John Oliver
 

OK your not fans of Bill Maher, don't miss Charlie Rose or Tavis Smiley but do you watch this?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...ThURSfetySj8j3

https://media.giphy.com/media/TlK63E...Vfkk/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/gw3vc8...SnW8/giphy.gif

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...uSEcBW6wDmqgzw

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-18-2015/IjcB1v.gif

Nope. Too busy watching hot covers and dank memes on YouTube.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QCjk_NPsIqU" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They're starting to blur together and prove too strident to take with the grain of salt they're supposed to be.

It's a weird mix where you are ostensibly primarily a comedic entertainment vehicle, but you definitely have a partisan slant, and you also cater facts to deliver more humor tinged sermons than humor based bits.

They ping-pong between lecture and absurdity so quickly it's tough, even when paying full informed attention, to tell when they're being absurd because the events demand it, and when they jump over into the absurd to mask that their lecture of the previous moment didn't really have a point or evidentiary support.

This is a great youtube channel, who I recalled doing a breakdown of other closely related shows. It lays out many of my gripes. But the central gripe is it's preying on your audience to lecture to them in the guise of entertaining them with such underhanded techniques.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DXYx6bjkUU8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He is not a journalist. He doesn't pretend to be anything but partisan. Its his show. It's his opinions.

He's doing something no one has done before. Combine in depth research, mostly boring deep dives into an issue with buffoon, low brow comedic bits and snark.

If you have a criticism of my remarks, base them on my actual remarks, not the words you wish you could put in my mouth.

Never said he held himself out as a journalist. Never said he wasn't entitled to put out whatever show he and HBO agree to.

But it is important, I think, to highlight some of the slight of hand that happens in these format shows.

And it's not anything that hasn't been done before. It's right out of the StewBeef operations manual, employed by Colbert, Bee, Seth Meyers, Klepper, Thede, and was even preceded by Maher in many of his 'Last Word' segments on his own show through the years.

An ominous setup
A curated summary of salient events and/or chronology
A short but damning/absurd soundbyte
A look of seething rage
Close with an absurdist analogy that moves things back into comedy, while retaining the veneer of hard-hitting reportage.

Again, they have every right to do it. And people have every right to enjoy it. Just thought some people might also enjoy an analytical breakdown of their methods.

Witty, funny, cracks me up.

chill out man geeezzz. I should have just posted the comment as a stand alone comment without quoting part of your comment. Are you a little stressed?

Baby LOLee

What a gasbag

You're absolutely right.

You'd think by now I'd have learned that blathering nonsense is just that, even when directed specifically at me.

Breath taken, lesson learned, expectations adjusted. ;)

What Oliver and Stewart and Colbert have done over the years, and in my opinion what Samantha Bee has absolutely mastered, is nothing new. It's been in existence for forever. This is just our generation's version of it.

It's editorial and it's humor. The editorial really makes the humor land harder, and the humor makes the editorial very easy to ingest.

What Stewart did in 2001 was really learn how to weaponize it in ways that were incredibly specific and incisive. He didn't say Bernie Sanders is an old man who does old man things. His argument was that Bernie Sanders was way more reasonable and genuine than we've been accustomed, and as a result the media has no idea what to do with him than paint him as an old crazy dude. Agree or disagree, that's a way more incisive argument than anything current-day Colbert or Trevor Noah trots out.

Colbert on the CC show had that incisiveness, but has lost it for more bland editorial humor. Oliver and Bee have that incisiveness and then some. Bee in particular is a genius at weaponizing her editorial humor into actual political action.

Oliver is another dick leftist.

both shows are getting to be unwatchable. too many half truths and no accountability for their own actions :D

your watching a comedy show expecting Morrow/Cronkite truth?

He sucks and I hope he dies.

Just kidding of course - but I'm not a fan, he's as bad as Colbert. Politics has nothing to do with it, with me.

They're no Craig Kilborn.

Is it you're [sp] position that you have never taken anything said on any of these shows as anything other than comedic fiction, or at the least satirical distortion?

Craiggers!!

Kilbey!!

They're not funny and uninteresting to me.

however: http://ew.com/article/2010/06/25/wha...craig-kilborn/

He's like Piers Morgan, only even more of a mincing fop.

ROFL

I actually like Bill Maher even though hes an asshole. I really do not like John Oliver, though.

It's not comedic fiction.

It's humor-fueled editorial. They're not just randomly making shit up.

You cannot watch these shows without admitting they occasionally (or in my opinion, frequently) make good points.

At least you are forced to confront your feelings about it, and it's funny as ****.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a871_KYdIUU?rel=0&amp;controls=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They make interesting rhetorical points to ponder.

My beef is more with the way they phrase the counterargument.

They have an idea - Fine
They wonder why their idea hasn't been adopted - Fine
They misrepresent the heck out of the counterargument - Ah, here's the problem
Finally, they conclude that there are no good arguments against their idea. - unsupported and distorted conclusion.

Yeah but it got him in the White House.

Holy Shit, post of the year.

To the extent this is relevant to the 2016 election, even then I'm not sure what it establishes.

It would seem to argue that Trump won the election, at least in part, by taking the current rhetorical landscape and using it to his own advantage.

That part of why Colbert/Oliver/Bee/Stewart etc are so traumatized by the past year is that he did their gig better and actually accomplished something with it.

Of all the criticism of Trump, asserting that he defended his good ideas by shortchanging the arguments of the opposition is a relatively novel one.

Nevertheless, not sure how turning my criticism of the 'late night method' of rhetoric onto Trump says anything about anything, except the state of the populace regarding how they prefer their debates.

I like his style of comedy but like many other things the politics (slanted politics) are the sand in my ass crack on a day at the beach...

Yea, I can't stand to watch Fox and Friends either.

Your so full of shitROFLROFLROFLROFL


[IMG]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aw6RsUhw1Q8?rel=0&amp;controls=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/IMG]


After you watch if Google it.

Ah, and step number three is where you’re mischaracterizing these guys, and epically so. This is precisely why you’re twisted up about these guys.

Ask yourself: what comedic editorial trick did the Daily Show master under Jon Stewart?

Playing clips of politicians and media figures shamelessly contradicting themselves for political expediency. The Daily Show also earned a reputation for playing soundbites of hilariously stupid arguments made by the media and those in power and shitting all over them for it. Colbert Report mastered that. Oliver and Bee take it to the next level by shattering the arguments that those in power are making — and we know they are making those arguments because both Oliver and Bee play clips of them making those arguments.

So to correct your reductive pattern of Stewart/Colbert/Oliver/Bee:

They have an idea.
They wonder why that idea hasn’t been enacted.
They then play clips of people in power and the media saying why it hasn’t been enacted.
They then call their bullshit, and present their counterargument.

That’s why these shows are influential editorials. They are funny, but they actionably take a stand that you can evaluate.

To call them “comedic fiction” is ridiculous.

Don't even try this bullshit.
This bullshit is EXACTLY what is pernicious about their method.
'They play clips' - yeah, 2 seconds clips completely out of context that they then spend the next 5 minutes explaining to you what the person meant, probably meant, and why they said it.

And the thing is, it's not that their methods can't be rebutted, but it takes time, research, and energy to rebut 'an entertainment segment' that just isn't worth it, particularly with the sheer volume they put out.

That's not to say there are aren't times when they get the argument completely right, but that's part of the point. The few times they clearly get it right lend unearned credibility to the many many other times they are shamefully misrepresenting or distorting the facts.

It's entertaining and lucrative, and they work hard on it. But it's no more truthful or journalistic than any other partisan talking head. If you insist that they are presenting 'humor filled editorial' that consistently gets it right, you're no different from a Rush or Hannity fan.

Case in point, the segment above about 'Late Night Journalism' is long. 20 minutes long. And it only highlights a couple of aspects about a few clips from a particular point in time. Watch the segment and tell me it doesn't have merit.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DXYx6bjkUU8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

maybe if these 'critics' weren't canadian or british, their words would carry more weight. it just reeks of foreign individuals simply trying to point out their differences in their culture to americans, but in the end, they forget how many atrocities their countries have committed over time too :D

it would be like me, trying to implement australian values on americans due to the aussie culture and how it fits my 'comfort zone'. when you see me telling you mericans should give up your guns because aussies did it one time would make me blind to what its like to 'be' american :D

NO

It would be like you trying to discuss the news and issues of the day on Assie TV. People who didn't like what you said, or how you said it, would discount your thoughts because your not born in Australia... People who listened were, at least, forced to think about what your point was

. It is what it is: Political humor. You want real news?

https://pmctvline2.files.wordpress.c...0&h=420&crop=1

But you can't because you don't have a TV show, Oliver does. Actually you should call HBO.

Samantha Bee is an American citizen.

John Oliver is going to become one as soon as he is eligible. His American wife volunteered after 9/11. She served in Iraq for 16 months. Was an army medic in the battle of Fullajah. Saved countless life's. Now is an advocate for veterans rights. You think someone like that would be married to Oliver if he was trying to impose another countries values on us?

Bee is clearly comedic fiction. Sorry, she is. Starting with a predetermined destination is no way to argue your point, at least not with any critical thinking involved.

Oliver is quite a bit better, but clearly has his own bias/blind spots as do we all. Plenty of critical thinking goes on with his show. I don't always agree with the conclusions, but I don't see any hard line agendas. There are often slants towards the left, but I think they are expected due to who Oliver is. I like that he calls out the lefts BS often enough to maintain some credibility.

Oliver has his own particular method of deflecting from his weaker arguments.

The triumph as well as the tragedy is, that method is usually the most entertaining part of the segment.

When he does the 3-second sound byte thing, rather than misrepresenting the balance of the quoted person's argument or slandering the intent, he veers into an absurdist tangent.

Senator X: [3-second soundbyte]

John: How can you say that Senator X? That's as dumb as asking a frog to carry your pocketwatch. A frog can't tell time, and it doesn't have pockets.

GIVE ME BACK MY WATCH MR. FROG! YOU HAVE NO USE FOR MY WATCH MR. FROG!!

[pounds desk]

It is comedy, and for the most part funny as hell.

Which is absolutely fine. I watch the show every week and enjoy it, even when I'm bemused. But that's because I enjoy consuming media in order to fact check it much as most enjoy watching fiction for the stories. It exercises my 'discernment muscles.'

What's important though, is that the takeway for most from the 'example' I created above is 'frogs with pocketwatches are funny,' not so much 'John Oliver convinced me Senator X is a bad person.'

I never took away that it was supposed to make me think Senator X was a bad person. It's a quote out of context. Intelligent people, yes I realize that excludes the majority of the nation, get that.

I used to think Bee was one of the best parts of the Daily Show, and I was very excited that she got her own gig .

But my god....that show is ****ing god awful. The....same....shit....night...after....night. It's jut a lazy show to me. Hmm...wonder if I should tune into Sam Bee tonight?....I wonder if she'll make some Trump jokes?
She's the Amy Schumer of types of shows.

The Colbert Report was awesome; but his show now sucks ass as well (likely due to the fact he's no longer playing a character).

I do enjoy Oliver's show however, even though I don't always agree with him, I still get quite a bit of laughs. I enjoy that, for the most part, he has a fairly decent range of topics. He still sticks his toe into the Trump pool (ie, lazy) a bit too often, but not nearly as much as the others.

Kimmel blows hard, and comes across as condescending. Nothing like getting lectured to by a guy who used to do fart jokes on The Man Show.

The fact that a large segment of society gets their 'news' from these shows is frightening.

Kimmel bought into the hype and has far too high an opinion of himself.

Umm... that has been done before.

Every late night talk show has turned into the Daily Show. There's like 40 copy cats of that show now. They're just more partisan and less funny.

It's not new. I'm actually pretty bored with it. I'm generally tired of famous people thinking their fame gives them moral authority to lecture me perpetually. These people sermonize more than Billy Graham. I'm bored with yuppies telling stupid people what to think.

Absolutely.

John Oliver is definitely a guy that used to get stuffed into lockers at my high school. Definitely.

It worked out for him.

https://cdnph.upi.com/svc/sv/upi_com...e-baby-boy.jpg

Kimmel is the classic band/chess geek who got invited to the cool table, so he goes overboard to diss his old friends to keep his seat.

Oh, and massively pussy-whipped. His current wife is like if you put Samantha Bee, Kathy Griffin and Sarah Silverman in a blender with a handul of crack rocks.

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest you were 'too dumb' to see through anything. I just am not convinced that people with enough of their BS-meter alerted, both due to the comedic slant and the time slot.

Ironically, they met because he was at a convention to make fun of people in attendance [which she was one] for a bit to air on TDS. Can't remember if it was CPAC or RNC or fleet week or what, but something patriotic and red-statey. And she sat with him while they waited for some speech or event and convinced him that not everyone there was a loon, and he fell in love.

he may be the best and most extreme example ever of out kicking his coverage.

I doubt that, I have a couple of contestants in mind for that gig.

I rarely find that to be the case. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was renouned for rarely misrepresenting people's views, and have apologized when it was discerned that they did. Colbert's old show was the same, although I never recall Colbert apologizing because I don't recall Colbert misquoting, and I watched just about every episode. (I'm not defending his new show, which is more hacky compared to the Report, which was brilliant.)

Oliver and Bee are uniformly excellent at playing clips of people saying exactly what they mean.

How about we put this to the test, BL?

You name your show -- Bee or Oliver -- and we'll watch their next episode. We'll return here and evaluate exactly how accurate Bee and Oliver were in presenting the opposition's argument through clips.

Keep in mind -- we are not evaluating their arguments, though we can do that, too, if you want. We are evaluating how accurate their clips are of the arguments the opposition in question is presenting.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Deal?

Or, follow me here, or....

His kid almost died, a politician USED his child to LIE to Americans about healthcare reform, and Kimmel took him to town for it.

Could you be any more of a leftist shill?

No thanks. Particularly after the week of bullshit spin after the FL shooting, I'm not in the mood to scrutinize every word of a basic cable talk show, then argue over the degree of distortion or what is argument and what is assertion of fact with their every word.

I already said that a big part of the pernicious nature of the program format is the sheer volume of info that's presented as accurate, but comedy, truth, but satire, serious, but in a funny light-hearted way.

I'm perfectly satisfied with presenting what I have and making my argument that people need to be more alert to when they're being led around by the nose in the guise of entertainment.

To go beyond that is to invite round after round of sophistry and semantics, ending with an 'agree to disagree' and 'it's just entertainment' just as we have right now.

That is, unless you ACTUALLY want to put you money where your mouth is. Put me on the clock and I'll give you my most professional effort, at my customary hourly rate.

Oliver is running for PM of Italy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LdhQzXHYLZ4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Somebody tell me where the misrepresenting quotes are in this piece, please.

I was only talking about the accuracy of the clips they present, since that's the part you take umbrage with.

now if oliver highlights the fact that pelosi says its unjust and cruel to deport illegals that includes criminals of all types, is stoopid, i may change my stance :D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...mmigrants.html

it's politicians like this that should be brought up on obstruction of justice charges :thumb:

but you wont find oliver or mahr highlighting anything of the sort.