3 ms·

> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is:

by 394549 8y ago

> Oliver is biased and he has never pretended to be a journalist. He presents stories he cares about from a specific viewpoint. The definition of propaganda is: >> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. Things get into propaganda territory when there's an element of deliberate dishonesty or misdirection or when it occurs in the context of coercive censorship of other viewpoints. Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest, therefore it was not propaganda. In fact, it is an example of the kind of free exchange of ideas that's required for an open society to operate. Examined on certain axes, it's actually the opposite of propaganda.

EpicEng 8y ago
>I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously (specifically thinking about some comments he made on the wage gap, but I'd have to hunt for others.)
- 394549 8y ago
  > It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda? Oliver's recent Xi Jinping segment wasn't propaganda, it was an op-ed/satire that was obviously produced under length constraints. If your operational definition of propaganda allows you to label all expressions of opinion as propaganda unless they're ponderously lengthy (so as to never omit a thing that some critic might want to see), then I think your definition is flawed.
  - slededit 8y ago
    >Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda? Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions?
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions? Yes, but he should not be held an impossibly high or unreasonable standard, which I believe is what EpicEng is doing. Bear in mind that he's made no specific claims in this thread that Oliver has made misleading omissions, just vague, unsupported accusations. John Oliver is a comedian. He should strive to be as accurate and complete as that format allows, and I think he satisfies that standard. That entails leaving some things on the cutting room floor in the name of focus, clarity, brevity, and rhetorical impact. This is something we all do because it's required to communicate effectively. He can't reasonably be expected to create ponderously long segments that cover every point and counterpoint that someone from the internet peanut gallery may care to see. This means he's a man expressing an opinion humorously, not a "propagandist."
reallydude 8y ago
> Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest, The number of times he has been misleading and intentionally dishonest has turned me off for good. It was funny and all with friendly jabs at Obama and eviscerating lesser Obama officials, but the agenda in interpreting or even leading the discussions into uncomfortable ground (re: Trump) broke into propaganda before the election was over. e.g. Trump's speaking tactics are dangerous. Oliver will sacrifice his professed values or even critical thinking to steer a narrative for a laugh (or no laugh). It just stopped being funny.

by 394549 8y ago

EpicEng 8y ago

>I think the key word there is misleading. Having a genuinely-held viewpoint and expressing it through media isn't propaganda, it's opinion and commentary. It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously (specifically thinking about some comments he made on the wage gap, but I'd have to hunt for others.)

394549 8y ago
> It's misleading if you omit facts which run contrary to your narrative. I have no idea if this is the case in the China episode, but he has done this previously Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda? Oliver's recent Xi Jinping segment wasn't propaganda, it was an op-ed/satire that was obviously produced under length constraints. If your operational definition of propaganda allows you to label all expressions of opinion as propaganda unless they're ponderously lengthy (so as to never omit a thing that some critic might want to see), then I think your definition is flawed.
- slededit 8y ago
  >Even though I don't know you, I'm sure at some point you've omitted some fact that was contrary to your option or some narrative you were expressing (because literally everyone has). Does that make you a propagandist and everything you write propaganda? Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions?
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Do you not think the standard should be higher for someone on national TV with an audience of millions? Yes, but he should not be held an impossibly high or unreasonable standard, which I believe is what EpicEng is doing. Bear in mind that he's made no specific claims in this thread that Oliver has made misleading omissions, just vague, unsupported accusations. John Oliver is a comedian. He should strive to be as accurate and complete as that format allows, and I think he satisfies that standard. That entails leaving some things on the cutting room floor in the name of focus, clarity, brevity, and rhetorical impact. This is something we all do because it's required to communicate effectively. He can't reasonably be expected to create ponderously long segments that cover every point and counterpoint that someone from the internet peanut gallery may care to see. This means he's a man expressing an opinion humorously, not a "propagandist."

reallydude 8y ago

> Oliver's segment was not misleading and it was not dishonest, The number of times he has been misleading and intentionally dishonest has turned me off for good. It was funny and all with friendly jabs at Obama and eviscerating lesser Obama officials, but the agenda in interpreting or even leading the discussions into uncomfortable ground (re: Trump) broke into propaganda before the election was over. e.g. Trump's speaking tactics are dangerous. Oliver will sacrifice his professed values or even critical thinking to steer a narrative for a laugh (or no laugh). It just stopped being funny.