John Oliver

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

They have an idea - Fine
They wonder why their idea hasn't been adopted - Fine
They misrepresent the heck out of the counterargument - Ah, here's the problem
Finally, they conclude that there are no good arguments against their idea. - unsupported and distorted conclusion.

Yeah but it got him in the White House.

[BigBeauford]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Yeah but it got him in the White House.

Holy Shit, post of the year.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Yeah but it got him in the White House.

Originally Posted by BigBeauford

Holy Shit, post of the year.

To the extent this is relevant to the 2016 election, even then I'm not sure what it establishes.

It would seem to argue that Trump won the election, at least in part, by taking the current rhetorical landscape and using it to his own advantage.

That part of why Colbert/Oliver/Bee/Stewart etc are so traumatized by the past year is that he did their gig better and actually accomplished something with it.

Of all the criticism of Trump, asserting that he defended his good ideas by shortchanging the arguments of the opposition is a relatively novel one.

Nevertheless, not sure how turning my criticism of the 'late night method' of rhetoric onto Trump says anything about anything, except the state of the populace regarding how they prefer their debates.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

They make interesting rhetorical points to ponder.

My beef is more with the way they phrase the counterargument.

They have an idea - Fine
They wonder why their idea hasn't been adopted - Fine
They misrepresent the heck out of the counterargument - Ah, here's the problem
Finally, they conclude that there are no good arguments against their idea. - unsupported and distorted conclusion.

Ah, and step number three is where you’re mischaracterizing these guys, and epically so. This is precisely why you’re twisted up about these guys.

Ask yourself: what comedic editorial trick did the Daily Show master under Jon Stewart?

Playing clips of politicians and media figures shamelessly contradicting themselves for political expediency. The Daily Show also earned a reputation for playing soundbites of hilariously stupid arguments made by the media and those in power and shitting all over them for it. Colbert Report mastered that. Oliver and Bee take it to the next level by shattering the arguments that those in power are making — and we know they are making those arguments because both Oliver and Bee play clips of them making those arguments.

So to correct your reductive pattern of Stewart/Colbert/Oliver/Bee:

They have an idea.
They wonder why that idea hasn’t been enacted.
They then play clips of people in power and the media saying why it hasn’t been enacted.
They then call their bullshit, and present their counterargument.

That’s why these shows are influential editorials. They are funny, but they actionably take a stand that you can evaluate.

To call them “comedic fiction” is ridiculous.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ah, and step number three is where you’re mischaracterizing these guys, and epically so. This is precisely why you’re twisted up about these guys.

Ask yourself: what comedic editorial trick did the Daily Show master under Jon Stewart?

Playing clips of politicians and media figures shamelessly contradicting themselves for political expediency. The Daily Show also earned a reputation for playing soundbites of hilariously stupid arguments made by the media and those in power and shitting all over them for it. Colbert Report mastered that. Oliver and Bee take it to the next level by shattering the arguments that those in power are making — and we know they are making those arguments because both Oliver and Bee play clips of them making those arguments.

So to correct your reductive pattern of Stewart/Colbert/Oliver/Bee:

They have an idea.
They wonder why that idea hasn’t been enacted.
They then play clips of people in power and the media saying why it hasn’t been enacted.
They then call their bullshit, and present their counterargument.

That’s why these shows are influential editorials. They are funny, but they actionably take a stand that you can evaluate.

To call them “comedic fiction” is ridiculous.

Don't even try this bullshit.
This bullshit is EXACTLY what is pernicious about their method.
'They play clips' - yeah, 2 seconds clips completely out of context that they then spend the next 5 minutes explaining to you what the person meant, probably meant, and why they said it.

And the thing is, it's not that their methods can't be rebutted, but it takes time, research, and energy to rebut 'an entertainment segment' that just isn't worth it, particularly with the sheer volume they put out.

That's not to say there are aren't times when they get the argument completely right, but that's part of the point. The few times they clearly get it right lend unearned credibility to the many many other times they are shamefully misrepresenting or distorting the facts.

It's entertaining and lucrative, and they work hard on it. But it's no more truthful or journalistic than any other partisan talking head. If you insist that they are presenting 'humor filled editorial' that consistently gets it right, you're no different from a Rush or Hannity fan.

Case in point, the segment above about 'Late Night Journalism' is long. 20 minutes long. And it only highlights a couple of aspects about a few clips from a particular point in time. Watch the segment and tell me it doesn't have merit.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Don't even try this bullshit.
This bullshit is EXACTLY what is pernicious about their method.
'They play clips' - yeah, 2 seconds clips completely out of context that they then spend the next 5 minutes explaining to you what the person meant, probably meant, and why they said it.

I rarely find that to be the case. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was renouned for rarely misrepresenting people's views, and have apologized when it was discerned that they did. Colbert's old show was the same, although I never recall Colbert apologizing because I don't recall Colbert misquoting, and I watched just about every episode. (I'm not defending his new show, which is more hacky compared to the Report, which was brilliant.)

Oliver and Bee are uniformly excellent at playing clips of people saying exactly what they mean.

How about we put this to the test, BL?

You name your show -- Bee or Oliver -- and we'll watch their next episode. We'll return here and evaluate exactly how accurate Bee and Oliver were in presenting the opposition's argument through clips.

Keep in mind -- we are not evaluating their arguments, though we can do that, too, if you want. We are evaluating how accurate their clips are of the arguments the opposition in question is presenting.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Deal?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Deal?

No thanks. Particularly after the week of bullshit spin after the FL shooting, I'm not in the mood to scrutinize every word of a basic cable talk show, then argue over the degree of distortion or what is argument and what is assertion of fact with their every word.

I already said that a big part of the pernicious nature of the program format is the sheer volume of info that's presented as accurate, but comedy, truth, but satire, serious, but in a funny light-hearted way.

I'm perfectly satisfied with presenting what I have and making my argument that people need to be more alert to when they're being led around by the nose in the guise of entertainment.

To go beyond that is to invite round after round of sophistry and semantics, ending with an 'agree to disagree' and 'it's just entertainment' just as we have right now.

That is, unless you ACTUALLY want to put you money where your mouth is. Put me on the clock and I'll give you my most professional effort, at my customary hourly rate.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

No thanks. Particularly after the week of bullshit spin after the FL shooting, I'm not in the mood to scrutinize every word of a basic cable talk show, then argue over the degree of distortion or what is argument and what is assertion of fact with their every word.

I already said that a big part of the pernicious nature of the program format is the sheer volume of info that's presented as accurate, but comedy, truth, but satire, serious, but in a funny light-hearted way.

I'm perfectly satisfied with presenting what I have and making my argument that people need to be more alert to when they're being led around by the nose in the guise of entertainment.

To go beyond that is to invite round after round of sophistry and semantics, ending with an 'agree to disagree' and 'it's just entertainment' just as we have right now.

That is, unless you ACTUALLY want to put you money where your mouth is. Put me on the clock and I'll give you my most professional effort, at my customary hourly rate.

I was only talking about the accuracy of the clips they present, since that's the part you take umbrage with.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ah, and step number three is where you’re mischaracterizing these guys, and epically so. This is precisely why you’re twisted up about these guys.

Ask yourself: what comedic editorial trick did the Daily Show master under Jon Stewart?

Playing clips of politicians and media figures shamelessly contradicting themselves for political expediency. The Daily Show also earned a reputation for playing soundbites of hilariously stupid arguments made by the media and those in power and shitting all over them for it. Colbert Report mastered that. Oliver and Bee take it to the next level by shattering the arguments that those in power are making — and we know they are making those arguments because both Oliver and Bee play clips of them making those arguments.

So to correct your reductive pattern of Stewart/Colbert/Oliver/Bee:

They have an idea.
They wonder why that idea hasn’t been enacted.
They then play clips of people in power and the media saying why it hasn’t been enacted.
They then call their bullshit, and present their counterargument.

That’s why these shows are influential editorials. They are funny, but they actionably take a stand that you can evaluate.

To call them “comedic fiction” is ridiculous.

Bee is clearly comedic fiction. Sorry, she is. Starting with a predetermined destination is no way to argue your point, at least not with any critical thinking involved.

Oliver is quite a bit better, but clearly has his own bias/blind spots as do we all. Plenty of critical thinking goes on with his show. I don't always agree with the conclusions, but I don't see any hard line agendas. There are often slants towards the left, but I think they are expected due to who Oliver is. I like that he calls out the lefts BS often enough to maintain some credibility.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

Bee is clearly comedic fiction. Sorry, she is. Starting with a predetermined destination is no way to argue your point, at least not with any critical thinking involved.

Oliver is quite a bit better, but clearly has his own bias/blind spots as do we all. Plenty of critical thinking goes on with his show. I don't always agree with the conclusions, but I don't see any hard line agendas. There are often slants towards the left, but I think they are expected due to who Oliver is. I like that he calls out the lefts BS often enough to maintain some credibility.

Oliver has his own particular method of deflecting from his weaker arguments.

The triumph as well as the tragedy is, that method is usually the most entertaining part of the segment.

When he does the 3-second sound byte thing, rather than misrepresenting the balance of the quoted person's argument or slandering the intent, he veers into an absurdist tangent.

Senator X: [3-second soundbyte]

John: How can you say that Senator X? That's as dumb as asking a frog to carry your pocketwatch. A frog can't tell time, and it doesn't have pockets.

GIVE ME BACK MY WATCH MR. FROG! YOU HAVE NO USE FOR MY WATCH MR. FROG!!

[pounds desk]

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Oliver has his own particular method of deflecting from his weaker arguments.

The triumph as well as the tragedy is, that method is usually the most entertaining part of the segment.

When he does the 3-second sound byte thing, rather than misrepresenting the balance of the quoted person's argument or slandering the intent, he veers into an absurdist tangent.

Senator X: [3-second soundbyte]

John: How can you say that Senator X? That's as dumb as asking a frog to carry your pocketwatch. A frog can't tell time, and it doesn't have pockets.

GIVE ME BACK MY WATCH MR. FROG! YOU HAVE NO USE FOR MY WATCH MR. FROG!!

[pounds desk]

It is comedy, and for the most part funny as hell.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

It is comedy, and for the most part funny as hell.

Which is absolutely fine. I watch the show every week and enjoy it, even when I'm bemused. But that's because I enjoy consuming media in order to fact check it much as most enjoy watching fiction for the stories. It exercises my 'discernment muscles.'

What's important though, is that the takeway for most from the 'example' I created above is 'frogs with pocketwatches are funny,' not so much 'John Oliver convinced me Senator X is a bad person.'

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Which is absolutely fine. I watch the show every week and enjoy it, even when I'm bemused. But that's because I enjoy consuming media in order to fact check it much as most enjoy watching fiction for the stories. It exercises my 'discernment muscles.'

What's important though, is that the takeway for most from the 'example' I created above is 'frogs with pocketwatches are funny,' not so much 'John Oliver convinced me Senator X is a bad person.'

I never took away that it was supposed to make me think Senator X was a bad person. It's a quote out of context. Intelligent people, yes I realize that excludes the majority of the nation, get that.