out in front of people and let them hear you. And I'm like, What's the point? I don't see the point. So I think people have to understand that we put ourselves out there when almost, from my personal experience, nobody ever does.

By the way, are you okay with me talking about this?

I don't know the answer to that.

I apologize. It's just that it stuck with me because I was thinking, you know what? I didn't want to do this interview because I was weighing the risk benefits, and I couldn't see the benefits, but I could see the risks. I think I said to you, why walk a tight rope between two buildings when you could just cross the street?

Sorry, Greg. I understand, and I appreciate you taking the risk. And again, I just want to say, perhaps my comparison was not a fair one. The reason I brought it up, and maybe I was misunderstanding the point you were making, but the reason I brought it up is because I interpreted what you were saying as being that we being Fox doesn't have a place for conspiratorial thinking. So when I heard that, I thought, well, there's evidence, the evidence being the Dominian lawsuit that no, Fox did have a place for conspiratorial thinking.

Got you. Yeah, I was focusing on things that put my life or your life at risk, those kinds of things. That other stuff, the conspiracy type stuff, to me, I'm holding a dog toy. I can't see myself, so I have no idea what I'm doing.

But right, G?

Sorry.

That's okay. I want to move on from this subject. All right.

I'm sorry, but he's driving me nuts, and I'm alone, so I can't really put him anywhere.

No, it's nice to get a glimpse of this is what Craig Gutfeld's life is like when he's on his computer. If anything, it helps create a sympathetic portrait of you.

I got this from reading a book on power. Have a dog show up in the middle of an interview.

Yeah. This is not even your dog. It turns No, it's not.

It's a prop dog. There's a whole company that rents out prop dogs for contentious interviews with the liberal media. It's a conservative organization. And get this, these are strays. These are strays. And after we use them in the interview- Put it back on the street. Yeah, they're back on the street, but they get a good meal.

All right, go away.

There's an idea that I've heard you express. It's one that I've heard other comedians express to. Andrew Schultz has said it. And that idea is that the right is now the cool side, and the left are the scoles, the wet blankets. And you wrote a whole book called Not Cool. It's defining yourself in opposition to being cool. And I just want to know, how do you think about what cool is now and what benefits it confers on you and also what flaws it might conceal?

It's a good question. So I wrote It could have been 20 years ago. It was called the Dean Wurmer Effect. And it was about how as- Is that the Animal House Dean?

Is that Dean?

Yes. It's like the way people view Conservatives versus Liberals is Dean Wurmer and animal house. The Liberals are animal house. The Conservatives are always Dean Wurmer.

And my goal was to flip that, and it had to come down to humor, how people take a joke.

So I think what is, I don't like the word cool, but what is considered, I don't know, fun, is whatever upsets your teacher. And when you saw an overwhelming number, this is where I think the real Trump fandom came into play among young people, was how much it pissed off their teachers. And you saw this growth of people recording their teachers that showed up on Twitter and Instagram of a teacher talking about, You vote for Trump, I'm going to fail you, stuff like that where they think they're not being recorded. They say something funny, then they get in trouble. So I think what happened was teachers represented the scold, the adult symbol of you can't do that. And that creates a whole thing of, oh, yes, we can. And that's the flip. And in comedy, you're supposed to be the one... I mean, that's where the class clown probably originates is the comic is there to make the teacher crazy. Once the left got too comfortable, got into power, they realized they didn't have to have a sense of humor anymore. And that's why you saw a lot of people getting canceled and stuff.

Let's take that diagnosis to be true. Now that you are the cool one, does that carry any risks or arguments you made in the past were that the people who are cool end up being condescending, dismissive, exclusionary?

I think there's two points to make. I am the last person to think that I'm cool.

We can agree on that.

Well, thank you, David. Thank you. I'm '61.

You make Dean Wurmer references.

I got a Frenchie sleeping at my foot. This is not cool. But there is There is a danger of when you ascend, you replicate the very practices that you hate. I think that is a concern in Every... I try, for example, I try never to say that's not funny because that shouldn't matter. Let's say Cathy Griffin says she makes a joke about Donald Trump. If my first instinct is to go, Well, that's not funny, it shouldn't matter whether it's funny or not. It's just like, That's what she says? That's fine. Not my cup of tea. But I'm not going to go and go, You know what the problem is? That's not funny. It's like funny is subjective. As you probably know, there's an equal number of people who find me unfunny, and that's fine. I'm an acquired taste. So I have to remind myself as whether I find something funny or not is irrelevant.

But just the last question because I know you have to run, but what are you most idealistic about?

God, that's a schmaltzy question, but it has a schmaltzy answer.

I really love life.

And I used to be somebody that expected things to go my way. When things went well, I just expected it. When things didn't go well, I was pissed off. It's a very simple filter flip. Now, it's like, I expect everything to be difficult, and then when it goes well, I'm incredibly grateful. That one little switch, it's literally a flip. Has changed my life.

I don't know if that's...

I guess I'm ideally... Yeah, that's probably it. I should shut up because that's it.

You probably expected this to go badly, and then it went well.

Yes, exactly right. If I expected coming into this interview that this thing was going to somehow change my life and I was going to own the libs, then I would be a cranky, cantankerous asshole. But in this case, I'm We'll see what happens. He'll probably have some penetrating questions. He'll probably try to psychoanalyze me. He might even bring up dominion. But knowing that ahead of time, I'm pleasantly surprised. David is not a bad guy. He doesn't mind my dog.

That's Greg Gutfeld. To watch this interview and many others, you can subscribe to our YouTube channel at youtube. Com. Com/@simble, The Interview podcast. This conversation was produced by Wyatt Orm. It was edited by Annabelle Bacon, mixing by Sonia Herrero. Original music by Dan Powell, Ron Nemistow, and Marion Lozano. Photography by Philip Montgomery. Our senior Booker is Priya Matthew, and Seth Kelly is our senior producer. Our executive producer is Allison Benedict. Video of this interview was produced by Paula Neudorff. Cinematography by Zebediah Smith, with additional camera work Andrew Smith and Thomas Trudeau. Audio by nick Pitman. It was edited by Caroline Kim. Brook Minters is the executive producer of podcast video. Special thanks to Rory Walsh, Ronan Borelli, Jeffrey Miranda, nick Pitman, Maddie Macielo, Jake Silverstein, Paula Schumann, and Sam Dolnik. Next week, Lulu talks with journalist Tina Brown about the Royals, Jeffrey Epstein, and how the magazine world has changed since her days editing Vanity Fair and the New Yorker in the '80s and '90s. '90s.

This was when work was so much fun. It's like all the fun has come out of work. This was a period that I lived through where it was this hell for leather pursuit of great stuff. The offices of Vanity Fair were just the HQ of interesting, adventurous talent.

I'm David Markezi, and this is the interview from the New York Times.