|
I'm not saying that we should punish comedians for having a point of view - indeed a point of view is potentially essential for good comedy, art, etc. Nor am I saying that they have to hold themselves to the same scrutiny as real journalists. Obviously, comedians' priorities are fundamentally different from journalists''. I was simply pointing out that there is a lot of "he doth protest too much" going on in interviews with Oliver and others. The first thing they do is to completely reject any sort of news-explaining or reporting role - which is just patently false. I don't know what kind of responsibilities ought to be conferred upon comedians who play this sort of 'grey area' role between 'trivial' comedy and news commentary/reporting, but pure denial essentially takes the question off the table. So, while I may not be forming this argument perfectly, my point is just that we ought to be able to discuss the role and impact of people like Colbert and Oliver without having to pretend that they are 'just' comedians and therefore nothing they say can be subjected to any further scrutiny beyond "is it funny?" Ill-informed, or irresponsible satire isn't only open to critique based on whether or not the satire is well formed or stated, it's open to criticism in so far as it is ill-informed, biased, etc. This is not to say that Oliver's satire is unfairly biased or ill-informed. The show is great, but it's great in part because (as he himself has stated) they are really doing their due diligence in getting their facts straight and presenting long, thoughtful, argumentative pieces about tough topics. For them, they know the line is blurry and constantly shifting, so they'd rather just not have to think about it when they are crafting pieces of entertainment. Phrasing their goal as "solid foundations for jokes" rather than "responsible use of facts in news explanation", doesn't adequately separate the former conceptually from the latter. It doesn't make the line disappear and doesn't absolve them of some measure of responsibility in keeping track of it. I'm not attacking Oliver or trying to express some deep moral indignation or anything. It just struck me as weird watching that interview how quick Oliver was to jump on the "we're just doing comedy" argument and leave it at that. Notsosubtle fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jul 21, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
People are actually using Tucker Carlson's gripe (Jon Stewart softballing John Kerry from ten years ago) as the best example of Stewart using the comedy safety net to dodge accusations of spineless journalism. People are acting as if his work isn't scrutinized anyway. Can someone not understand that if a comedian takes pride in their craft, why it could be considered insulting for people to say "It's not comedy... it's actually a news show... and it's a lovely news show." Also last night's episode was fantastic... because it was funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Notsosubtle posted:I'm not saying that we should punish comedians for having a point of view - indeed a point of view is potentially essential for good comedy, art, etc. Nor am I saying that they have to hold themselves to the same scrutiny as real journalists. Obviously, comedians' priorities are fundamentally different from journalists''. I was simply pointing out that there is a lot of "he doth protest too much" going on in interviews with Oliver and others. The first thing they do is to completely reject any sort of news-explaining or reporting role - which is just patently false. Maybe the key is not to entangle "trivial" and "just comedians" with "influential". I think comedy can be strong and impactful in many different ways and comedians can be just as influential as anyone. Black comedians can make insightful and meaningful commentary about racism while not being considered trivial even though they are only operating as comedians and not as politicians. Perhaps if you consider that Stewart and Colbert (and it seems Oliver as well) can be considered influential without needing to be journalists or politicians. When they say they're just comedians it is to properly place them in terms of their responsibilities. A comedian doesn't have any allegiance to the truth, integrity, or even consistency. Patton Oswalt has separate sets where George Bush is alternate a retarded moron and then a genius Bond villain. And nobody really cares when they take the truth or reality and bend it endlessly towards making a better joke. As an audience, we make subjective choices about whether integrity or reality matters in them being good comedians. Al Franken started as a general comedian, then an influential political comedian, and then a full on politician. He really can't be a comedian anymore because his responsibilities have changed. He wasn't exactly cavalier with facts and reality in his political comedy but if he were to engage in comedic exaggeration on the Senate floor it's not going to go over well even if it's funny because his audience has requirements for him that require a level of seriousness and accountability as their representative. On the point of whether satire can be critiqued about it's level of accuracy or bias, that's a subjective argument but it doesn't prevent it from being entertaining. I can think Dennis Miller has some pretty funny sets while also thinking he's got some terrible foundations and some bad world views. But he's shown some skill in crafting a joke (from time to time) and can perform. I think the due dilligence that Oliver and his crew put into his show has a lot to do with his brand of comedy. I think the three of them draw their comedy from the absurdity of the observed world and so the detail helps feed both their comedic senses and their passion about a subject. Digging down to see the hideous entanglement of public figures and private interests in the prison system is such drat good fodder for the comedy because absurdity and comedy go hand in hand. That due dilligence makes for great comedy and their dedication to it helps them with performance because they loving care about the topic (something I'd argue helps comedians who aren't just drawing from a joke book but instead from their own lives and perspectives). Edit: Haha, yeah, those are now very optional and even detrimental qualities in our elected officials.  V V V Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:
Well, see, there's your first mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Maybe the key is not to entangle "trivial" and "just comedians" with "influential". I think comedy can be strong and impactful in many different ways and comedians can be just as influential as anyone. Black comedians can make insightful and meaningful commentary about racism while not being considered trivial even though they are only operating as comedians and not as politicians. Perhaps if you consider that Stewart and Colbert (and it seems Oliver as well) can be considered influential without needing to be journalists or politicians. When they say they're just comedians it is to properly place them in terms of their responsibilities. A comedian doesn't have any allegiance to the truth, integrity, or even consistency. Patton Oswalt has separate sets where George Bush is alternate a retarded moron and then a genius Bond villain. And nobody really cares when they take the truth or reality and bend it endlessly towards making a better joke. As an audience, we make subjective choices about whether integrity or reality matters in them being good comedians. There's a big difference in subject matter there. Joking about Bush being dumb or an evil genius is obviously meant to be absurdist humor, and both sets come from the same political perspective anyway. John's segment on prison privatization is different because it's a serious issue with serious consequences. If he had taken a stance in favor of prison privatization instead, completely without irony, just because it was easier to think of jokes from that perspective, would people have been okay with that? I wouldn't have. I don't think people want Jon Stewart or John Oliver to change anything about what they do, there's just this annoying trend where professional comedians aggressively deny the idea that their jokes influence people. We get it, your primary goal is to be funny, but if I think your jokes are actively causing harm to society then I will not let it slide just because they're "just jokes." These shows are probably more influential than Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper. That doesn't mean they need to follow serious journalism rules, it just means they need to not lead people to dangerously incorrect conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Hey does anyone else recognize the voice from the Commonwealth Games commercial they played last night? I'm pretty sure it was Richard Madden (Robb Stark) doing the VO, but can't confirm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:There's a big difference in subject matter there. Joking about Bush being dumb or an evil genius is obviously meant to be absurdist humor, and both sets come from the same political perspective anyway. Eh, I don't really give a poo poo if they send people down the wrong path. Patton has gone from being sort of aggressively misanthropic and proud of being childless to softening and talking extensively about his kid. And Dennis Miller can go on about the moronic stuff he puts forward and Denis Leary can defend his smoking and then go on the opposite side. And on the other point, John and team just scratched the surface on jokes made about prison rape. Joking in favor of awful positions is sometimes the crux of a comedian's satirical persona, just like Colbert. And again, the argument that they're just comedians is not a defense about being influential, it's about them meeting the same standards of the media and politicians they focus on. Regarding their level of influence they usually point towards their ratings which are very Comedy Central-esque in size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I don't think people want Jon Stewart or John Oliver to change anything about what they do, there's just this annoying trend where professional comedians aggressively deny the idea that their jokes influence people. We get it, your primary goal is to be funny, but if I think your jokes are actively causing harm to society then I will not let it slide just because they're "just jokes." I noticed when Colbert danced around Henry Kissinger during his Get Lucky skit, nobody in the Stewart/Colbert thread asked if Colbert danced with a war criminal. It was just well received. (I enjoyed the bit too.) But had Colbert clarified shortly after that he did it because he was a comedian, that technicality would have caused a derail for a page or two. Which leaves me to believe there's broader cultural frustration that some progressives have when comedians (or other cultural figures typically not seen as politicians or pundits) try to not typecast themselves within the narrowly-defined political culture war. Even when Stewart and Colbert did that rally (which was the most activist-ish thing they did), people accused Stewart of making false equivalencies, when he was trying to tackle a broader issue of how politics were framed poorly in the media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Eh, I don't really give a poo poo if they send people down the wrong path. Patton has gone from being sort of aggressively misanthropic and proud of being childless to softening and talking extensively about his kid. And Dennis Miller can go on about the moronic stuff he puts forward and Denis Leary can defend his smoking and then go on the opposite side. And on the other point, John and team just scratched the surface on jokes made about prison rape. Joking in favor of awful positions is sometimes the crux of a comedian's satirical persona, just like Colbert. I don't really care about Patton Oswalt being anti-children or Denis Leary talking about smoking or whatever. Those aren't serious issues. It doesn't bother me that LWT skimmed over prison rape jokes, either. As long as they don't joke in favor of prison rape. By which I mean, unironically. Joking in favor of awful positions when done ironically for the intent of satire is the same thing as arguing against them. Colbert pretends to be conservative but he's clearly advocating for the other side. I don't think they should be held to the same standards as the media, I just think they just need to admit that they are advocating very clear political views and that it is likely influencing their viewers. Jokes are not without consequence, good or bad. Echo Chamber posted:But here's the thing: Nobody here accused John Oliver of causing harm recently. All he did was make that "I'm not a journalist" disclaimer and that triggered some frustration in goons to complain. Well, yeah. It's not really a big deal, it's just sort of annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I don't really care about Patton Oswalt being anti-children or Denis Leary talking about smoking or whatever. Those aren't serious issues. If you want to believe that something which kills over a million people every year (as well as supports an industry rife with workers' rights violations), or the state of the entire next generation of humanity, are 'serious issues', that's fine; it doesn't mean that everyone else believes that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
That whole bit about Singapore's gambling PSAs was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:If you want to believe that something which kills over a million people every year (as well as supports an industry rife with workers' rights violations), or the state of the entire next generation of humanity, are 'serious issues', that's fine; it doesn't mean that everyone else believes that. Everyone already knows smoking is bad. It's a very simple message that no one is confused by. Prison privatization, on the other hand, is a complex and nuanced issue that 99% of the population doesn't even know exists. You can see why one of those topics is more important to scrutinize jokes over, especially when given in the context of a heavily researched report presented as a persuasive argument. It's an asinine comparison. I haven't seen Patton Oswalt's jokes about not having children but I assume it's just jokes about how he has more time to masturbate. He's not reading off statistics about how the world will be overcrowded within 20 years, with tons of homeless orphans and food shortages, and then presenting that information in a persuasive argument on TV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Dead Snoopy posted:That whole bit about Singapore's gambling PSAs was hilarious. One of the funniest segmemts they've done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Everyone already knows smoking is bad. It's a very simple message that no one is confused by. Prison privatization, on the other hand, is a complex and nuanced issue that 99% of the population doesn't even know exists. You can see why one of those topics is more important to scrutinize jokes over, especially when given in the context of a heavily researched report presented as a persuasive argument. It's an asinine comparison. The Daily Show recently did a piece on the exploitation of child labor in the tobacco industry, a practice that is supported by every person who smokes, whether they realize it or not (and I doubt that very many of them did). And the fact that tobacco companies still manage to rake in billions of dollars annually despite the fact that 'everyone already knows smoking is bad', while more and more laws are being passed pertaining to where people are even allowed to smoke, indicates that this is still an issue that the United States continues to deal with. So please don't assume that the smoking debate is done just because you've formed your stance and you don't hear anyone else talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:The Daily Show recently did a piece on the exploitation of child labor in the tobacco industry, a practice that is supported by every person who smokes, whether they realize it or not (and I doubt that very many of them did). And the fact that tobacco companies still manage to rake in billions of dollars annually despite the fact that 'everyone already knows smoking is bad', while more and more laws are being passed pertaining to where people are even allowed to smoke, indicates that this is still an issue that the United States continues to deal with. So please don't assume that the smoking debate is done just because you've formed your stance and you don't hear anyone else talking about it. If comedians engage complex issues like child labor via heavily researched editorial segments, as The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight often do, then those heavily researched editorial segments are going to be more seriously scrutinized than Dennis Leary complaining about sneering soccer moms in a stand up set. That just seems logical. I'm not really sure what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Who loving cares? It's comedy, they have artistic license to support or criticize the most horrific things in existence and you are free to find it boring or offensive or hilarious. The two aren't dependent on each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:The Daily Show recently did a piece on the exploitation of child labor in the tobacco industry, a practice that is supported by every person who smokes, whether they realize it or not (and I doubt that very many of them did). And the fact that tobacco companies still manage to rake in billions of dollars annually despite the fact that 'everyone already knows smoking is bad', while more and more laws are being passed pertaining to where people are even allowed to smoke, indicates that this is still an issue that the United States continues to deal with. So please don't assume that the smoking debate is done just because you've formed your stance and you don't hear anyone else talking about it. It's a profitable and fairly well-regulated business. It's unhealthy, and every reasonable person admits this. What controversy is there? The smoking debate is done, it's just got a few vestigial quibbles about where-and-how-expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Mescal posted:It's a profitable and fairly well-regulated business. While the health debate is done I'm not sure how "Well-regulated" a business can be when it's using child labour to pick tobacco for 12 hours a day in the US. They're no angels. Fans fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Apoplexy posted:Hey does anyone else recognize the voice from the Commonwealth Games commercial they played last night? I'm pretty sure it was Richard Madden (Robb Stark) doing the VO, but can't confirm. You mean the "Welcome...to the friendly games" bit? I honestly don't see how that sounds very much like Robb Stark.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:You mean the "Welcome...to the friendly games" bit? It sounds a lot like him in his natural accent, but then to be honest so do a lot of scotsmen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Fans posted:While the health debate is done I'm not sure how "Well-regulated" a business can be when it's using child labour to pick tobacco for 12 hours a day in the US. They're no angels. I really hope you're not posting this from a personal computer, or wearing anything but handmade clothing, and grow your own food
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
E PLURIBUS ANUS posted:I really hope you're not posting this from a personal computer, or wearing anything but handmade clothing, and grow your own food Would you say coltan mining was a well regulated industry?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Oh gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Egypt what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
This isn't the first time this has happened to Oliver I think. Edit: I take it i'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. How does Mexican food work in Russia? BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
I am intrigued by a Russian Beatles cover band. Kinda wonder how that sounds... Oh, white people... Fresh Like Zafo fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
John Oliver might become the next greatest troll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
...Richard Branson might actually be able to get those geckos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Oliver does a fantastic job of confronting bitter truths and then following them up with a goofy and joyous coda, every single week. What an excellent show, gently caress. EDIT: I would have really loved to hear Oliver's perspective on the UK's answer to Duck & Cover, Protect and Survive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6U9T3R3EQg emgeejay fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
...Holy hell. How can nuclear weapon safety in the country that first dropped the bomb be like this? Shouldn't there be some kind of requirement to have this stuff updated and brought up to par at least once in a while? ...Then again, par might be rather low in some cases...
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Astro Nut posted:...Holy hell. How can nuclear weapon safety in the country that first dropped the bomb be like this? Shouldn't there be some kind of requirement to have this stuff updated and brought up to par at least once in a while? A good portion of it is that while guarding and managing the nuclear assets is important, it's also one of the most boring and unrewarding jobs in the military. Your job description pretty much becomes "sit around and to gently caress all for years just for the day the president calls and tells you to turn the keys that shall end the world." You might also get the call to fire your load on aliens... however since the silos are a really obvious target, the aliens would probably hit you first anyways. So really it's just waiting to see if you get to blow up the world or not. Probably the biggest argument for getting rid of the silos all together is that it's a boring lovely job and serves no purpose other than to destroy the world and just sucks up money as well as talent. It's not like they are even needed for a deterrent anymore as we can do a lot better job with naval based nuclear missiles, which have the benefit of being hard to hit mobile targets and the ships can do other missions other than "destroy the whole world".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Astro Nut posted:...Holy hell. How can nuclear weapon safety in the country that first dropped the bomb be like this? Shouldn't there be some kind of requirement to have this stuff updated and brought up to par at least once in a while? Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Astro Nut posted:...Holy hell. How can nuclear weapon safety in the country that first dropped the bomb be like this? Shouldn't there be some kind of requirement to have this stuff updated and brought up to par at least once in a while? Command & Control is a superb book (The Author Eric Schlosser appears in the segment talking about the incident in Arkansas.) Its a fantastic read and very informative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
That was both an excellent and horrifying segment and it didn't even cover one of the scariest nuke-related US fuckup allegations. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515598/Launch-code-US-nuclear-weapons-easy-00000000.html Edit: (To be fair I think there has been some dispute about the truth of this one.) hcreight fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Not surprised if the Daily Mail is the best source you can find
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Nuke silos are a total waste of time and we'll never be rid of them because dumb fucks think that if we scrap them we're inviting Russia to finish the old grudge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
The claim was originally made in an article written by a Ph.D and former Air Force officer a decade ago but made rounds as a news story last December. Though from the look of it mostly on less than reputable sites (Daily Mail, Huff Post, Gizmodo).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/17/usa.oliverburkeman1 Is The Guardian reputable? "Steven Bellovin, a researcher for AT&T who has studied launch codes, declared himself puzzled by Mr Blair's revelations, and suggested he was confusing two sets of codes, one required to detonate the nuclear bomb and one required to launch the missile containing the bomb. The codes that had been set to zero, he argued in an email, were mainly used to stop missiles being launched in the event of "physical capture of the devices - it had nothing to do with our own launch officers" sparking a war on their own initiative. "
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Nuke silos are a total waste of time and we'll never be rid of them because dumb fucks think that if we scrap them we're inviting Russia to finish the old grudge. We're still flying B-52s carrying nukes too. In their case though it's more because they're really cheap to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
I like that this show isn't afraid to tackle a serious issue, have an opinion about it, and tell you that you're wrong if you disagree with it. Their ham-handed attempts at creating social media buzz leaves a bit to be desired, but at least in the gecko thing it was more about lightening the tone after talking about potential doomsdays. TDS used to do a lot of this, but since Crossfire it's apparent that Jon has become more media critic than political humorist and while he's still willing to cover some act of deregulation and corporate greed screwing people over like the toxic water story that happened in the last year, it's mostly a lot of "CNN sucks." Which is, okay fine, but he kind of won because now I get most my news circumventing the NYT paywall and NPR. And his audience has to slowly be trending toward online streamers who only pay cable for an internet connection and can't watch the News Channel Trio if they wanted to. But I also credit some of that with being on four times a week instead of once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 20:14
|
|
