7 ms·

You took the words out of my mouth and I'm glad someone else feels the same. It's a difficult thing to articulate but I think he crosses a line into unbearable

by bedhead 10y ago

You took the words out of my mouth and I'm glad someone else feels the same. It's a difficult thing to articulate but I think he crosses a line into unbearable preachiness and pandering. It's a bummer because I think the guy is a riot, but I just can't take the lectures anymore, and yes, given that this is almost a Daily Show spinoff, it's not terribly surprising to see a heavy left-leaning slant to everything...that's how you get a built-in audience I guess.

Justsignedup 10y ago
It is very preachy but the problem is that often he talks about highly abused topics. - debt collection - voter identification and voter fraud - abortion clinic laws - trump And he doesn't ever state things as "fact" when it is speculation. He only specifies facts when they are facts. And he never tries to push opinions into sort-of-kind-of factual sounding things like most news sites. How would you talk about a topic where voters are being forced to show identification in such a way as to exclude most minority voters and even have people state on camera that is the goal? These are blatant abuses of power that should be heavily exposed. This is why I have respect and don't feel he's too preachy.
- lujim 10y ago
  Not saying I do or don't agree with him, but you don't have to be wrong to be preachy. When you're a comedian you need to be at least 80% funny. If you're 50% funny 50% preachy I'm not going to bother. Southpark use to danced this line pretty successfully.
  - zymhan 10y ago
    People used the "You're a comedian so just tell jokes" line against Jon Stewart for years. There's absolutely no reason someone has to adhere to some arbitrary ratio of comedy to seriousness (edit: or preachiness, etc).
    - lujim 10y ago
      John was smart, likable, and funny. Even my most vocal right wing buddy watched him because he was informative and entertaining. Stewart was quick on his feet and could out think anyone Fox news could pit against him. Colbert was Stewart on steroids in a verbal battle of wits and watching him repeatedly dismantle Bill O'Riley and President Bush made my jaw drop. No one has to adhere to an arbitrary ratio of anything but if you fail to at very least keep a broad audience entertained and just resort to political pandering you aren't playing in the same league as Stewart and Colbert.
      - selimthegrim 10y ago
        John Yoo pwned Stewart when he had him on. And what about the infamous "How are you holding up?" interview with Kerry?
        cataphract 10y ago
        True, but John Yoo is lawyer than had been thinking about his ideas (read: rationalizations) for years, written books, taught classes and so on. You couldn't really expect Stewart to win the argument...
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      He doesn't have to, but when it's a mix of serious and funny, it's easy to end up both not serious enough and not funny enough
    - pc86 10y ago
      It's important to use the same words when discussing like this, because "preachiness" and "seriousness" mean very different things in this context. We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions. And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."
  - geekam 10y ago
    That would then include a lot of comedians and many legends. George Carlin comes to mind, to begin with. I do not agree with - you are X so you do X only.
  - drostie 10y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the Last Week Tonight clips that you see online are generally the second half or so of a longer-running HBO show: you only see the main story, and it generally comes with a spectacular call-to-action at the end (it's an intentional decision about what note to end the show on). So the ratio for the full show is less 50/50 and more 25/75, which is much closer to your sweet spot.
  - benbot 10y ago
    You don't have to be non-preachy to be genuinely funny, though, despite your arbitrary % guideline. Check out Bill Hicks. Nobody has ever accused him of being either too funny or not preachy enough.
    - lujim 10y ago
      I wasn't being literal about the percentages. It's subjective. At this point we are trying to dissect humor and killing it in the process.
  - agentgt 10y ago
    I think the reason he sounds preachy even more so than Stewart is that he uses a lot of over the top analogies over and over again. I think he (Oliver) is funny but I prefer the Colbert and Southpark satirical model as well. For some reason satire just seems less "preachy" even though it can be just as much so.
    - Yhippa 10y ago
      The genius of Colbert is that the way he presented it you were defensive internally of what he was saying. Questioning what he said. Maybe it was the Republican blowhard persona that made me do that but it worked. Southpark is obviously satire so it makes it a lot easier but Parker and Stone do such a good job of presenting controversial subjects across all media formats without making it seem like they were biased in one way or another. Truly "We Report, You Decide".
bmh_ca 10y ago
Often it seems that facts, evidence, and observation are derided as "left". I find John's commentaries to be suitably supported by substance, with constructive conclusions. I worry that characterization as "left" is a defence against cognitive acknowledgements that just happen to be dissonant with neurostatic precepts.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Thats the thing though. This is not a question of substance. He can be right in the specifics, but still not provide the only perspective. My problem with him is his facts, but his interpretation of them.
  - pas 10y ago
    Could you give an example of said facts and an alternative interpretation of them?
    - Agustus 10y ago
      His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that Chavez and his successor Maduro. The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.
      - anentropic 10y ago
        I thought the main problems were less abstract, like not being able to buy toilet paper etc
        Agustus 10y ago
        This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.
      - 10y ago

by bedhead 10y ago

Justsignedup 10y ago

It is very preachy but the problem is that often he talks about highly abused topics. - debt collection - voter identification and voter fraud - abortion clinic laws - trump And he doesn't ever state things as "fact" when it is speculation. He only specifies facts when they are facts. And he never tries to push opinions into sort-of-kind-of factual sounding things like most news sites. How would you talk about a topic where voters are being forced to show identification in such a way as to exclude most minority voters and even have people state on camera that is the goal? These are blatant abuses of power that should be heavily exposed. This is why I have respect and don't feel he's too preachy.

lujim 10y ago
Not saying I do or don't agree with him, but you don't have to be wrong to be preachy. When you're a comedian you need to be at least 80% funny. If you're 50% funny 50% preachy I'm not going to bother. Southpark use to danced this line pretty successfully.
- zymhan 10y ago
  People used the "You're a comedian so just tell jokes" line against Jon Stewart for years. There's absolutely no reason someone has to adhere to some arbitrary ratio of comedy to seriousness (edit: or preachiness, etc).
  - lujim 10y ago
    John was smart, likable, and funny. Even my most vocal right wing buddy watched him because he was informative and entertaining. Stewart was quick on his feet and could out think anyone Fox news could pit against him. Colbert was Stewart on steroids in a verbal battle of wits and watching him repeatedly dismantle Bill O'Riley and President Bush made my jaw drop. No one has to adhere to an arbitrary ratio of anything but if you fail to at very least keep a broad audience entertained and just resort to political pandering you aren't playing in the same league as Stewart and Colbert.
    - selimthegrim 10y ago
      John Yoo pwned Stewart when he had him on. And what about the infamous "How are you holding up?" interview with Kerry?
      - cataphract 10y ago
        True, but John Yoo is lawyer than had been thinking about his ideas (read: rationalizations) for years, written books, taught classes and so on. You couldn't really expect Stewart to win the argument...
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    He doesn't have to, but when it's a mix of serious and funny, it's easy to end up both not serious enough and not funny enough
  - pc86 10y ago
    It's important to use the same words when discussing like this, because "preachiness" and "seriousness" mean very different things in this context. We're talking about comedy v. preaching to the audience, not when to make a joke and when to make a serious point. They're completely different discussions. And to the Stewart point, he was perfectly able to explain (using comedy) why he believed something without implying that you are lesser for disagreeing with it. Oliver seems to be able to do that at most 1/3 as much as Stewart. The remaining 2/3 is "not only am I right for believing this, and not only are you wrong and you should feel bad about yourself if you don't, but you're so wrong that I can't even comprehend how you could possibly disagree."
- geekam 10y ago
  That would then include a lot of comedians and many legends. George Carlin comes to mind, to begin with. I do not agree with - you are X so you do X only.
- drostie 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the Last Week Tonight clips that you see online are generally the second half or so of a longer-running HBO show: you only see the main story, and it generally comes with a spectacular call-to-action at the end (it's an intentional decision about what note to end the show on). So the ratio for the full show is less 50/50 and more 25/75, which is much closer to your sweet spot.
- benbot 10y ago
  You don't have to be non-preachy to be genuinely funny, though, despite your arbitrary % guideline. Check out Bill Hicks. Nobody has ever accused him of being either too funny or not preachy enough.
  - lujim 10y ago
    I wasn't being literal about the percentages. It's subjective. At this point we are trying to dissect humor and killing it in the process.
- agentgt 10y ago
  I think the reason he sounds preachy even more so than Stewart is that he uses a lot of over the top analogies over and over again. I think he (Oliver) is funny but I prefer the Colbert and Southpark satirical model as well. For some reason satire just seems less "preachy" even though it can be just as much so.
  - Yhippa 10y ago
    The genius of Colbert is that the way he presented it you were defensive internally of what he was saying. Questioning what he said. Maybe it was the Republican blowhard persona that made me do that but it worked. Southpark is obviously satire so it makes it a lot easier but Parker and Stone do such a good job of presenting controversial subjects across all media formats without making it seem like they were biased in one way or another. Truly "We Report, You Decide".

bmh_ca 10y ago

Often it seems that facts, evidence, and observation are derided as "left". I find John's commentaries to be suitably supported by substance, with constructive conclusions. I worry that characterization as "left" is a defence against cognitive acknowledgements that just happen to be dissonant with neurostatic precepts.

ThomPete 10y ago
Thats the thing though. This is not a question of substance. He can be right in the specifics, but still not provide the only perspective. My problem with him is his facts, but his interpretation of them.
- pas 10y ago
  Could you give an example of said facts and an alternative interpretation of them?
  - Agustus 10y ago
    His interpretation of the Venezuelan crisis. He pointed to the price of oil driving the issue. Nowhere did he mention the crazy socialist/populist programs that Chavez and his successor Maduro. The main problem in Venezuela is the erosion of property rights. Nowhere in the report was this mentioned.
    - anentropic 10y ago
      I thought the main problems were less abstract, like not being able to buy toilet paper etc
      - Agustus 10y ago
        This is the short term approach that John Oliver puts forward. This is not a year's development, this has been the result of 16 years of Chavez / Maduro policies.
    - 10y ago