Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
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.
|
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.