4 ms·

>he frequently criticizes the subjects by making them appear ridiculous That is literally his job description.

ethbro 9y ago
I think one of the elevations to the form that occurred as Jon Stewart and the writers evolved The Daily Show was that the coverage was more fair. The clips were still humorous, but they were generally contextually and fairly presented so as to be an accurate statement of the target's beliefs. The subversion usually came in choosing clips where the true beliefs were exposed, rather than the PR whitewashed version. Oliver tends to overdo the histrionics in reaction to the topic, whereas one of Stewart's most effective rhetorical devices was "... But maybe they {good reason for doing the thing that was done}" -> segue into next clip where target explicitly rejects {good reason} as motivation.
opportune 9y ago
John Oliver's style is more akin to pointing a finger and laughing at someone than actually deconstructing why they are wrong. And even when he does deconstruct things, I think many of his arguments hinge on emotion and non-sequitur (e.g. It's 201X). I am an anti-fan of him, personally. He's basically the young peoples' version of a right-wing talk radio host or TV personality, yet people do not at all seem to realize this.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  >John Oliver's style is more akin to pointing a finger and laughing at someone Again, as Oliver himself says repeatedly, he is a comedian, not a journalist. That's what comedians do. It's confusing to some people, because he talks about real things and sometimes manages to slip in more actual information than some actual journalists--esp the mock-journalists on TV--do.
  - opportune 9y ago
    He's a comedian in the same way that Alex Jones in an entertainer. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you are functionally behaving as a political pundit, you should be held to similar standards as the rest of them (which are essentially nonexistent anyway)
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Ok, he's a bad pundit.
    - Finnucane 9y ago
      You know that political comedy is not really a new thing, right?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
dsacco 9y ago
Sure, and I'm not disagreeing that his opponents can be ridiculous. But they can also be very intelligent, and the audience will never see that side of them. The audience will see isolated clips that exaggerate their seeming incompetence. More importantly, if that's his job description than it's not all that conducive to qualified political discussion. If someone really sides with Bernie Sanders, providing an elevated rebuttal to his economic policies is better than making fun of his hair, or the fact that he has a (to some) funny Brooklyn accent. Likewise, critiquing Trump's policies is good. Making him appear ridiculous and starting every single show with, "President Trump, two words that...{funny joke}" while joking about his hair and fake tan are not conducive to educated discourse. It just further entrenches the demographics into two isolated camps. Sure he cites specific sources, but you begin to wonder how much of the audience really tunes in for that material, since a lot of it just appears to be a reaffirmation of unchallenged beliefs. Where I do give John Oliver credit is for showcasing problems in society than many people are unaware of. I do frequently give the show a watch, I just make it part of a very diversified set of news and I don't particularly enjoy it all that much when, as another commenter mentioned, he goes heavy into histrionics. It becomes circular. I guess to put my point more succinctly: John Oliver is not necessarily wrong in his conclusions, and he makes attempts to cite sources. But he arrives at his conclusions in a way that intrinsically encourages the same tribalism he often criticizes, and that tribalism is harder to identify because of the (real or apparent) intellectualism about it.

I think one of the elevations to the form that occurred as Jon Stewart and the writers evolved The Daily Show was that the coverage was more fair. The clips were still humorous, but they were generally contextually and fairly presented so as to be an accurate statement of the target's beliefs. The subversion usually came in choosing clips where the true beliefs were exposed, rather than the PR whitewashed version. Oliver tends to overdo the histrionics in reaction to the topic, whereas one of Stewart's most effective rhetorical devices was "... But maybe they {good reason for doing the thing that was done}" -> segue into next clip where target explicitly rejects {good reason} as motivation.

opportune 9y ago

John Oliver's style is more akin to pointing a finger and laughing at someone than actually deconstructing why they are wrong. And even when he does deconstruct things, I think many of his arguments hinge on emotion and non-sequitur (e.g. It's 201X). I am an anti-fan of him, personally. He's basically the young peoples' version of a right-wing talk radio host or TV personality, yet people do not at all seem to realize this.

Finnucane 9y ago
>John Oliver's style is more akin to pointing a finger and laughing at someone Again, as Oliver himself says repeatedly, he is a comedian, not a journalist. That's what comedians do. It's confusing to some people, because he talks about real things and sometimes manages to slip in more actual information than some actual journalists--esp the mock-journalists on TV--do.
- opportune 9y ago
  He's a comedian in the same way that Alex Jones in an entertainer. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you are functionally behaving as a political pundit, you should be held to similar standards as the rest of them (which are essentially nonexistent anyway)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Ok, he's a bad pundit.
  - Finnucane 9y ago
    You know that political comedy is not really a new thing, right?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

dsacco 9y ago

Sure, and I'm not disagreeing that his opponents can be ridiculous. But they can also be very intelligent, and the audience will never see that side of them. The audience will see isolated clips that exaggerate their seeming incompetence. More importantly, if that's his job description than it's not all that conducive to qualified political discussion. If someone really sides with Bernie Sanders, providing an elevated rebuttal to his economic policies is better than making fun of his hair, or the fact that he has a (to some) funny Brooklyn accent. Likewise, critiquing Trump's policies is good. Making him appear ridiculous and starting every single show with, "President Trump, two words that...{funny joke}" while joking about his hair and fake tan are not conducive to educated discourse. It just further entrenches the demographics into two isolated camps. Sure he cites specific sources, but you begin to wonder how much of the audience really tunes in for that material, since a lot of it just appears to be a reaffirmation of unchallenged beliefs. Where I do give John Oliver credit is for showcasing problems in society than many people are unaware of. I do frequently give the show a watch, I just make it part of a very diversified set of news and I don't particularly enjoy it all that much when, as another commenter mentioned, he goes heavy into histrionics. It becomes circular. I guess to put my point more succinctly: John Oliver is not necessarily wrong in his conclusions, and he makes attempts to cite sources. But he arrives at his conclusions in a way that intrinsically encourages the same tribalism he often criticizes, and that tribalism is harder to identify because of the (real or apparent) intellectualism about it.