Personally I think I prefer Channel 4 News, to be honest

So here's an interesting thing. Jon Stewart interviewed John McCain, one of the frontrunners for the Republican Presidential nomination, the other night (see the video of it here). It's reasonably entertaining, in a horrific dispassionate-discussion-of-terrifying-violence-and-loss-of-life kind of way. The weird part has been the reaction to this interview from the fine, fine people of the internet. I'll concentrate here on the responses found over at Digg.

On the one hand, we have user whiskeymb, who reckons that McCain "was ultimately just very rude" and "had talking points he was trying to get out", rather than trying to engage in constructive discussion. He claims that it was unfair of McCain to "interrupt" and "talk over" his host.

On the other hand, we have ilyag, posting just four comments later, who says that Stewart "was extremely aggressive" and constantly "jumped on yet another talking point", not letting McCain "say more than 4 words" at a time.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that these people were watching entirely different clips. I can understand claiming that an ambiguous statement might be claimed as support for opposing political viewpoints. But how on earth does that work for claims about interview style?