|
"Continues to be stale..." Nice. Because this isn't one of the best things on TV right now.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Apoplexy posted:"Continues to be stale..." Nice. Because this isn't one of the best things on TV right now. I know that it's cathartic for a lot of people to hear someone tell it like it is and then share it on Twitter, Facebook, and wherever else. I prefer to be entertained on top of that, but there were a lot of moments when Last Week Tonight didn't do that for me, to the point where I stopped regularly tuning in on a weekly basis. I hope it improves, but I don't think it will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
It's a comedy show. It's weekly talk show. It's just not bound to the 24 hour news cycle as much as The Daily Show or The Onion, but it's carrying the same DNA. Comedy is Oliver's background, and humor is the bread and butter of the show. Its in-depth format may be an innovation, but it doesn't mean it's suddenly a news show. There seems to be two camps who are determined to prove John Oliver (and Jon Stewart before him) is news: - Those who want to feel important for watching the program. They expand their definition of journalism to include all things that are part of the CONVERSATION around current events. - Those who are out to nail John Oliver because how dare you tell us what you do for living and that my consumption of your work isn't important. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
I fall into a different category: Oliver is the only one drawing attention to important issues. He is co-opted by the journalism tag, even if that wasn't his original intent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I have enough access to real, hard-hitting news from other sources that I always appreciate the levity that accompanies the issues LWT brings up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Apoplexy posted:"Continues to be stale..." Nice. Because this isn't one of the best things on TV right now. Season 2 was a real slog because instead of trying to be funny it felt like the show started trying to play to the acclaim season 1 got for being journalism. I don't need a 20 minute jag on reason 42934723990 america is hosed up with a few pop culture references and yelling at Janet from accounting. I already know about it. I'm sure it's helpful for people who don't pay any attention to news otherwise but I'm tuning in for frozen gently caress lizards and trout cannons, not prison reform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
daily show's 20 year stale run for sticking to that stale formula
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
a news recap, followed by a skit, and then an interview? pshaw, i'm a little bit too refined to enjoy this structure, how stale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Season 2 was a real slog because instead of trying to be funny it felt like the show started trying to play to the acclaim season 1 got for being journalism. I don't need a 20 minute jag on reason 42934723990 america is hosed up with a few pop culture references and yelling at Janet from accounting. I already know about it. I'm sure it's helpful for people who don't pay any attention to news otherwise but I'm tuning in for frozen gently caress lizards and trout cannons, not prison reform. John Oliver isn't even a real journalism. That's right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I'm still a fan, but one thing I can do without from season 2 were the pre-recorded scenes where the same bullet points from the main presentation were just reiterated. Like the one about oil drilling in the midwest or public defenders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I like this show when it's a high productive value The Bugle that touches on World News and the stories out there. Of late it's just focused on Internal US Politics, which aren't as interesting. The Tobacco episode was the best from last season by far, more of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
The whole "it's just a comedy show" defense is technically true: it's a comedy show that uses current events as its fodder for jokes. But sometimes, that defense is too convenient. If you spend half your time mocking a news outlet for their inaccuracy and bias, then if you get caught being inaccurate or biased (especially while pointing out the flaws of the aforementioned news outlet), then it's pretty cheap to just say, "yeah, but we're doing it for laughs" when you were also being at least a little serious. It's like that kid, Johnny. You know, the one who always made fun of Billy. "Ha, Billy, look at your thrift store clothes! That won't be cool for 20 more years, when people with money see it as retro and ironic!" he said. "Ha! You're so poor, just because your dad died in Desert Storm!! Ha ha ha!" And then another kid says, "Hey Billy, you're wearing lovely clothes too, because your mom is raising your family all by herself since your dad died." Then Billy responds, "Yeah, but my dad didn't get shot in Iraq by some soldier. My dad was killed when he dressed up like Bigfoot and jumped toward a car going down the highway so the guy'd get scared and report a Bigfoot sighting and be laughed at by the whole town! HUGE difference!!" Well it's not like that, but I've been waiting a long time to work that particular Darwinism into an analogy, and I got sick of waiting for an opportunity. I guess it's just hard to decide just how much cake we let shows like this have while also letting them eat that same portion. It's a tricky, nebulous balance, and yeah, there's no easy answer. (And to be fair, Jon Stewart did, on a few occasions, admit a few times that they were factually wrong about something. So he didn't fall back on the comedy excuse every time.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Stewart would use the comedy defense when questioned on journalistic responsibility and ethics, which was a 100% valid rebuttal. Comedy is an art that touches on many different disciplines and fields, which inevitably causes it to have some overlap with those disciplines and fields. So while comedy can have it's fingers in journalism, holding it to the mores and responsibilities expected of Journalists is foolish. Stewart and the various shows that grew out of his Daily Show are comedy using tools of Journalism, among others, not Journalists hiding behind the shield of comedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
[Placeholder post so in a few hours after I've seen S3 E1 and found out whether it's stale or good again I can come back here and edit in a prediction and then post an "I told you so"]
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:[Placeholder post so in a few hours after I've seen S3 E1 and found out whether it's stale or good again I can come back here and edit in a prediction and then post an "I told you so"] It would take a considerable fool to accidentally thwart this amazing plan. I wish I'd thought of it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
But saying John Oliver is using the "it's comedy" defense implies he was accused of material harm; that his show was under fire or controversy for something. When your biggest critic is a discredited FIFA official, it's time to stop calling "I'm a comedian" a "defense"and more like "this is what I do and I love doing it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:But saying John Oliver is using the "it's comedy" defense implies he was accused of material harm; that his show was under fire or controversy for something. Really, that was the only time? I guess I got so used to it happening to The Daily Show that I projected it onto its bastard child by an English tart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
John Oliver will need to get a dog on the SCOTUS, cause Scalia is now dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
wins.
|
PassTheRemote posted:John Oliver will need to get a dog on the SCOTUS, cause Scalia is now dead. A man more deserving of a gently caress-youlogy, there is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:A man more deserving of a gently caress-youlogy, there is not. I dunno, Dick Cheney would deserve one, equal to if not more than Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas would deserve one if he ever gave any indication of having two brain cells to rub together against some unwilling secretary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
I remember a few people were disappointed Oliver didn't dance on Thatcher's grave. So I doubt he'll start doing now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I still laugh each time I think of her because of Andy and John's title of the segment on her death: Maggie Thatcher: Death Catcher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I remember a few people were disappointed Oliver didn't dance on Thatcher's grave. He loving should, although Thatcher had a much better song set up for her passing to hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0TuXLrvyE4
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
There's a difference between the death of a retired Fucker and an active Fucker
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
pwn posted:There's a difference between the death of a retired Fucker and an active Fucker Yeah he mentioned that he did not give her one since she was retired and all her evil was decades ago. She also had tramp the dirt down the Elvis Costello song about dancing on her grave
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Stewart would use the comedy defense when questioned on journalistic responsibility and ethics, which was a 100% valid rebuttal. Comedy is an art that touches on many different disciplines and fields, which inevitably causes it to have some overlap with those disciplines and fields. So while comedy can have it's fingers in journalism, holding it to the mores and responsibilities expected of Journalists is foolish. Stewart and the various shows that grew out of his Daily Show are comedy using tools of Journalism, among others, not Journalists hiding behind the shield of comedy. At what point do you draw the line though? Jon Stewart is not and will not be remembered as the guy who made fun of CNN four nights a week. He's going to be remembered for the tremendous amount of influence he had on how young people saw the government. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that Jon Stewart knew exactly how people saw him and liked to hop across that line as he saw fit. Baronash fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I think Stewart, and Oliver for that matter, are quite aware of where they stand. The comedy defense has always been more about the fact that their satire and wry commentary shows a greater resemblance to journalism than what the actual journalists are doing. Yes, they sometimes hop back and forth over the line, but that's pretty obviously born out of a deep frustration with the deplorable state of our news media and it's inability to actually talk about anything worthwhile. Whenever this question comes up, I always think back to that Crossfire interview Jon did back in... gently caress, 2004? And his response to this exact criticism, "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
The argument is even more specious with Oliver though, given how much research goes into his show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
The international stories last season were by far the weakest, hopefully this time they'll stick to poo poo they actually know about
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
It is primarily a comedy show, but in its first season it did a pretty good job at being an informational show in its first season, and not so much in the second. There's also a sort of symbiosis between the news and comedy, in that the severity of the issue and how much John Oliver was informing you of something you had no idea about added to the comedy., and that aspect didn't feel so strong last season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Baronash posted:At what point do you draw the line though? Jon Stewart is not and will not be remembered as the guy who made fun of CNN four nights a week. He's going to be remembered for the tremendous amount of influence he had on how young people saw the government. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that Jon Stewart knew exactly how people saw him and liked to hop across that line as he saw fit. The goal of these shows is primarily to entertain you. If while doing that they also inform you, that is great. However their first goal is entertainment. The primary goal of a journalist is to inform you. If while doing that they also entertain you, that is great. However their first goal is entertainment. The tragedy of American Journalism being so lovely that people cracking jokes are more informative than mainstream journalists, doesn't make them journalists. From time to time these shows will take up an issue purely in an effort to inspire action, like Jon and the Zadroga Bill. That's activism, which is also not journalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
It is not TDS or LWT's fault for appearing like journalism. Its journalism's fault for appearing like comedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Whenever this question comes up, I always think back to that Crossfire interview Jon did back in... gently caress, 2004? And his response to this exact criticism, "You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." That interview is, I'm pretty sure, the only reason that anyone still remembers that Crank Yankers ever existed. And I'm including the people who worked on the show in that "anyone".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
That segment was the first time I ever heard of the Daily Show. It's depressing that the divide between left and right is even greater now than it was back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Mavric posted:It is not TDS or LWT's fault for appearing like journalism. Its journalism's fault for appearing like comedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:That segment was the first time I ever heard of the Daily Show. It's depressing that the divide between left and right is even greater now than it was back then. I don't see a solution. The American right is entrenched in identity politics, and refuses to accept fact. If you can't appeal via rational logic, and they're already prejudiced against you for whatever reason, there's no debate. You can't have a conversation. It's a non-starter by definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
I wonder how annoyed they were by that Scalia news happening so late in the week. While there isn't enough for a whole segment it does mean they have to rearrange something in the weekly recap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I wonder how annoyed they were by that Scalia news happening so late in the week. While there isn't enough for a whole segment it does mean they have to rearrange something in the weekly recap. You could come up with 7 hours of Scalia being a piece of poo poo jokes in about half an hour. He was so comically evil he wrote most of them himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Mavric posted:It is not TDS or LWT's fault for appearing like journalism. Its journalism's fault for appearing like comedy. The Onion's headline with Scalia's death make me think the real world is just to crazy for straight up satire anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:41
|
|
