American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

John oliver shows will always be ace. He went after Obama's short comings.

Colbert will do just fine . He got lots to works with.

Myers will be fine . Theres still lots of crazy news to go around . Trumps gone but Florida man still lives and seemed to have spread out through out the USA now.

This is the kind of story we need right now.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Of course the late shows will be fine. Did some people think they’d just close up shop now that trump is gone?

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Of course the late shows will be fine. Did some people think they’d just close up shop now that trump is gone?

Yes.

Trump & Trump supporters.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

John oliver shows will always be ace. He went after Obama's short comings.

I watch every episode of Oliver (I mean I pay for HBO I am dam well going to use it), but his Bernie Bro side bugs me a bit. This isn't to say Obama isn't a fair target, only that I am ranting for the sake of ranting.

Oliver also gets to the whole Daily Show defense- he is a comedy show not a news show. When he puts extremely bias facts up, he doesn't need to show an entire picture and he doesn't.

Omitting key facts to promote an point is a very dangerous thing to do in my view. What is worse is he tries to appear as he is showing both sides of every story to make his audience have less of a critical eye when watching, but he does omit important discussion points.

And for the record, as I said, I quite enjoy his show and watch it every week its on. There is a lot of good in it, and lots of it confirms my own thoughts, which also makes me try to view it more critically.

[activeStick]

Really impressed with the current WH Press Secretary. Obviously there's no comparison with the last one, as the last one was a complete dumpster fire, but Jen Psaki is clearly incredibly bright, fast and straight forward. When she doesn't know the answer or doesn't have the facts, she states so. She's also created an image that while she's open to any question, she won't stand for reporters reframing her statements/answers incorrectly by gas lighting.

Again, nice to get back to normal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mull

Omitting key facts to promote an point is a very dangerous thing to do in my view. What is worse is he tries to appear as he is showing both sides of every story to make his audience have less of a critical eye when watching, but he does omit important discussion points.

This is accurate. As soon as one of his longer pieces happens to touch on an area that you have actual knowledge about, you'll go, "wait... this is incredibly misleading." And then you'll realize that all those other pieces he did that you found extremely compelling but didn't have any pre-existing knowledge or feelings about were likely misleading to some degree, too.

Good show. Often highly entertaining. Do not take it too seriously.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is accurate. As soon as one of his longer pieces happens to touch on an area that you have actual knowledge about, you'll go, "wait... this is incredibly misleading." And then you'll realize that all those other pieces he did that you found extremely compelling but didn't have any pre-existing knowledge or feelings about were likely misleading to some degree, too.

Good show. Often highly entertaining. Do not take it too seriously.

Not much different than most news stories on subjects you have some expertise in. You read the article, and just go uh, uhm..what?..no!

[Cecil Terwilliger]

lol.

John Oliver is misleading because his 15 minute long pieces, on subjects that a full length documentary couldn't cover in two hours, aren't in depth enough.

Omitting key facts is dangerous? GTFO with that. I guess you find every newspaper on the planet dangerous, every news broadcast, every news magazine show like 60 minutes, every documentary etc etc to be dangerous.

Or he's like every other OPINION based show where he is trying to highlight a subject and sometimes that means massaging the facts a bit and only showing you the worst side of a subject in order to get people to become interested in a topic and use his show as a jumping off point to become educated.

If you you don't know all the facts on a subject it is your fault. Not John Oliver's. What a ridiculous thing to even say.

And this whole "oh he's only comedy so it doesn't count". Really? because he is more honest and accurate than any news broadcast on the big 4 networks, on any of the cable news networks, of any of the news magazine shows.

So what is John Oliver less accurate than? The Economist? The New Yorker? Academic journals? If this is the standard we are holding him to, then clearly we've lost sight of what matters.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

lol.

John Oliver is misleading because his 15 minute long pieces, on subjects that a full length documentary couldn't cover in two hours, aren't in depth enough.

No one said they aren't in-depth enough. They're often quite in-depth. They're just selective with the facts they provide to give a pre-determined impression that often doesn't reflect reality, because giving a more accurate picture would be less entertaining and less prone to get you all fired up about whatever issue he's energetically tackling.

Omitting key facts is dangerous? GTFO with that. I guess you find every newspaper on the planet dangerous, every news broadcast, every news magazine show like 60 minutes, every documentary etc etc to be dangerous.

I guess we've gotten to the point where we just accept that everything is fake news now? Did the Trump people succeed that thoroughly in undermining faith in all news reporting? Because I realize a lot of it is garbage that's solely designed to keep your eyes on the screen, but that doesn't mean we should just take it as read that that's the only way it can be. I know it's frustrating to try to sort out the good reporting from the junk, but writing off the whole industry like this is sad and defeatist.

To be clear, no, news broadcasts and outlets and documentaries should not be omitting key facts for entertainment purposes, and there actually are a few people in the business who still do their best to include all of those key facts.

Or he's like every other OPINION based show where he is trying to highlight a subject and sometimes that means massaging the facts a bit and only showing you the worst side of a subject in order to get people to become interested in a topic and use his show as a jumping off point to become educated.

Speaking of "lol", this is an absurd bit of spin. No, it is not intended to provide a "jumping off point" for people to go and educate themselves. That's not at all how his pieces are presented. They're presented as "let John tell you about this problem with our society that you probably haven't given much thought to or possibly haven't ever even noticed".

And if what he gives you gives you a completely skewed first impression of the topic, well, there are plenty of psychological studies to show that those sorts of first impressions are very hard to rectify, even if you're presented with solid evidence of what was missing from the original version of reality you were presented with. If you're not prepared to take it for what it is - a bit of fun - that could be a problem.

If you you don't know all the facts on a subject it is your fault. Not John Oliver's. What a ridiculous thing to even say.

As if anyone knows "all the facts" on just about any topic, to say nothing of whatever random thing Oliver is talking about on a given week. Yes, it's entirely his fault if he deliberately or recklessly misleads people because the misleading version of events is more entertaining. Just as it's Sean Hannity's fault when he does it. What a ridiculous thing to say to suggest otherwise.

And this whole "oh he's only comedy so it doesn't count". Really? because he is more honest and accurate than any news broadcast on the big 4 networks, on any of the cable news networks, of any of the news magazine shows.

No, he's incredibly not, and you're incredibly naive for thinking this.

So what is John Oliver less accurate than? The Economist? The New Yorker? Academic journals? If this is the standard we are holding him to, then clearly we've lost sight of what matters.

No one's holding him to any standards, per se. He's not a journalist, so he doesn't have to have journalistic integrity. The point is that there is a way to enjoy Last Week Tonight, and it's to realize that you're not being educated, you're being entertained. Don't get worked up about whatever John's getting worked up about, just sit back have a laugh.

All in all, a terrible take. I don't know that I've ever seen that much naivety combined with that much cynicism in one post.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

lol.

John Oliver is misleading because his 15 minute long pieces, on subjects that a full length documentary couldn't cover in two hours, aren't in depth enough.

Omitting key facts is dangerous? GTFO with that. I guess you find every newspaper on the planet dangerous, every news broadcast, every news magazine show like 60 minutes, every documentary etc etc to be dangerous.

Or he's like every other OPINION based show where he is trying to highlight a subject and sometimes that means massaging the facts a bit and only showing you the worst side of a subject in order to get people to become interested in a topic and use his show as a jumping off point to become educated.

If you you don't know all the facts on a subject it is your fault. Not John Oliver's. What a ridiculous thing to even say.

And this whole "oh he's only comedy so it doesn't count". Really? because he is more honest and accurate than any news broadcast on the big 4 networks, on any of the cable news networks, of any of the news magazine shows.

So what is John Oliver less accurate than? The Economist? The New Yorker? Academic journals? If this is the standard we are holding him to, then clearly we've lost sight of what matters.

I never knew I would hit a nerve criticizing John Oliver. I am also sort of shocked people consider a comedy show real news.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Mull

I never knew I would hit a nerve criticizing John Oliver. I am also sort of shocked people consider a comedy show real news.

But you were the one who criticized Oliver for not presenting both sides of a story. Comedies don't generally need to do that.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

But you were the one who criticized Oliver for not presenting both sides of a story. Comedies don't generally need to do that.

That's a very good point and I guess this thread shows why Oliver is so dangerous, people consider him "real news" and not a comedian.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mull

That's a very good point and I guess this thread shows why Oliver is so dangerous, people consider him "real news" and not a comedian.

"Dangerous" is a bit of a stretch... A bunch of overly credulous HBO subscribers having a myopic view about civil forfeiture or standardized testing isn't exactly something that needs to be blown out of proportion.

[Yamer]

Oh, you're not all getting away from the insanity that easily.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1356719881564086272

[Mull]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"Dangerous" is a bit of a stretch... A bunch of overly credulous HBO subscribers having a myopic view about civil forfeiture or standardized testing isn't exactly something that needs to be blown out of proportion.

I don't know, misinformation is dangerous to me, no matter what. Your example isn't concerning but he has a platform and shows his true colors in how he wants to use it.

Is he as much as a problem as Fox News commentary? Hell no
Is it still dangerous to me? Yes

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Oh, you're not all getting away from the insanity that easily.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1356719881564086272

News Max appears to be terrified of a billion dollar lawsuit litigation. Love it.

[devo22]

I guess "1.3 billion dollar lawsuit" is a pretty effective cure against conspiracy theories. Keep it coming.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No one said they aren't in-depth enough. They're often quite in-depth. They're just selective with the facts they provide to give a pre-determined impression that often doesn't reflect reality, because giving a more accurate picture would be less entertaining and less prone to get you all fired up about whatever issue he's energetically tackling.

I guess we've gotten to the point where we just accept that everything is fake news now? Did the Trump people succeed that thoroughly in undermining faith in all news reporting? Because I realize a lot of it is garbage that's solely designed to keep your eyes on the screen, but that doesn't mean we should just take it as read that that's the only way it can be. I know it's frustrating to try to sort out the good reporting from the junk, but writing off the whole industry like this is sad and defeatist.

To be clear, no, news broadcasts and outlets and documentaries should not be omitting key facts for entertainment purposes, and there actually are a few people in the business who still do their best to include all of those key facts.

Speaking of "lol", this is an absurd bit of spin. No, it is not intended to provide a "jumping off point" for people to go and educate themselves. That's not at all how his pieces are presented. They're presented as "let John tell you about this problem with our society that you probably haven't given much thought to or possibly haven't ever even noticed".

And if what he gives you gives you a completely skewed first impression of the topic, well, there are plenty of psychological studies to show that those sorts of first impressions are very hard to rectify, even if you're presented with solid evidence of what was missing from the original version of reality you were presented with. If you're not prepared to take it for what it is - a bit of fun - that could be a problem.

As if anyone knows "all the facts" on just about any topic, to say nothing of whatever random thing Oliver is talking about on a given week. Yes, it's entirely his fault if he deliberately or recklessly misleads people because the misleading version of events is more entertaining. Just as it's Sean Hannity's fault when he does it. What a ridiculous thing to say to suggest otherwise.

No, he's incredibly not, and you're incredibly naive for thinking this.

No one's holding him to any standards, per se. He's not a journalist, so he doesn't have to have journalistic integrity. The point is that there is a way to enjoy Last Week Tonight, and it's to realize that you're not being educated, you're being entertained. Don't get worked up about whatever John's getting worked up about, just sit back have a laugh.

All in all, a terrible take. I don't know that I've ever seen that much naivety combined with that much cynicism in one post.

While I generally agree with your overall point that people aren't critical enough of shows like John Oliver's, I think you're going a bit overboard.

Modern comedy news shows aren''t a terrible source of information, and while you shouldn't take anything you hear aa gospel, some of that stuff is still pretty good and I think dismissing people like John Oliver as just an entertainer isn't smart either. Some of the stuff he's worked up about is absolutely worth getting worked up about.

It's kind of like historical movies. Sure movies tend to be terrible at historic accuracy, but you can still pick up quite a lot of actual history by watching them.

You just have to assume that what you learn is only broad strokes, like "this is a thing that happened", but every detail in the story is probably wrong

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mull

I don't know, misinformation is dangerous to me, no matter what. Your example isn't concerning but he has a platform and shows his true colors in how he wants to use it.

Is he as much as a problem as Fox News commentary? Hell no
Is it still dangerous to me? Yes

That's just a really low bar for dangerous.

What's the danger? That some random person with think Danbury sucks?

Misinformation can be dangerous, sure, usually when it is centered around things that impact health, life, stability, etc. Misinformation is dangerous when it encourages people to make terrible choices regarding their own health, or encourage them to break the law, or encourages them to commit violence.

If I tell you Lays are made out of artificial potatoes and processed using lightly recycled sewer water, that's misinformation (or is it...). But is it dangerous? What are you going to do? Not buy Lays?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Oh, you're not all getting away from the insanity that easily.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1356719881564086272

I am conflicted when I see Lindell talking, because I happen to own a couple of MyPillows...