4 ms·

This is a late-night talk show recap, not an actual news article. John Oliver might state some true facts, but his show is really about creating a weird mixtur

by tivert 3y ago

This is a late-night talk show recap, not an actual news article. John Oliver might state some true facts, but his show is really about creating a weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment. He wouldn't be doing is job if truth and accuracy weren't sacrificed for that goal.

DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]
happytoexplain 3y ago
The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. Of course, it sounds like you are making a more direct criticism of this specific show - I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. Truth and comedy can be a valuable mix, despite (because of?) truth being frequently dark. Should people not be outraged by child labor in chocolate production, or are you saying that his specific reporting is so far from the truth that the truth is actually not even outrage-worthy? It's unclear.
- themagician 3y ago
  It cherry picks what to talk about based on what's funny and literally creates outrage where there otherwise would not be, for entertainment. People enjoy being outraged at this stuff. There are more slaves today than at any other time. Child labor is on the rise. It's not unique to chocolate at all. Chocolate, sulfur, bananas, cobalt, rubber, etc.. Modern capitalism requires a healthy base of slaves to mine, refine, and harvest base resources. It's not that it isn't true. It's just not news in any significant way. This is just how things are. We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. I know I do. John Oliver is great.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > It's not unique to chocolate at all. Same is mentioned in the show. > This is just how things are We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. Not sure what your point is. Is the 'outrage' bigger problem than the way that things actually are?
  - hoten 3y ago
    This is mentioned by John. Are there specific instances of misrepresentation in the episode you can point to? "We all know..." That's just not true. Besides being funny, this show presents a general audience with topics they won't be familiar with. I think one can expect some chocolate consumers to modify their buying habits after watching this infotainment.
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    >We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged This seems both factually wrong (the first part) and kind of an unnecessarily hostile oversimplification of people's emotions/motivations. It's also another example of the very common fallacy that we should patently not be outraged by things that we already know, or are common, for which there are essentially infinite counter-examples in the realm of human behaviors that are common and known, yet still outrage-worthy and shocking every time (e.g. child abuse). Just because we can't solve every problem instantly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to express our thoughts and feelings about them - that's part of a healthy society. Outrage only for outrage's sake surely is a thing, but it's also an easy thing to use as a label in dismissing things one doesn't like for other reasons.
    - strangattractor 3y ago
      You also have to put things in context. If %50 of the people on earth where slaves 2000 years ago means 100 million slaves. 150 million slaves today would be %2 so there are more free people alive today than ever. (I made those numbers up BTW) It is also the case that Outage Attracts Viewers (OAV). Social Media is built on this principle and it seems hypocritical that these shows attract viewers on a similar model.
- strangattractor 3y ago
  As much as I like John Stewart and John Oliver I have to admit both shows tend to leave me feeling a bit helpless in the end despite the comedy. I have stopped watching them. So yes it makes me feel kind of weird. The fact is no matter how much I know about child labor (put you impending disaster here) involved in chocolate, soccer balls, shoes etc there is very little I can do about it besides not buy that stuff. Yes I do want to know about it but it does not have to be part of my entertainment diet. Keeping my own child from getting into that situation is the best I can hope for and I worry about being able to do that sometimes. Watching Jimmy Kimmel skewer Trump is priceless however:)
  - garblegarble 3y ago
    I agree with you about the feeling of helplessness on the child labour in chocolate episode, but John Oliver covers such a wide range of other topics, many of which are much closer to home (and therefore something you have a chance of being able to directly address). Isn't having this knowledge a core part of making ourselves educated voters, to be better-equipped to advocate among friends and relatives for things we believe in, and having a greater ability recognise dodgy business practises?
- tivert 3y ago
  > The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. There's a bit of double-think that goes on with these shows: they're are news but they're not news. People actually do treat them as news. And there are more ways to lie than telling bald-faced non-fact. > I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. It thought it was pretty clear: his episodes are engineered to get you mad and laugh. Which IMHO is weird combination of emotions. That may be typical of the comedic news show genre (which I don't think too highly of), but Oliver really cranks it up to 11.
Clubber 3y ago
I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.
- hoten 3y ago
  There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
- watwut 3y ago
  The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
    - watwut 3y ago
      People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.
- 3y ago
watwut 3y ago
Yes and no. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that no, if you use comedy to spred lies, then it is exactly what you are doing. The comedy part is then just cowardly shield to make it hard to argue against your claims while making it more likely your lies spread. And that goes for Carlin and all the other comedians too.
gowld 3y ago
Can you provide examples of untruths and inaccuracies? And, bad as those are, do they outweight the truths that would otherwise be ignored? Perfect is the enemy of good.

by tivert 3y ago

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]

happytoexplain 3y ago

The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. Of course, it sounds like you are making a more direct criticism of this specific show - I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. Truth and comedy can be a valuable mix, despite (because of?) truth being frequently dark. Should people not be outraged by child labor in chocolate production, or are you saying that his specific reporting is so far from the truth that the truth is actually not even outrage-worthy? It's unclear.

themagician 3y ago
It cherry picks what to talk about based on what's funny and literally creates outrage where there otherwise would not be, for entertainment. People enjoy being outraged at this stuff. There are more slaves today than at any other time. Child labor is on the rise. It's not unique to chocolate at all. Chocolate, sulfur, bananas, cobalt, rubber, etc.. Modern capitalism requires a healthy base of slaves to mine, refine, and harvest base resources. It's not that it isn't true. It's just not news in any significant way. This is just how things are. We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. I know I do. John Oliver is great.
- timeon 3y ago
  > It's not unique to chocolate at all. Same is mentioned in the show. > This is just how things are We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged. Not sure what your point is. Is the 'outrage' bigger problem than the way that things actually are?
- hoten 3y ago
  This is mentioned by John. Are there specific instances of misrepresentation in the episode you can point to? "We all know..." That's just not true. Besides being funny, this show presents a general audience with topics they won't be familiar with. I think one can expect some chocolate consumers to modify their buying habits after watching this infotainment.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  >We all know that this is how things are, but we pretend like it's not so we can enjoy the feeling of being outraged This seems both factually wrong (the first part) and kind of an unnecessarily hostile oversimplification of people's emotions/motivations. It's also another example of the very common fallacy that we should patently not be outraged by things that we already know, or are common, for which there are essentially infinite counter-examples in the realm of human behaviors that are common and known, yet still outrage-worthy and shocking every time (e.g. child abuse). Just because we can't solve every problem instantly doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to express our thoughts and feelings about them - that's part of a healthy society. Outrage only for outrage's sake surely is a thing, but it's also an easy thing to use as a label in dismissing things one doesn't like for other reasons.
  - strangattractor 3y ago
    You also have to put things in context. If %50 of the people on earth where slaves 2000 years ago means 100 million slaves. 150 million slaves today would be %2 so there are more free people alive today than ever. (I made those numbers up BTW) It is also the case that Outage Attracts Viewers (OAV). Social Media is built on this principle and it seems hypocritical that these shows attract viewers on a similar model.
strangattractor 3y ago
As much as I like John Stewart and John Oliver I have to admit both shows tend to leave me feeling a bit helpless in the end despite the comedy. I have stopped watching them. So yes it makes me feel kind of weird. The fact is no matter how much I know about child labor (put you impending disaster here) involved in chocolate, soccer balls, shoes etc there is very little I can do about it besides not buy that stuff. Yes I do want to know about it but it does not have to be part of my entertainment diet. Keeping my own child from getting into that situation is the best I can hope for and I worry about being able to do that sometimes. Watching Jimmy Kimmel skewer Trump is priceless however:)
- garblegarble 3y ago
  I agree with you about the feeling of helplessness on the child labour in chocolate episode, but John Oliver covers such a wide range of other topics, many of which are much closer to home (and therefore something you have a chance of being able to directly address). Isn't having this knowledge a core part of making ourselves educated voters, to be better-equipped to advocate among friends and relatives for things we believe in, and having a greater ability recognise dodgy business practises?
tivert 3y ago
> The delta between the goals of journalism and comedy deserve scrutiny, but they do not, by definition, necessitate that comedy lies. There's a bit of double-think that goes on with these shows: they're are news but they're not news. People actually do treat them as news. And there are more ways to lie than telling bald-faced non-fact. > I'm not sure what "weird mixture of outrage and humorous quips for entertainment" means in this context. It sounds like you're just describing a normal comedic news show in deceptively harsh terms. It thought it was pretty clear: his episodes are engineered to get you mad and laugh. Which IMHO is weird combination of emotions. That may be typical of the comedic news show genre (which I don't think too highly of), but Oliver really cranks it up to 11.

Clubber 3y ago

I saw it too. Are these kids children of the people who own the farms? I didn't remember seeing anything to refute that. If so, barring their kids to work on the farm would be detrimental to the family farmer and would benefit bigger farms that can afford to hire more external labor.

hoten 3y ago
There's a clip in the show of a young female teenager who wants to go to school but has instead been separated from her family and forced to work on her (I believe) uncles farm. You're probably asking about the general trend but this is an example of the show refuting that these kids are just the farmers children. The call with the nestle exec also mentions this objection.
watwut 3y ago
The real question ia whether it is detrimental to the children themselves. Everyone and his brother goes "you should not have children when you can't afford them" when people who fell into poverty need assistance or when someone can not provide own room to each kid or have trouble to pay for something. Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. It is different when they help an hour a day after school or during weekends etc. But, that us not what we are talking about here.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Guess what, having kids so that you have cheap labor for otherwise ineffective business is even worst. People have been doing that for several millennia.
  - watwut 3y ago
    People also beaten wife's for millennia. They also could get by with next to no education. Yes, animal welfare groups existed sooner then children protection groups, making it ok to heavily beat your kids or underwear them severely.
3y ago

watwut 3y ago

Yes and no. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that no, if you use comedy to spred lies, then it is exactly what you are doing. The comedy part is then just cowardly shield to make it hard to argue against your claims while making it more likely your lies spread. And that goes for Carlin and all the other comedians too.

gowld 3y ago

Can you provide examples of untruths and inaccuracies? And, bad as those are, do they outweight the truths that would otherwise be ignored? Perfect is the enemy of good.