6 ms·

A) Yes John Oliver is awesome B) Holy Crap! A comedian is the best for reporting on issues that are actually important. What a sad state of journalism we have

by baldfat 11y ago

A) Yes John Oliver is awesome B) Holy Crap! A comedian is the best for reporting on issues that are actually important. What a sad state of journalism we have been for the last decade or so.

kawsper 11y ago
Comedy is very effective, and I have been a fan of Juice Rap News for a long time, they are really good at breaking things down, explain things with references and asking the right questions. My favorite is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o66FUc61MvU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o66FUc61MvU
- Renaud 11y ago
  Thanks for that. It's very well done and the message is spot on!
jerf 11y ago
Unfortunately, the problem is that the media isn't any better than a comedian, not that the comedian is very good. Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead. Many people criticize the mainstream media for the fake controversy approach where every issue has two sides no matter how silly, but John Oliver is even worse than that. It's fun, but that's all it is... it is not informative. Only fun. If you think he's "really good" at covering the issues, I strongly suggest tuning your media consumption; you're not even getting one side of an issue so much as one spoon-fed preparation of one side of an issue. You're dangerously underexposed. (And to be clear, I do think he is fun. I've watched a goodly number of his videos myself. I'm not saying I don't like his schtick... just that it is a schtick.)
- jclulow 11y ago
  Is there a particularly egregious example of one-sidedness you can point to?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Example: FCC Chairman Net Neutrality is a good example of his style. Yes he does show the other side and yes it maybe a case of straw-man argument, but for the most part. Encryption - He shows the FBI public address on the issue and why they are concerned in terms of terrorist. Then shows the Congress and Trump. Points out the ability for the government to "penetrate" any bank, door, etc as needed through a court of law. Then the issue is the "Pandora's Box" of setting president. I would like you to show one where there isn't the other side getting their main points presented by John Oliver? Would you be willing to show an example of what shows only one side?
  - jerf 11y ago
    I decline to volunteer a list of the exact ways in which I disagree with the liberal orthodoxy. (Thread derail ho!) I'm sure you'll understand. He carefully makes sure that any exposure to the "opposite side" is sandwiched with snark on both sides, and to make sure that none of the strong arguments are shown to you. You are not actually being exposed to the other side, just a soundbite carefully processed to remove any possibility that you might even be so much as intrigued, let alone convinced. Be honest: When have you been "exposed" to one of these viewpoints and even experience a hint of "Hmmm, maybe I should dig into that position a bit more, I'm not sure John's right here."? All I'm asking for is a twitch. I bet you're too busy laughing for the thought to even cross your mind. (Again... be honest with me. Don't hypothesize about how maybe somebody else might have. Tell me about whether you followed up on a video's points.) I'm taking a bit of risk putting this challenge out there, because a lot of people read these posts and of all those people, there almost has to be one person who actually can tell a story about how they followed up and came to a conclusion that disagreed with John. But I dunno... I've probably still got decent odds, and I'm quite sure there won't be a long stream of them below this concept. And let me reemphasize my core point here, which is not that I really expect that much more from a comedian (you are laughing, because he is pretty funny, after all), but that the media doesn't do any better. John isn't doing anything particularly wrong. He ought to be the dessert part of your balanced news and media diet; it's not the dessert's fault that the rest of the meal is short on nutrients.
    - 11y ago
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Interesting format. First time I've watched him. This is a pet topic, so I wanted to watch. But I stopped about half-way through. If you need a joke every 10 seconds or so -- otherwise you lose attention -- I guess it's okay. Seemed to cover this topic well enough. But if you need that amount of humor, if I were you I might want to up my game a bit. The problem with entertainment disguising itself as useful information is bias. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to most people what the guy is saying. His criteria for a successful broadcast is something that emotionally moves folks and that he can make entertain people the maximum amount. The viewer's criteria is to laugh and feel like they now understand some complex subject. Whether or not the information is biased or not never enters the picture between the two parties. In fact, the more complexity that's introduced, the less likely the material is to be entertaining. Likewise, the more you're laughing, the less you're probably learning. But it doesn't matter because everybody's having a good time. Reminds me of talk radio in the early 90s (except the politics are all different, of course)
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    You should watch the entire segment because he "plot twists" a little past half way. And the jokes are just part of the Last Week Tonight formula. This is information disguising itself as entertainment, not the other way around. Oliver also did a segment recently about special tax districts that was quite informative, as another example of the LWT formula for you to sample. You get a lot more information from a LWT piece than from traditional news; the comedy bit might even just be to avoid being sued for satirizing living people (maybe "comedians" can get away with more than "journalists").
  - baldfat 11y ago
    My point is still the same take away all the jokes and look at only that facts. John Oliver does a better job at breaking down stories into parts that tell the story better. John Oliver is entertainment but the News facts are presented better then mainline news. My case in point: New Neutrality. He singlehandedly turned the whole issue into something people a) could understand b) then decided if it was something they should care about. For YEARS tech community went no where then John Oliver immediately made it into an issue most people understood and changed FCC and Net Neutrality overnight,
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead. It is like the people who, when asked about why some thing should be, they respond "Because it is 2016!" And all their supporters laugh and agree and think the argument has been made. Both sides are really strongly set on talking past each other, and on some issues they are often far closer in opinion than they would ever be willing to admit (especially after all the extreme rhetoric was thrown around). And my absolute favorite, when you make a careful comparison between two issues to show a comparable line of reasoning, a lot of people will just go "They aren't comparable." No discussion, no attempt to explain why they are different, and if you can manage to get them to keep going, you are going to be swimming in a flood of logical fallacies.
michaelbuddy 11y ago
Meh I used to think so, then I saw the lengthy rebuttal that a guy did regarding the Trump episode he did. John Oliver unfortunately can't be trusted in some regards - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3vW0e_Wgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3vW0e_Wgc
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Is there a transcript somewhere or a 5 minute version? I would like to have a counterpoint to the Drumpf piece but don't have 80 minutes to spend.
  - jclulow 11y ago
    It's basically 80 minutes of agonising "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    A counterpoint to the Drumpf piece, Bill Clinton is not a Clinton, he changed his name from his biological father's Blythe.

by baldfat 11y ago

A) Yes John Oliver is awesome B) Holy Crap! A comedian is the best for reporting on issues that are actually important. What a sad state of journalism we have been for the last decade or so.

kawsper 11y ago

Comedy is very effective, and I have been a fan of Juice Rap News for a long time, they are really good at breaking things down, explain things with references and asking the right questions. My favorite is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o66FUc61MvU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o66FUc61MvU

Renaud 11y ago
Thanks for that. It's very well done and the message is spot on!

jerf 11y ago

Unfortunately, the problem is that the media isn't any better than a comedian, not that the comedian is very good. Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead. Many people criticize the mainstream media for the fake controversy approach where every issue has two sides no matter how silly, but John Oliver is even worse than that. It's fun, but that's all it is... it is not informative. Only fun. If you think he's "really good" at covering the issues, I strongly suggest tuning your media consumption; you're not even getting one side of an issue so much as one spoon-fed preparation of one side of an issue. You're dangerously underexposed. (And to be clear, I do think he is fun. I've watched a goodly number of his videos myself. I'm not saying I don't like his schtick... just that it is a schtick.)

jclulow 11y ago
Is there a particularly egregious example of one-sidedness you can point to?
baldfat 11y ago
Example: FCC Chairman Net Neutrality is a good example of his style. Yes he does show the other side and yes it maybe a case of straw-man argument, but for the most part. Encryption - He shows the FBI public address on the issue and why they are concerned in terms of terrorist. Then shows the Congress and Trump. Points out the ability for the government to "penetrate" any bank, door, etc as needed through a court of law. Then the issue is the "Pandora's Box" of setting president. I would like you to show one where there isn't the other side getting their main points presented by John Oliver? Would you be willing to show an example of what shows only one side?
- jerf 11y ago
  I decline to volunteer a list of the exact ways in which I disagree with the liberal orthodoxy. (Thread derail ho!) I'm sure you'll understand. He carefully makes sure that any exposure to the "opposite side" is sandwiched with snark on both sides, and to make sure that none of the strong arguments are shown to you. You are not actually being exposed to the other side, just a soundbite carefully processed to remove any possibility that you might even be so much as intrigued, let alone convinced. Be honest: When have you been "exposed" to one of these viewpoints and even experience a hint of "Hmmm, maybe I should dig into that position a bit more, I'm not sure John's right here."? All I'm asking for is a twitch. I bet you're too busy laughing for the thought to even cross your mind. (Again... be honest with me. Don't hypothesize about how maybe somebody else might have. Tell me about whether you followed up on a video's points.) I'm taking a bit of risk putting this challenge out there, because a lot of people read these posts and of all those people, there almost has to be one person who actually can tell a story about how they followed up and came to a conclusion that disagreed with John. But I dunno... I've probably still got decent odds, and I'm quite sure there won't be a long stream of them below this concept. And let me reemphasize my core point here, which is not that I really expect that much more from a comedian (you are laughing, because he is pretty funny, after all), but that the media doesn't do any better. John isn't doing anything particularly wrong. He ought to be the dessert part of your balanced news and media diet; it's not the dessert's fault that the rest of the meal is short on nutrients.
  - 11y ago
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Interesting format. First time I've watched him. This is a pet topic, so I wanted to watch. But I stopped about half-way through. If you need a joke every 10 seconds or so -- otherwise you lose attention -- I guess it's okay. Seemed to cover this topic well enough. But if you need that amount of humor, if I were you I might want to up my game a bit. The problem with entertainment disguising itself as useful information is bias. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to most people what the guy is saying. His criteria for a successful broadcast is something that emotionally moves folks and that he can make entertain people the maximum amount. The viewer's criteria is to laugh and feel like they now understand some complex subject. Whether or not the information is biased or not never enters the picture between the two parties. In fact, the more complexity that's introduced, the less likely the material is to be entertaining. Likewise, the more you're laughing, the less you're probably learning. But it doesn't matter because everybody's having a good time. Reminds me of talk radio in the early 90s (except the politics are all different, of course)
- nitrogen 11y ago
  You should watch the entire segment because he "plot twists" a little past half way. And the jokes are just part of the Last Week Tonight formula. This is information disguising itself as entertainment, not the other way around. Oliver also did a segment recently about special tax districts that was quite informative, as another example of the LWT formula for you to sample. You get a lot more information from a LWT piece than from traditional news; the comedy bit might even just be to avoid being sued for satirizing living people (maybe "comedians" can get away with more than "journalists").
- baldfat 11y ago
  My point is still the same take away all the jokes and look at only that facts. John Oliver does a better job at breaking down stories into parts that tell the story better. John Oliver is entertainment but the News facts are presented better then mainline news. My case in point: New Neutrality. He singlehandedly turned the whole issue into something people a) could understand b) then decided if it was something they should care about. For YEARS tech community went no where then John Oliver immediately made it into an issue most people understood and changed FCC and Net Neutrality overnight,
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead. It is like the people who, when asked about why some thing should be, they respond "Because it is 2016!" And all their supporters laugh and agree and think the argument has been made. Both sides are really strongly set on talking past each other, and on some issues they are often far closer in opinion than they would ever be willing to admit (especially after all the extreme rhetoric was thrown around). And my absolute favorite, when you make a careful comparison between two issues to show a comparable line of reasoning, a lot of people will just go "They aren't comparable." No discussion, no attempt to explain why they are different, and if you can manage to get them to keep going, you are going to be swimming in a flood of logical fallacies.

michaelbuddy 11y ago

Meh I used to think so, then I saw the lengthy rebuttal that a guy did regarding the Trump episode he did. John Oliver unfortunately can't be trusted in some regards - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3vW0e_Wgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3vW0e_Wgc

nitrogen 11y ago
Is there a transcript somewhere or a 5 minute version? I would like to have a counterpoint to the Drumpf piece but don't have 80 minutes to spend.
- jclulow 11y ago
  It's basically 80 minutes of agonising "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  A counterpoint to the Drumpf piece, Bill Clinton is not a Clinton, he changed his name from his biological father's Blythe.