[jerf]

Unfortunately, the problem is that the media isn't any better than a comedian, not that the comedian is very good. Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead. Many people criticize the mainstream media for the fake controversy approach where every issue has two sides no matter how silly, but John Oliver is even worse than that. It's fun, but that's all it is... it is not informative. Only fun.

If you think he's "really good" at covering the issues, I strongly suggest tuning your media consumption; you're not even getting one side of an issue so much as one spoon-fed preparation of one side of an issue. You're dangerously underexposed.

(And to be clear, I do think he is fun. I've watched a goodly number of his videos myself. I'm not saying I don't like his schtick... just that it is a schtick.)

[baldfat]

Example: FCC Chairman Net Neutrality is a good example of his style. Yes he does show the other side and yes it maybe a case of straw-man argument, but for the most part.

Encryption - He shows the FBI public address on the issue and why they are concerned in terms of terrorist. Then shows the Congress and Trump. Points out the ability for the government to "penetrate" any bank, door, etc as needed through a court of law.

Then the issue is the "Pandora's Box" of setting president.

I would like you to show one where there isn't the other side getting their main points presented by John Oliver? Would you be willing to show an example of what shows only one side?

[jerf]

I decline to volunteer a list of the exact ways in which I disagree with the liberal orthodoxy. (Thread derail ho!) I'm sure you'll understand.

He carefully makes sure that any exposure to the "opposite side" is sandwiched with snark on both sides, and to make sure that none of the strong arguments are shown to you. You are not actually being exposed to the other side, just a soundbite carefully processed to remove any possibility that you might even be so much as intrigued, let alone convinced.

Be honest: When have you been "exposed" to one of these viewpoints and even experience a hint of "Hmmm, maybe I should dig into that position a bit more, I'm not sure John's right here."? All I'm asking for is a twitch. I bet you're too busy laughing for the thought to even cross your mind. (Again... be honest with me. Don't hypothesize about how maybe somebody else might have. Tell me about whether you followed up on a video's points.)

I'm taking a bit of risk putting this challenge out there, because a lot of people read these posts and of all those people, there almost has to be one person who actually can tell a story about how they followed up and came to a conclusion that disagreed with John. But I dunno... I've probably still got decent odds, and I'm quite sure there won't be a long stream of them below this concept.

And let me reemphasize my core point here, which is not that I really expect that much more from a comedian (you are laughing, because he is pretty funny, after all), but that the media doesn't do any better. John isn't doing anything particularly wrong. He ought to be the dessert part of your balanced news and media diet; it's not the dessert's fault that the rest of the meal is short on nutrients.

[baldfat]

1) My point was what a bad place we are in when a Comedian does a better job covering a story. When I know the facts of an issue John Oliver has actually covered the issue MUCH better then News Media.

2) I think you turned this into something else completely :) Please don't be the facts don't matter everything is bias and then never care about what common ground facts people can hold on to. Example Obama going to SxSW for a "Entertainment" festival instead of going to Nancy Reagan's funeral. a) SxSW is also a major technology gathering (We all know that here) b) no other President went to a funeral of a first lady for decades and it was the job of the first lady.

> I decline to volunteer a list of the exact ways in which I disagree with the liberal orthodoxy.

Wait we are talking points of John Oliver not showing both sides. I am Pro-Life and I disagreed with him and he would with me also. Facts are different then conclusions. I never get mad at people for coming to a different conclusion if we both have access to the same facts. I am asking for an example where he doesn't show both sides like you were saying.

Also your tone is a "wee-bit" offensive. I use to be a Systems Librarian and to this day I check everyone's facts with them in person. My kids when they hear something take the phone and ask Google for the answer.

  I wasn't saying HE IS FUNNIES I said he covered the story better. It is the fact that no one else covered Net Neutrality in a balanced or informed way at all. The issue had zero traction till John Oliver did his piece. The reason why is he was informed and presented it in a way the general public could understand and they could come up to a conclusion of gee John is right or wrong for themselves.

[dropdatabase]

You forgot to give an example to illustrate your point

[Lawtonfogle]

I'm not sure how much of this is on John Oliver's show and how much of this is due to his followers, but the sentiment to pick on Trump because his last name used to be different when his father immigrated. Imagine if conservatives found that Sanders originally had a more ethnic sounding name and made fun of that... would that have been treated the same? I don't think so.

[baldfat]

It was 100% because Trump told Jon Stewart that he should have been proud of his original last name and then years later denied he made fun of it and would have never done so.

Donald Trump's tweet - https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/32707672042545152...

[Lawtonfogle]

>Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead.

It is like the people who, when asked about why some thing should be, they respond "Because it is 2016!" And all their supporters laugh and agree and think the argument has been made. Both sides are really strongly set on talking past each other, and on some issues they are often far closer in opinion than they would ever be willing to admit (especially after all the extreme rhetoric was thrown around).

And my absolute favorite, when you make a careful comparison between two issues to show a comparable line of reasoning, a lot of people will just go "They aren't comparable." No discussion, no attempt to explain why they are different, and if you can manage to get them to keep going, you are going to be swimming in a flood of logical fallacies.

[DanielBMarkham]

Interesting format. First time I've watched him. This is a pet topic, so I wanted to watch. But I stopped about half-way through.

If you need a joke every 10 seconds or so -- otherwise you lose attention -- I guess it's okay. Seemed to cover this topic well enough. But if you need that amount of humor, if I were you I might want to up my game a bit.

The problem with entertainment disguising itself as useful information is bias. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to most people what the guy is saying. His criteria for a successful broadcast is something that emotionally moves folks and that he can make entertain people the maximum amount. The viewer's criteria is to laugh and feel like they now understand some complex subject.

Whether or not the information is biased or not never enters the picture between the two parties. In fact, the more complexity that's introduced, the less likely the material is to be entertaining. Likewise, the more you're laughing, the less you're probably learning. But it doesn't matter because everybody's having a good time. Reminds me of talk radio in the early 90s (except the politics are all different, of course)

[nitrogen]

You should watch the entire segment because he "plot twists" a little past half way.

And the jokes are just part of the Last Week Tonight formula. This is information disguising itself as entertainment, not the other way around. Oliver also did a segment recently about special tax districts that was quite informative, as another example of the LWT formula for you to sample.

You get a lot more information from a LWT piece than from traditional news; the comedy bit might even just be to avoid being sued for satirizing living people (maybe "comedians" can get away with more than "journalists").

[baldfat]

My point is still the same take away all the jokes and look at only that facts. John Oliver does a better job at breaking down stories into parts that tell the story better.

John Oliver is entertainment but the News facts are presented better then mainline news.

My case in point: New Neutrality. He singlehandedly turned the whole issue into something people a) could understand b) then decided if it was something they should care about. For YEARS tech community went no where then John Oliver immediately made it into an issue most people understood and changed FCC and Net Neutrality overnight,

[jclulow]

Is there a particularly egregious example of one-sidedness you can point to?