As someone who occasionally interviews people, what are you really looking for? That is, what could Lex do better in your opinion?
What I'd like is more like what Tyler Cowen does, on non-tech subjects [1]. He gives the impression of having read all their books (and their opponents') not just having skimmed Wikipedia over breakfast. He keeps it moving, and often gets people a little bit off-balance, not aggressively, but enough to make people think afresh and not just repeat what they always say.
Besides people's work, he'll ask them serious questions about (say) their known interest in some kinds or Jazz, or unrelated things about characters they would have run into at MIT in the 70s, or about the Russian education system. (I presume he has people helping him prepare, but maybe he's just like this all the time.)
I haven’t heard a better interviewer since Charlie Rose (who had a team working for him, of course).
Does anyone know of similar interviewers in this vein? Long form and exceptionally-prepared?
Really? Rose is a serial interrupter. Might as well have Gary Vee interview people if you think Charlie Rose is any good.
However, I'll defend Rose, in that he always picked interesting guests, and did good prep work. It's true that he steered the conversation in the direction he wanted it to go. But, of course, he had 60 minutes, and was recording for a broad television audience. The constraints were/are very different from Tyler's, personality differences notwithstanding.
If you listen to the interviews where he gets to break out of the normal 60 minute boundaries, I think you'll find his style shifts with the medium. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOUzTd-Ge_g
I've never heard of Gary Vee. However, based on a cursory search, I don't think a hyperbolic comparison helps your argument! :)
Agree that Cowen himself wouldn't be the right guy, at least not if you want to hear the technical side.