And that’s fine, and I’m sure you verify that your political news source is not editing, spinning, or twisting facts, too.
You might want to check out the federal register, proposed bills, and the congressional record.
What restrictions does that put on non-comedian newsreaders? Can they report erroneously and just say, “Whoops, honest mistake”? And how often?
That was weird because I was quoted as saying “Comedians have a long history of challenging those in power, to keep them honest” but I never said that, you did. I happen to agree with that sentiment, but I didn’t say it, and DesertDog made a confusing misattribution.
Meanwhile I’m still waiting for doorhinge to provide evidence of his persistent claim that John Oliver so egregiously misrepresents the facts that he can’t be taken seriously. I think what doorhinge really means is that he much prefers Fox News, which is understandable, but is not at all evidence of his claim.
John Oliver slants facts less than a lot of purported news outlets, but it doesn’t matter; he’s a comedian, the court jester, here to tweak the king’s nose, put the nobles on notice, and warn the peasants.
How does that make it not matter? The fact that the basic facts are as he represents them is a huge factor in what makes the stories and jokes compelling. If I had any suspicion that he was routinely fabricating facts, or taking quotes and statements out of context, my enjoyment of the show would plummet.
(post shortened)
My persistent claim of what? Isn’t it true that if someone is to “persistent claim” something, they should have at least said it once?
My position hasn’t changed.
“Cowardly”? “Weaksauce”? You are free to dwell within your hypothetical. I prefer reality.
I find it difficult to believe that Fox News would hire John Oliver. I find it difficult to believe that Fox News viewers would accept John Oliver whether he was playing an “angry man character”, or not.
Here’s my position: John Oliver passionately believes the basic position (about Trump) that he stakes out in the show, namely, that the Trump presidency is a catastrophe for democracy, and the administration is full of unqualified unethical douchebags. Having a TV show, he has the ability to convey that belief to millions of people, and he does so in a fashion that is intended to be humorous and entertaining, but he also holds to a fairly high standard of fairness, honesty and accuracy in the information he presents.
Do you disagree with any part of that?
(post shortened)
My position hasn’t changed. John Oliver is your usual entertainer-type who is paid to play the part of another angry man on a talk show. His bitterness and frustration over the fact that more people refuse to think like him, is obvious in most of his tirade videos. Some people like angry-man humor. I consider Oliver to be a political hack who fulfills his employers biased expectations. Neither entertaining, or humorous. Just angry. Yawn.
As you may now be aware, for lawsuits involving incidents of parody, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the possibility of public figures and public officials recovering damages from comedians unless it can be proved that there was “actual malice” (imagine the Supremes emphasizing a word or phrase by enclosing those words in “quotes”) involved. Mr. Comedian, did you intend actual malice against the plaintiff? Of course not. I love everyone. I was simply practicing my craft, your Judgeship. Very well, case dismissed.
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.
The Supreme’s seem to be of the opinion that parody’s would NOT be considered reasonably believable. It probably never occurred to them that hundreds of people might actually chose to get their “news” from comedians who edit current stories for their most comedic effect. Maybe it did?
Since comedians can not be held legally responsible for what they say, I chose not to make decision based on anything they say, because, after all, there are other sources of information. YMMV.
Everyone has their own taste, I suppose. Personally, I find Mr. Oliver clever, funny, and usually spot on about his observations and criticisms of the current regime. I would never apply the adjective “angry” to his act, as he usually appears more bemused.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Just as the many angry man characters/clones are.
It seems nobody has so far pointed to anything John Oliver said on his show and shown it to be a lie?
(Post doorhinged)
I find it difficult to imagine John Oliver keeping a straight face as Fox “News” made the offer.
You mean like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and the entire right wing outrage industry?
My challenge to you was the following:
… 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.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20864532&postcount=77
You haven’t been able to do so. So I guess your claims were indeed the bullshit we all thought they were.
Instead, you wander off on some digression about Supreme Court rulings on parody. Parody? What the hell does parody have to do with this discussion?
Since you refuse to engage with facts, here, let me help you out. I just quickly went through the first half of the John Oliver show on Mike Pence – the one from March 18 that this thread is about – to try to capture the factual basis of his commentary, and these are the main points I got out of it:
-
Pence is the only person working in the White House that Trump constitutionally cannot fire
-
Pence has held extreme positions with respect to abortion and gay rights
-
In interviews with Pence after Trump’s false claim that he won the popular vote, Pence dodges the vote question over and over again and refuses to address it
-
Pence has around 80% support among evangelicals
-
Pence has argued in interviews and authored op-eds against women in the military
-
Pence has a history of promoting “Intelligent Design”, and of opposition to Roe v Wade
-
Trump has mocked Pence’s religiosity
-
Pence has a history of anti-gay advocacy; he has argued that homosexuality is incompatible with military service – in exactly those words
-
Pence gave an anti-gay speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference of the American Conservative Union, arguing that “the sanctity of marriage” “must be defended against the onslaught of the left”
-
Pence signed an anti-gay RFRA law in Indiana; when challenged by George Stephanopoulis to answer yes or no, if a florist refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that now legal in Indiana, Pence repeatedly refused to answer and evaded the question. When asked “Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?”, he repeatedly evaded that question, too.
-
A spokesman for VP Pence stated that he did not and does not support sexual conversion therapy. But back in Indiana, Pence’s campaign literature stated his agenda that “resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior”. Pence has also been a long-time friend and supporter of James Dobson, the founder and former board chairman of “Focus on the Family” and infamously notorious promoter of conversion therapy (also an evangelical nutcase and Trump zealot). On the 40th anniversary of “Focus on the Family”, Pence praised Dobson as “a friend and a mentor”.
So there, I made it easy for you by summarizing roughly the first half of the show and the points it highlighted. Now you can feel free to tell us which of those points are “parody” and which are completely false lies that should be ignored, because, you know, Oliver is just a comedian.
I’ll wait.
Hope you brought a lunch. And a fast-forward time machine.
Much as I appreciate doorhinge’s efforts to made the thread about him, I’d like to report the amusing twist that Pence’s daughter likes the Oliver book.
I don’t know anything about the Pence daughter, but it woldn’t surprise me if she didn’t share her father’s views on a lot of things. She could be a liberal Democrat for all we know.
Well, it doesn’t say she liked it better, just that she likes the fact that both are giving to charities and both are about bunnies, which she seems to really like. Also, that her dad is stink bug apparently hits a cord. 
As to the doorhinge semi-hijack, it’s amusing that he still hasn’t produced any actual evidence that John Oliver lied but has kept up a steady stream of deflection and attempts to shift the goal posts. Other than that hope those who got the book enjoy it. I guess they actually sold out of the first printing, not expecting the response they got, but I think they have another printing in the production queue.