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).
Believe it or not, parodying that crap 24-hour cable TV news was the original premise. Actually telling the news was a side-effect, at best.
Who knew the old Will Rogers gag of reading the paper would go over so big with a new generation, eh?
"The series was nominated and won numerous awards during its run including 10 BAFTA Television Awards, including one for editing in 1989, and even won two Emmy Awards in 1985 and 1986 in the Popular Arts Category."
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.
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.
Promoting his agenda through guests is his reward, I suppose, for stumbling through so many interviews with vapid celebrities.
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.
The government at all levels has simply taken too many of our rights or flat out circumvented the law with weasel speak and it needs to be reigned in.
Agree.. and same goes for our corporations.
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), which may have reversed the course of that bill for the better (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.h...).
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.
The big take away from The Daily Show should be Stewart declaring he was just an entertainer because the talking heads on the "real" news shows couldn't. Characters, tropes, archetypes, cliches, people with a job to deliver an audience for advertisers using a dynamic personality. The same job description for talent hired at Comedy Central as Cable News Network.
EDIT: Took me a bit of googling to remember but the show was called Crossfire. Specific clip: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)
It was effective because no other show or host had the same kind of candid platform to communicate over, and when Stewart had those opportunities (arguably the first moment would be on his 9/11 broadcast), the honesty resonated with a lot of people.
Those moments are uncommon with Stewart. With John Oliver, I feel like the writers and producers are basing their program around those kinds of finger wagging moments, but it's the embodiment of the show instead of an occasional moment. It feels more forced than genuine.
To put it another way one is comedy news, the other is a comedy news magazine.
It's like he felt he---and only he---was allowed to turn on and off his "real" journalist at whim.
I don't think anyone feels the same about any other anchor on TV right now, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. I'm not saying Stewart is a journalist, him being able to sit on the fence like he does upsets guys on the networks, but he is effective with his hosting and I don't think he's doing anyone a disservice.
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'.
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.
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
Maybe it's evolutionary? The people who when presented with a problem were able to keep their spirits up while tackling it perhaps had a better success rate then those who lost perspective on their responsibilities to their own emotional wellbeing.
It's not, but entertaining people is a good way to keep them engaged and comedy is a relatively easy way to entertain while telling.
When the content is dry and the delivery is dry and completely unengaging people just tune out, even if the subject is interesting in the abstract.
Comedy is not the only way, Attenborough is entertaining without being comedic, but it's a good way nonetheless.
And comedians are observers of human nature by trade, so they might have an easier time couching down and expressing more "serious" topics than some other entertainers.
And if in-depth news analysis was something people wanted, well, the Economist would have a much higher subscription base than it currently does.
Same stuff was said seriously but when you hear someone describing with serious tone how reality is absurd you don't believe him.
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.
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.)
And you may know him as the first Denholm from the IT crowd.
Which also brought John Cleese and The Two Ronnies to our screens.
Not The Nine O'Clock News could also get a mention - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_the_Nine_O%27Clock_News
Though it had more sketch based things but current affairs was a lynch pin.
Drop the Dead Donkey is not to be discounted - Ch4 1990-1998 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_the_Dead_Donkey
And some links for Chris Morris :
The Day Today - BBC2/1994- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_Today
One The Hour - Radio4 1992 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Hour
Brass Eye - Ch 4 1997-2001 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye
Later you've got
10 O'Clock live - Now "househgold names" : Charlie Brooker, David Mitchell, Jimmy Carr, Lauren Laverne
This was the show that introduced Sasha Baren Cohen as Ali-G, Bruno & Borat.
If you remember Ali-G was used as political satire via interview.
Andy and John are comedic geniuses.
The GM ad was so great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU
It is, in fact, on cable. Do you mean not on basic cable?
HTML is fine people.
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.
Oh, the ironing.
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!
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.
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
I'm just going to assume this was done on purpose.
(That guy is me. But neither of us is going to win.)
I saw 'time.com' and didn't even bother clicking. Somewhat related: I also skip over any links to paywalled sites(nytimes, wsj, etc...).
However like how government works, people prefer to not to know and that is very dangerous.
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.
I completely failed to see his point. It was funny no doubt. But gambling is pretty much common throughout the history everywhere. The only problem with lottery I see is that it is mostly government controlled. A more private enterprise in this field could have given more competition and made the overall business more profitable towards the consumers. But that was not his argument.
The Wealth Gap
I dont know where to start in debunking these idiotic claims that are being circulated by even the educated people. Fact 1 for example: 50% of Americans belong to top 10% at least once in their lives. People do not deserve higher wages, they have to earn it and at the moment US is the best country that gives that opportunity to everyone without bias. That is why the likes of Jon Oliver come to this country from UK and crack jokes about very same things that made him rich.
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.
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
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.
And really, I think that is the brilliance of John Oliver's work. It is not all just a mocking of news. Often times there is a call to arms at the end. Even if the goals are ridiculous, it is getting people acting. And that is huge.
I doubt Miss America is the former.