
How the 'John Oliver Effect' Is Having a Real-Life Impact - adamnemecek
http://time.com/3674807/john-oliver-net-neutrality-civil-forfeiture-miss-america/
======
quadrangle
John Oliver's show has honestly taken things to a far better level, dealing
with real issues in approachable ways.

The Daily Show is just cluttered with inside gossip about crappy news TV which
I don't give a shit about either. Basically, the Daily Show has had a handful
of great segments but is mostly straw-man stuff that's kinda nice, kinda meh.
Colbert is fantastic but rarely really took on real issues — although his
Super PAC thing was superb.

Fact is, John Oliver's show is totally amazingly great. The best of its kind,
hands down (says me, someone who basically avoids TV shows and actually has
only a modest sense of what's out there).

~~~
dmschulman
It's hard to cover much substance in 23 minutes or however long The Daily Show
gets. I think they understand this and treat the show as a time to make jokes,
but use the interview segment to really dig into current events. The extended
interviews especially are fantastic because they're so candid, sometimes
tense.

If you're just watching Jon Stewart for 12 minutes of news jokes, you're only
getting a small taste of what the show has to offer.

~~~
maxerickson
Jon Stewart is often a terrible interviewer. Especially when he either hasn't
found any respect for the guest or when he likes the guest so much they can't
take the promotional point of the interview seriously.

In one case he fails to address the perspective of the guest (which means he
emotes a lot and asks questions they don't answer) and in the other they more
or less just smile knowingly at each other for 5 minutes.

I suppose another way to say it is that much of the problem is that he tends
to make the interview about himself.

~~~
JeremyNT
What you say is certainly true when he is interviewing entertainers, but I do
think the parent is correct: if he's got a serious guest on and they are
discussing an issue Stewart cares about, he really lets them use the time
effectively. He mostly stays out of the way and just helps them stay on topic.

Promoting his agenda through guests is his reward, I suppose, for stumbling
through so many interviews with vapid celebrities.

~~~
maxerickson
Yeah, the less antagonistic serious interviews go okay. That's why I was so
specific about guests that he can't find respect for.

I also don't think he is really stumbling through the celebrity interviews,
he's playing himself as above them. When his (lack of) relationship with the
guest makes it so that won't work, the interview goes along just fine.

------
ottertown
I grew up watching Jon Stewart and occasionally Colbert. I always thought it
was interesting how Jon Stewart would defend against his critics by saying
something along the lines of "my show is preceded by puppet prank callers
(crank yankers), this is a comedy show first and foremost."

That was his defense against people saying he was contributing to news
imbalance or accusing him of not doing anything useful to alleviate the
problems of biased journalism. He took a hard line (and still does I think)
that he was a comic and was not responsible for anything beyond that.

I remember once he had a segment about a 9/11 first responders bill
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM6cvbjZmQE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM6cvbjZmQE)),
which may have reversed the course of that bill for the better
([http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html)).

John Oliver seems to have grasped the power of that particular segment and
has, in my opinion, drastically improved the form of the political satire. It
will be interesting to see how his perceived influence will affect next
season.

~~~
cjubb39
That's part of the reason I never really liked Jon Stewart. He knew he was the
primary, if not only, news source for a large demographic; yet, he would
consistently hide behind the Comedy Central logo in the bottom corner when he
was criticized.

It's like he felt he---and only he---was allowed to turn on and off his "real"
journalist at whim.

~~~
gohrt
To be clear, you are saying that you didn't like Jon Stewart because, even
though he was the _best_ news source, he wasn't better enough for your desire?

~~~
IkmoIkmo
He's saying there was genuine criticism on bias and presenting stories making
light of one side, and presenting the other side too favorably.

Knowing full well that a large number of people looked to him for news, and
that his reporting (de facto news reporting, that is, despite him not naming
it like that) received genuine criticism, how one can then hide behind the
notion that 'oh it's just comedy don't take it seriously' for years and years
is a bit disingenuous.

In fairness however, Jon has always said that he is biased and flavored. And
that's okay. And add to that the fact that it IS also comedy, it's hard to ask
of him to be completely objective. Especially when it's a counterbalance to
the media landscape which is COMPLETELY biased one way or another, whether
it's Fox News or Democracy Now!. And if you then look at where the ciriticism
comes from: Fox News, which isn't comedy but just news, but is worse in its
reporting, and is pretty much more biased than anyone in media AND is more
powerful and watched than anyone, I can easily see why Jon will look at that
and say 'YOU guys pretend to be fair and balanced but aren't, pretend to bring
news but it's crap, have responsibility as journalists to be objective but
aren't, while I'm admittedly biased and run a comedy show'.

------
Amorymeltzer
The article says so briefly, but what makes his show wonderful is the comedy
mixed-in with in-depth news research and assessment. It's the kind of thing
you'd want or expect on a constant basis from massive, 24-hour news networks,
but is either largely absent or lost in the noise. I personally gave to the
Society of Women Engineers
([http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/](http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/))
after his show because he did such an effective job of conveying his message.
More news programs could learn from him.

~~~
mc32
What I don't get is why it's necessary to have comedy to get people engaged?
What is it that news requires the 'chaser' of comedy? I don't think we can
attribute it to people being base/vulgar. Why can't a serious, well researched
news program do well? Why does there have to be a chaser to make it
successful?

~~~
yazaddaruvala
So I'll put it to you this way, through highschool and university the best
teachers or professors I ever had were comedians. Maybe "entertainers" is a
better word.

One of them even specifically told us about his strategy before he started his
series of lectures. Basically, when people get bored they stop absorbing. Once
in a while he will "trick your mind" (i.e. confuse it), and you will pay
attention again. To be honest, its why I know as much about operating systems,
locks and threads, as I do.

To make this story relevant. Humor is just that, a trick someone plays on your
mind.

~~~
mc32
I think you might have a point there. For an instructor I can attribute it to
personality or style. They know you a bit and try to engage but broadcast is
simplex so i think its something else. I think they're trying to reproduce a
type of gossipy jocular delivery of news. Maybe a bit like a town crier but
still different.

My feeling is they're trying to seem like they're your friends, so you feel
more engaged and listen and don't mind the bias because, you 'know them, and
you accept that trait'. The unattached news delivery was not engaging us
psychologically (for whatever reason we may need that) so they came up with
this new recipe.

Never the less in other countries I've had news delivered pretty matter of
factly --with built in biases of course but the news wasn't chased with comedy
satire etc. There might have been irony but anyhow there's something about the
need for comedy to make it digestible for us

------
anindyabd
I think one reason why Oliver enjoys so much success is the fact that HBO
posts the main news story section on Youtube after every show. The ready
availability of these digestible segments helps extend the show's reach. For
Comedy Central shows, if you don't watch the episodes on TV you have to use
the Comedy Central website or Hulu, neither of which have the appeal of
Youtube.

I like Oliver, but Colbert is (was?) still my favorite. I didn't watch him for
the news, I watched him for the comedy. I don't think either Stewart or Oliver
can match Colbert when it comes to being really really funny.

------
DanBC
Before Stewart, Colbert, or Oliver the UK had Chris Morris.

Morris created the radio show "On The Hour", which transfered to tv as "The
Day Today", and followed that with "Brass Eye".

You really should seek these out if you're interested in news and current
affairs satire.

(Morris then went on to co-write "Nathan Barley" with charlie Brooker.)

~~~
jahnu
Especially brilliant was the Brass Eye Paedophile Special which satirised the
media's obsession with paedophilia at the time so perfectly it did actually
change things for the better. After the initial, predictable storm of protest
that followed of course. I'd be interested how a US audience would react to
that special. I'm sure you can find it easily enough on Youtube.

~~~
duncans
> it did actually change things for the better

{{Citation needed}}

~~~
jahnu
Just a personal opinion. I feel that after the broadcast the hysteria dropped
off dramatically. Well at least until the whole Jimmy Savile thing.

------
ch215
Anyone who likes Last Week Tonight should also check out the Bugle podcast
Oliver hosts with Andy Zaltzman. Satire at its best:
[http://www.thebuglepodcast.com/](http://www.thebuglepodcast.com/)

~~~
r00fus
The bugle podcast once made me laugh during my entire commute home (45m) -
episode 205 [1].

Andy and John are comedic geniuses.

[1] [http://thebuglepodcast.com/bugle-209-the-bugles-5th-
birthday...](http://thebuglepodcast.com/bugle-209-the-bugles-5th-birthday/)

~~~
ch215
Agreed. My favourite's got to be episode 152. The world is indebted to John
Oliver for the term "fuckeulogy":
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVb84n-FFx4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVb84n-FFx4)

~~~
coldpie
I host an archive of old Bugle episodes, if you want to relive the late 00s:
[http://gamesplusone.com/thebugle/](http://gamesplusone.com/thebugle/)

~~~
popeshoe
I owe you my thanks, I used your site years ago when I first discovered the
Bugle and was religiously listening to all the older episodes that had fallen
off the Times feed.

~~~
coldpie
It was fun to put together, since the old Times Online website lost a few
episodes and I had to scrounge them up where I could. I couldn't find episode
54A for months, and in the end, one guy just emailed it to me.

------
mhomde
Another key to Last week tonight, besides its length, is also that its not on
cable and doesn't have advertisers. I can hurl as much vitrol on specific
companies as they possible can without getting sued...

The GM ad was so great:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Another key to Last week tonight, besides its length, is also that its not
> on cable and doesn't have advertisers.

It is, in fact, on cable. Do you mean not on _basic_ cable?

~~~
mhomde
Ah, yes, Thanks :) I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American tv-
distribution

------
rattray
So _Last Week Tonight_ does longer-form, more in-depth comedy reporting? That
actually seems like a terrific mix, and definitely a hole in the market.
People want to be entertained and informed, and while _Colbert_ / _Daily Show_
provide good breadth, we need good depth as well.

~~~
pbh101
I've watched a good number on YouTube. They are generally longer-form, and get
into some more detail. I find them quite enjoyable, but I think you may be
disappointed if you go in expecting a lot more depth. I don't think you want
your sister telling you that's how she keeps in touch with American news
(hypothetically speaking :)

------
Sir_Substance
I'd like to express my hatred of websites that deliver content via javascript,
requiring me to turf through 20 different scrips to figure out which one I
have to enable to scroll the page.

HTML is fine people.

~~~
jobposter1234
Just because you make choices that complicate otherwise-simple things in your
life does not mean you should criticize decisions made by people who give you
information you do not have to pay for.

~~~
Sir_Substance
Noscript is used far more widely then crazy over-engineered javascript based
text delivery systems.

I run into a new website with this problem less frequently than once every few
months. It's always the same few, like Time, still using their stupid hand-
rolled content engines.

It's not my job to cater to special snowflake syndrome.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> It's not my job to cater to special snowflake syndrome._

Oh, the ironing.

~~~
coldpie
Yes, "caring about what programs are running on my computer" is a property we
should look down on users for having.

~~~
jobposter1234
I don't think we should look down on users for that. I think we should
question the sense of entitlement when people change settings and it breaks
websites. Websites that people provide to you for no charge.

What I find irritating is when people make the decision to use NoScript,
knowing the tradeoffs involved, then are vocal about sites not working. You
made the decision, easily reversible, now live with it!

~~~
Sir_Substance
This is more to the tune of friendly(if irritated) advice.

Time's website may well be for free, but they want me to buy their paid
products, they need to sell themselves to me.

Wanna know how you can make sure your sales pitch fails? Try to deliver it via
unverified code that could be doing anything.

Noscript is a standard part of all sensible internet users internet security,
for the simple reason that there is no way to know what a block of javascript
is doing unless you first capture and examine it.

If your product pitch won't work until I desecure my computer, I guess I'll
never see your sales pitch.

Getting mad at me won't change that.

e: Nor will downvoting me :D

------
soneca
His show about World Cup in Brazil was a real eye-opening for a lot of
brazilians. It was shared a lot around here and it was the best way available
to explain what was wrong with Wordl Cup and FIFA. I don't know about any
"real impact" other than making people more informed about what was happening,
which is a great deal, as the local media wasn't able to accomplish it.

~~~
dspillett
Informing people is the first step to causing any impact on this sort of
thing, so that alone is pretty significant.

------
Shivetya
While he went after the Miss America foundation for its scholarships, there
are many cancer and related charities who are just as bad and could do with
exposure.

However like how government works, people prefer to not to know and that is
very dangerous.

------
icantthinkofone
"the Miss America Organization is the largest provider of scholarships for
women in the world, he directed viewers to donate to other groups he deemed
more worthy"

Personally I find John Oliver to be a dick. Things like the above quote and
other stories he's covered, where I have some knowledge, shows he's playing up
to the internet scream and not the realities of life. It's show business and
that alone.

~~~
Paul_S
Maybe you should research whether or not "the Miss America Organization is the
largest provider of scholarships for women in the world". You might be
surprised.

~~~
icantthinkofone
I quoted the article which stated that fact so if you wish to disagree with
the article, and John Oliver apparently, please show what you know.

------
tn13
We have always known that peddling feel-good bull __ __that validates our own
beliefs and biases gets many takers. I don appreciated JO 's efforts to talk
about things like Net neutrality but his arguemnts are mostly plain wrong.

~~~
taeric
I would be interested in seeing more on which of his arguments are plain
wrong. The net neutrality one, I honestly don't remember. Pretty much every
other show, though. Bloody amazing. The lottery and the wealth gap ones were
particularly fun. The Miss America one, brilliant.

~~~
mynameishere
_The Miss America one, brilliant._

Haven't see the "Miss America" one personally (and I won't) but I can tell you
that that particular institution has been a laughingstock for decades. If he
has something new to ridicule about it, kudos, but I doubt it changed any
already fully-formed opinions from his viewers.

~~~
oliverthrowaway
That was kind of what made it brilliant.

The Miss America pageant makes some grandiose claims about how they're the
world's largest source of scholarships for woman -- 45 million in a particular
year.

They showed that

(a) They were using some sleight of hand, and the real number was something
like 100 times less than that

(b) That _still made them the largest source of scholarships for women_

~~~
gohrt
That's actually a huge misconception, and LWT got it wrong:

Miss America's paltry scholarship program is the largest provider of _women-
only_ scholarships.

Many many non-women-only programs give more scholarship money to women than
Miss America.

~~~
adamnemecek
That's exactly what their claim was though. Like to the dot.

