It depends on the news outlet. I do find comedians about the most trustworthy of most cable outlets. When they make particularly provocative statements, I check the facts on one or more of the more highly rated outlets, and find them to be accurate.
Comedians have a long history of challenging those in power, to keep them honest.
So, they’ve taken over what used to be reporter’s job of “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.” Too bad a lot of Christians don’t.
“Patently false”? “Patently”? That’s an interesting choice of words. Let’s see if I can introduce some doubt.
Just to clarify my position, and that of the Supreme Court, the John Oliver-types, aka comedians, can’t be sued for slander, or defamation. Not successfully, anyway. Therefore, the John Oliver-types can’t be held legally responsible for the things that they say during, or while practicing, their comedy routines. These are just jokes, folks. They can’t all be kneeslappers.
If someone chooses to get their “news” from comedians, so be it. OTOH, I see no reason to believe the comedic ramblings of someone who can not be held legally responsible for the things that they say. Especially since there are other sources of information.
excerpts taken from -
The Freedom of Speech: Comedy and Defamation
4/28/2015
By Dan Spinelli
During the 1987 Supreme Court case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, “the justices deliberated over whether Falwell’s right to recover damages for libel, or Hustler’s First Amendment right to freedom of the press should reign supreme”.
The 1963 case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supremes establish the/a standard for future defamation cases. "In this landmark case, the justices elaborated a standard for the press to publish freely (and sometimes erroneously) about public affairs without fear of libel charges, except in cases of “reckless disregard for the truth.”
“Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion in Hustler provided a clever answer: freedom of speech requires some “breathing space” for the press to ensure that no chilling effects block important speech about public figures. Following this line of reasoning, the press does not always have to report facts completely factually. Punishing them for a single misstep with costly libel charges will almost certainly derail any further conversation.”
“The trend from Hustler shows the increasing difficulty to trying cases of libel. The Court’s almost impossibly strict standard of “actual malice” firmly discourages litigation and strengthens the position of transgressors. What this legal standard does not do is protect public figures from the court of public opinion.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a “public figure” for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts’ finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted.
Good for you.
But who keeps the comedians honest? Comedians also have a long history of editing, spinning, twisting the truth/facts in order to get a laugh. Personally, I see no reason to get my political news from comedians.
(post shortened)
By “clips”, don’t you mean edited, or shortened, versions of an event. Maybe “cherry picked” would be a better term? Who edited/cherry picked these “clips” for a comedy show? Other comedians? Did they edit/shorten these “clips” for a more comedic effect? It’s your choice. It’s also my choice. I personally do not chose to get my political “news” from comedians.
No, all the “clips” on his show are randomly selected by a computer. You should watch. It’s fun!
Here is what the author of the book, his daughter said"“He’s giving proceeds of the book to charity, and we’re also giving proceeds of our book to charity, so I really think that we can all get behind it, It doesn’t have to be divisive. I think that everybody can come together over Marlon.”
You can feel the anger and rage that is eating the second family from within.
Pence should say that it angers him when people jump up and down on one leg while whistling to see how gullible these people actually are.
You’re lucky. I don’t know what everyone knows. I was responding to a question from another post.
I’m not aware of my acting like TV being a paying gig was some sort of conspiracy. That must be your impression??? IIRC, I was responding to someone else’s post about how comedians/Oliver gets paid.
Does Oliver lie like a rug? I haven’t said that. Do these comedians edit news stories for the greatest comedic effect. Yes, they do. That’s their job, they’re comedians. And they get paid for do so. It’s not a conspiracy unless you want to create one.
I wasn’t aware of that. Can I quote you?
I’ve see John Oliver’s angry man routine and I think he’s funny. Of course, Lewis Black did it better.
(post shortened)
If things were different, things would be different. I assume you’re trying to kill time. Or maybe you’re trying to create your own fantasy about something. That’s fine. Just between you and me, I don’t wish to suspend whatever the viewers might worry about. Hopefully, that’s OK with you.
:rolleyes: Yeah weasel out of the hypothetical, then.
Maybe this one won’t be so mean:
What if JO had no “angry-man” gig, at all?
You figure, then, well, gee, if he’s no longer getting paid, he might as well go back to his “non-angry man” convictions? Like, why bother railing against all the shit going on out there, if he’s no longer paid to do it, right?
So yeah - he’s not being paid, then, just to be Mr Angry Man, as you incorrectly pointed out, but getting paid, instead, to express his honest convictions.
You like to think, doorhinge, that people will just automatically contort to whatever “angry” conviction, just for that filthy lucre, right? Weak assumption.
So everything said on JO’s show amounts to nothing more than one big joke? You are honestly that caught up in (your recent ferreting of) Supreme Court rulings that you can’t see, for yourself, that the show reports everything factually?
Still waiting for you to provide a single shred of verifiable evidence that John Oliver has ever lied on his show. Gonna be a looooong wait, I’m sure. Facts just don’t seem to fit within your conspiracy-theorizing.
Ooh! Ooh! I got one, and it’s even involving Mike Pence!
Somehow I doubt Toronto citizens are terrified by hard-boiled eggs.
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. You seem to under the assumption that YOUR hypothetical (and it is your hypothetical) should be of greater importance to me. I prefer reality. To each their own, I guess.
Just to clarify my position, I do believe that the John Oliver-type shows are one big, long-running, joke. Everything they do, everything they write, everything they present, are jokes folks. A comedy show, airing on the Comedy Network, starring a comedian, along with plethora of comedy writers, is, was, and always will be a comedy. Maybe you prefer the term parody?
Does Oliver lie like a rug? I haven’t said that. Do these comedians edit news stories for the greatest comedic effect. Yes, they do. That’s their job, they’re comedians. And they get paid for do so. It’s not a conspiracy unless you want to create one. Thanks for playing.
You should listen to George Carlin. Comedy can be quite the vehicle for social commentary.
Maybe we should review the things you actually did say:
[ul]
[li]In post #28: “I consider Oliver to be a political hack who fulfills his employers biased expectations.”[/li][li]in #43 "… his writers can edit ‘the news’ anyway they wish. "[/li][li]in #52: “The fact remains that comedians are free to edit ‘the news’ any way they wish. And they can’t be sued for defamation, or slander. They can say whatever they wish because everyone is supposed to be aware that comedians are telling jokes.”[/li][li]in #54: “Are you accepting the fact that comedians take liberties with news stories in an attempt to tailor their comedy routines to the tastes, and expectation, of their audiences and bosses? … Who do you find to be more credible, comedians or the news readers on the ‘news’ shows?”[/li][li]in #56: “If you wish to believe that everything a comedian says is ‘news’, or a fact, I’m certainly not going to stop you.”[/li][li]in #63: “If someone chooses to get their ‘news’ from comedians, so be it. OTOH, I see no reason to believe the comedic ramblings of someone who can not be held legally responsible for the things that they say.”[/li][li]in #64: “Comedians also have a long history of editing, spinning, twisting the truth/facts in order to get a laugh.”[/li][li]in #65: "By ‘clips’, don’t you mean edited, or shortened, versions of an event. Maybe ‘cherry picked’ would be a better term? … I personally do not chose to get my political ‘news’ from comedians. "[/li][/ul]
I think one could be forgiven for concluding that you’re pushing the idea that Oliver’s comments on current events are completely unreliable and done strictly for laughs. Even when I point out that his discussions are backed up by actual video clips, you suggest that these clips are edited and cherry-picked and therefore also unreliable. You’ve put the word “news” in quotes no less than six times, presumably to suggest that it’s not really news, because it’s all been manipulated for comedic effect.
So don’t be trying to back-pedal when challenged. Your meaning was perfectly clear. And it’s also perfectly wrong.
The format of the program is a brief summary of some of the week’s events followed by a detailed commentary on one specific topic, all of it documented with real news footage. It’s treated in an entertainingly comedic way, but the interest value and indeed even the humor value comes from the fact that the news stories are real and factually presented. If you claim that they’re not, if you claim a bias so pervasive that you feel justified in putting the word “news” in quotes no less than six times, then the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Give us examples of when Oliver substantially misrepresented the facts of a story. If you can’t do that, then we can quite justifiably regard your claims as the bullshit that it is. I’ll wait.
:eek:MY:eek: hypothesis was a perfectly reasonable challenge to your misguided claim that he’s simply getting paid to be an angry-man. You are too cowardly to admit that JO would never get “angry” on behalf of Fox News, which you know was my point on that particular issue, all along, and so shame on you for trying to contort it into this weaksauce about preferring “reality”.
So you agree, at least, that he’s truthful?
Neither did I. I asked for a single instance, which you still have not provided. Thanks for moving the goalposts.
That was weird. If you are responding to something by wolfpup, ignore me here. If you were responding to my quote, no, that’s not what I mean at all. Humor is the mechanism by which the powerful can be publicly criticized without losing face. That is very important, not only to those in power, but for social stability.