Oh alright, then.
Persistent chickenshittery accepted.
Ya don’t say, Einstein.
That’s the best you can deflect?
Try not to pull the same with this:
That’s the way I see him as well. He’s complaining, of course, but he’s not angry. Sometimes his bemusement spiked into complete incredulity.
And it’s off topic, but his show on Infrastructure was hilarious. I don’t have a link handy, but it’s one that Public Works engineers send each other. Solid gold.
Well, I did not mean it doesn’t matter in an artistic sense, just that it doesn’t matter ethically, or morally, when a comedian slants the truth, because s/he is not a news anchor.
John Oliver is a national treasure and I cherish him.
You mean if a comedian was doing stand-up, or a show similar to JO’s?
If the latter - to what extent would a comedian slant the truth? Into possible falsehoods?
Video cite?
a classic! infrastructure
Jim Jeffries’ Australia v. US on gun control?
“1994, Port Arthur, biggest massacre on earth … still hasn’t been beaten”. It doesn’t matter that last was true at the time, the delivery of ‘still hasn’t been beaten’ is ‘objectively funny’.
"The Australian government went, “That’s it, no more guns!”, and we went, “Yeah, right, that seems fair …” That is funny, even if there was serious, organized opposition to the new policy. (I don’t know if there was; if I need to know for a policy paper, I’ll look it up.)
"There is one argument for having guns … ‘Fuck off, I like guns.’ " That is open to reasonable debate; it’s still really funny. (There are other arguments for having a gun, his just happens to be about the best.)
Then he goes on about how gun owners are not interested in other security mechanisms, and that is just wrong - gun owners love security systems, but “None of you are reading* Padlock Monthly*” is funny.
Comedy can present an underlying truth without being strictly factual.
You might not remember when the story was run that George H. W. Bush didn’t know what a supermarket scanner was; it wasn’t true - he’d never seen one of the fairly new hand-held one, that’s all - but that irresponsible bit of reporting would actually have been a good joke, because he was removed from petty daily responsibilities, like shopping and keeping your low wage job in the face of increasing mechanization.
My bold.
Your cite was for stand-up; I was looking for one modelled more on the latter item that I mentioned there - shows similar to JO’s.
I only have so much time, and given that I did not follow your instructions, we’ll have to let this one go.
I’ll just point out that the example provided was an extend monologue on an issue of great social importance.
And there IS no one like John Oliver.
This brings up an interesting, if subtle, point, which is the difference between statements that are obviously jokes and statements that appear to be facts. The quoted statement is, obviously, totally false. Even the most determined gun control proponent would agree that it would need a qualifier like “valid” or “substantial” to be true.
But of course, no reasonable human being would even think to evaluate the truth value of that statement in the first place.
On the other hand, there could well be a stand-up routine, or a John Oliver piece, that begins with “We’re now 500 days into the Trump administration, and he still hasn’t appointed an ambassador to South Korea”, followed by a bunch of jokes making hilarious comparisons. In that case, I would feel extraordinarily misled and let down if that statement were not substantially true. And that’s the type of thing where I firmly believe that John Oliver does a rigorous and determined job of fact-checking… certainly more than just about any of the prominent right-wing media outlets.
(post shortened)
Oliver is just a comedian. A comedian who hosts a comedy show, surrounded by comedy writers, on a comedy network. His primary job is to tell jokes. I see no reason for anyone, specifically me, to get my “news” from a comedian on a comedy show hosted by a comedy network.
As far as your “challenge” is concerned, you began with, “if you claim a bias so pervasive”, which is something that I have not claimed. Is the onus still on me to provide evidence of something that only you claimed? I don’t think so.
I think it’s sad that a few people have chosen to get their “news” from a comedian playing a character on a comedy show. Have people truly given up on the performance of the main stream news media outlets? Personally, I agree with Jon Stewart’s disappoint at what is currently being passed off as “news” by the main stream media outlets, but I haven’t sunk to the level of actually searching out comedians for my “news”.
You’re very invested in this dichotomy, but it’s ridiculous.
I do not “get my news” from John Oliver. I do not wake up in the morning, wonder “ok, wtf did Trump do this morning” and turn on John Oliver to find out.
I do watch John Oliver weekly (at least, as often as there’s a new episode), and, when I do, I prepare myself to learn something new that has happened in the world, to be informed, because I’ve learned from experience tends to happen when I watch is show. And because experience tells me that his show communicates real, accurate, truthful information.
Now you seem convinced that John Oliver himself is nothing like he presents himself on his show, that he’s just playing a part, as a professional entertainer. I find that extremely unlikely… but also somewhat irrelevant to whether or not the information presented on his show tends to be (a) novel (to me) and (b) generally trustworthy.
Oliver would not disagree with any of that. In fact, he has specifically pointed out that he is not a journalist on many occasions. He does, however, cite journalists and actual journalistic outlets such as the Washintgon Post, The New York Times, and ProPublica.org in his stories, and his staff does a large amount of fact checking and even original research for the stories they present. The show itself is rarely about presenting any cutting edge news stories, especially since it only appears once a week, on Sunday nights, on a schedule of 24 to 35 episodes per year; rather, it focuses attention on often little-known or complex issues in a long form format, using satire and Oliver’s brand of self-effacing humor to highlight what are often very serious problems such as failing infrastructure, net neutrality, or the Equifax scandal at a depth and with engagement not matched by media outlets. Oliver himself encourages viewers to support and read news from respected journalism organizations.
The strawman argument you are creating by trying to claim that Last Week Tonight is presented in any way as the gold standard for journalistic reporting is utterly false. It is, however, an outlet which uses comedy and satire to present complex issues with a depth rarely seen in other television media and encourages viewers to become better informed by doing their own research into the provided citations. It isn’t comedy-as-news; it is news-as-comedy, akin to but in deeper form than, say, Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show which nobody confuses for original journalism.
As for the supposed difference between John Oliver in the persona of host of Last Week Tonight, and John Oliver, private citizen, there seems to be very little if any difference except that John Oliver, private citizen, seems more thoughtful in his sincere concern about the problems of our nation than John Oliver, host. Oliver doesn’t just headline the show as a host for hire reading copy someone handed him; he produces and is on the writing staff of the show that HBO offered him complete creative control over. This notion that Oliver is just giving whatever reading gets the most laughs rather than is presenting a genuine view of topics he finds interesting or outrageous
makes no sense whatsoever.
Stranger
I think we are agreeing here. JJ qualifies the statement in his monologue, and I agree it is open to reasonable debate.
But he does state a basic fact: shooting guns is fun. They go ‘boom’, and hitting the target is a skill. Fine. Let’s agree that guns are fun. Let’s enact a nationwide military reserve requirement that requires everyone to go to go to the range at least once a month to play with the boom sticks. It’ll probably be cheaper that prosecuting mass shooters at this point. And when you age out of the monthly boom stick qualifying requirement, you can have a hand gun at home. With a ten round magazine. Or clip. Whatever. Because if ten rounds aren’t enough, you should stop playing with boom sticks.
BTW, I am a gun owner - long story - and a decent shot, and if ten rounds isn’t enough, take up track.
As others have pointed out, the question at hand is not whether anyone gets their news from a comedy show, the question is whether the information presented on Oliver’s show, and which is the basis of his humorous commentary, is factual. Stranger On A Train described this very well just above – Oliver provides comedic commentary on real news stories, meticulously researched and factually presented. It’s entertaining comedy, yes, but a real learning experience at the same time.
You seem to specialize in denying that you said many things, your list of denials now growing quite long. But I summarized right here all the things that you did say, exactly as you said them. Read it. Refresh your memory.
What does one conclude from this about your beliefs regarding the factual accuracy of the stories presented on John Oliver’s show?
Is it fair to say you don’t regard it as factual?
I went to the trouble to list all the key facts I got out of the first 20 minutes or so of the show on Mike Pence, the subject of this thread. I stopped at around 20 minutes because I had filled up a page with notes and was tired of writing, but I could have gone on.
My challenge, if you want me to reword it, is simply to ask you whether or not each and every one of those points about Pence is, in fact, true and accurate. And if they are, how do you reconcile that with all the claims you just made about John Oliver? I’ll remind you from your own words describing Oliver, terms like “biased”, “can say whatever they wish”, “I see no reason to believe the comedic ramblings …”, or “long history of editing, spinning, twisting the truth/facts in order to get a laugh”.
ISTM that what’s really happening here is you’re following the standard Republican playbook:
Step 1: If someone says something that makes your side look bad, claim that they are lying or exaggerating.
Step 2: Check to see if the person is a comedian. If so, hurrah! Just claim that comedians deal with jokes, not facts.
Step 3: When presented with irrefutable evidence that the news stories described by said comedian are actually true, ignore the evidence and go back to step 1. Repeat until the person presenting the evidence gives up and goes away.
I just saw this thread. Sorry I’m late, but the following post astounded me.
@ doorhinge — I assume you’ve never actually watched John Oliver’s show; am I right?
If that assumption is correct then you should be excused for the ignorant idea that John Oliver’s show is primarily “comedy.” Similarly, some who’ve never clicked to FoxNews might be excused for guessing it was primarily a “news” channel.