[mhomde]

That was the point, they didn't want to idolize Snowden and even made some pretty hard accusations about him being responsible for inadvertent repercussions

That made the rest of the interview more believable and trustworthy. Fair, balanced and humorous

I agree that it's a fine line between simplifying a topic for "the general masses" and dumbing it down to something out of the movie Idiocracy. However, I think that Oliver has done a fair job of making it easier to relate to topics people otherwise wouldn't.

(He could use a touch less cursing to add some gravitas where needed, but that's a matter of personal taste I guess)

[butwhy]

Here is Snowden... having dedicated and risked his life to help his fellow citizen, to have Oliver claim that Americans "don't give a shit" and that he is incompetent for passing on information to journalists that will publish un-redacted material. So Oliver is trying to be funny whilst fundamentally insulting his work and the freedom he has given up.

[erichmond]

But I think that a dose of reality he's trying to inject both into the conversation and to Snowden himself. Because Snowden is living this, I'm sure he thinks he's made a bigger impact then he has. Because people like us care about these things, I'm sure we think he's made a bigger impact then he has.

I grew up in a lower to middle class town in New England, and virtually none of my peers I grew up with would know who Edward is either.

While thats not how I'd personally conduct the interview, I do think the first half of it was trying to deconstruct this idea that everyone is engaged and understand the debate, setting up the second half of the interview where he tries to get Snowden to explain things as simply and as direct as possible.

While I'd assume most of us on this board are tired of "It's like Uber for X", there's a reason that we use it, and it's because the "general public" "gets" it.

[butwhy]

The actual notion that a lot of people don't understand this debate is a valid concern. I personally disagree with every method that Oliver took to try and convey this.

[tinco]

No, Oliver was not trying to be funny. Oliver was pointing out the truth as he observed it, and at the closing part of his interview offers a solution.

So yes, there was some very harsh criticism during the interview and it was difficult the watch, but it made the interview that much stronger and the solution offered that much more appealing.

It proves that Oliver is not your average 'funny-man' and dares to make part of his show uncomfortable just to establish a solid foundation of his interpretation and proposed solution.

[butwhy]

Well he was actually trying to be funny. He is a comedian. This interview is for a "satire" show.

[cardern]

I thought that by joking with Snowden in the way that he did, Oliver was trying to humanize him.

[soneil]

I thought it was quite clever. Especially if you watch the pre-amble to interview, you can see he's trying to strip away some of the "sub-issues" to just hit at the main one.

Especially clear in the pre-amble, he's assembling a single "call to action". That the patriot act is due to be renewed at the beginning of June, and that given what we do know now, it could probably use a spring clean first.

He never actually makes that call on whether Snowden actually did the right thing or not. This is matches with the first few questions on the interview where he's surprisingly harsh on Snowden, on what he's shared with who, how, etc. This is perfect. At this point if you do agree with Snowden's actions, you're still here. But more importantly, if you don't, you haven't been alienated either. You've just seen John address some issues that most interviews have treated with kid gloves, and practically scold him for them.

Next, he discards the issue of foreign surveillance. This is where he seems quite rude, but Snowden quietly agrees with him - the general populace just doesn't care. To paraphrase NZ's prime minister, if your spies weren't spying on people you'd want to know why not. How much is appropriate, and how far spying on allies hurts foreign relations, is a really tough nut to crack - but more importantly, completely irrelevant to the discussion of the Patriot Act's upcoming renewal.

And then you reach the meat of the interview, if you'll excuse the pun, where - yes, there's some showmanship involved in getting people to pay attention, even if they're paying attention for the wrong reason. But essentially he strips away the hypotheticals, strips away the "if you've got nothing to hide", and lays it out. It's a bit more loud and crass than I expect from an Englishman, but we're having this conversation, so it worked.

He bookends the show with a simple idea - that if we can't discuss and address an issue as nice and clear as the Patriot Act being too over-reaching for 2015, then the other, smaller details have no chance. This is the context for the interview itself - simply trying to revive the conversation that we had 2 years ago, in time for it to be politically relevant.

[esalman]

Not sure your comment is a sarcasm. Oliver is not fundamentally insulting his work. He is trying to (or appearing to) insult his work while revealing how stupid average Americans are.