I often find with John Oliver that if you have a superficial knowledge of the subject he's looking at then the show seems great and informative, but if you already know a lot about it then it can seem glib and lacking in nuance. One of my Brazilian friends loves him normally, but hated his pieces on Brazilian politics, which he felt missed out crucial historical information which has ongoing ramifications for the current situation. I can definitely think of a few things where I've been like "hmm, wait." I don't want to armchair criticize, though - I think that kind of elision is a necessary casualty of trying to cram a full primer on a complex subject into a very short space of time, and be entertaining also.
I've decided the best approach is to use the show as a starting point to learn more about the subject, because he often gives out enough information that you can educate yourself in more depth with relative ease.
I often find with John Oliver that if you have a superficial knowledge of the subject he's looking at then the show seems great and informative, but if you already know a lot about it then it can seem glib and lacking in nuance. One of my Brazilian friends loves him normally, but hated his pieces on Brazilian politics, which he felt missed out crucial historical information which has ongoing ramifications for the current situation. I can definitely think of a few things where I've been like "hmm, wait." I don't want to armchair criticize, though - I think that kind of elision is a necessary casualty of trying to cram a full primer on a complex subject into a very short space of time, and be entertaining also.
I've decided the best approach is to use the show as a starting point to learn more about the subject, because he often gives out enough information that you can educate yourself in more depth with relative ease.
Some people I follow who are Into Wrestling had a similar reaction to his wrestling video.
I know people from the Philippines who feel the same way when Duterte is mentioned. How great a man he is, how he's not hurting anyone and the media is just lying.
People who are in immediate orbit of local events have very valid opinions, but they're not always full perspective.
Ultimately it's a comedy show about current events, not a college lecture. The content is usually topical to keep things moving. The stuff on Bitcoin was a great short walk down crazy economics and an entertaining warning.
Sorry, same way as what? Duterte and wrestling? Or is this re my Brazil comment? Because I very carefully didn't say in what way my friend felt the Brazilian pieces were lacking, as it's got nothing to do with his political stance. If you are replying to me, you're making a lot of assumptions.
FWIW my friend thinks Bolsanaro is a dangerous fascist lunatic. His gripe was about the lack of contextualisation in the episode. And I have the same complaint when Oliver tackles stuff I'm well informed on. I don't really mind, his job is not to give a six-part in-depth documentary series on anything. But he can be glib, and that's not an issue with bias from being in the "immediate orbit of local events", sometimes it's as simple as "I know more about this than he does."
I think it encourages discussion, perhaps more than the Daily Show because he's not afraid to venture into unfamiliar territory where he can be wrong sometimes. His approach seems to be effective because when the situation is more complicated than he lets on, like the wrestling segment, people write essays describing the many specific points he brings up and provide further context, so his show acts like a nexus for learning as intended. You can't just shrug off his opinion with a one line zinger because he took the effort to deliver lots of takeaways to his audience in a way that doesn't lose their attention.
His show isn't right all the time, but it encourages rather than stifles conversation, and as far as news comedies go that's pretty darn close to as good as it's going to get.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+8
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Welp that sure was a video with a 3 minute point that they somehow stretched to over half an hour.
I feel this criticism is reductive in that it could be used to describe a lot of things that could be compressed in the same way and disrespects the person's work. John could leave out all his comedy bits and get to the point in five minutes but the comedy and other points that take up time are used as tools to reinforce the point. Same as the video essayist. People need to take time to explain what they mean. There are many posts on this very forum where they cannot stand twitter because the 180 word limit is too small for discourse versus the forum's available length allowing for more nuance. I find it odd when it is a common sentiment that videos like these, or videos longer than ten minutes, exist and then get snarked on in light of this common complaint.
Welp that sure was a video with a 3 minute point that they somehow stretched to over half an hour.
I feel this criticism is reductive in that it could be used to describe a lot of things that could be compressed in the same way and disrespects the person's work. John could leave out all his comedy bits and get to the point in five minutes but the comedy and other points that take up time are used as tools to reinforce the point. Same as the video essayist. People need to take time to explain what they mean. There are many posts on this very forum where they cannot stand twitter because the 180 word limit is too small for discourse versus the forum's available length allowing for more nuance. I find it odd when it is a common sentiment that videos like these, or videos longer than ten minutes, exist and then get snarked on in light of this common complaint.
Comedy really helps a long video to have staying power, as does having a huge team of top writers and researchers and top production values. It's tough.
edit: wow, that is a huge image on the desktop version
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Long videos are good when you need a lot of textual evidence to make your point, like the Red Letter Media Star Wars reviews
They're less good when you're just ranting, or when you really want to get a message across to lots of people even if they aren't super into whatever it is you're talking about
Sorry, same way as what? Duterte and wrestling? Or is this re my Brazil comment? Because I very carefully didn't say in what way my friend felt the Brazilian pieces were lacking, as it's got nothing to do with his political stance. If you are replying to me, you're making a lot of assumptions.
FWIW my friend thinks Bolsanaro is a dangerous fascist lunatic. His gripe was about the lack of contextualisation in the episode. And I have the same complaint when Oliver tackles stuff I'm well informed on. I don't really mind, his job is not to give a six-part in-depth documentary series on anything. But he can be glib, and that's not an issue with bias from being in the "immediate orbit of local events", sometimes it's as simple as "I know more about this than he does."
That needs more context and requires a more specific understanding of history to interpret why people from the area can reasonably feel a specific way about a topic a comedy show covered in 22 minutes.
The Duterte thing was just something that stood out to me. The people I was eating lunch with didn't believe he was a hero, but family back home did and with their personal experience of life in the region they understood why.
No I get you. I was kneejerk reactive because I didn't want it to come off like my friend was a Bolsanaro supporter, but also didn't want to get into the weeds on Brazilian politics because (ironically) I'm not that well-informed.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2019
Ew people are quoting Sargon? That racist POS GG'er is running for parliament in the UK.
Edit - Also as far as rhetoric goes, there's a world of difference between "THIS THING IS GARBAGE" and then nuanced discussion on a mild level. There's no value to the former whatsoever. It's bad enough that a generation grew up going "that sucks ass" and "that's gay" to things that their actual internal sentiment was "oh I just don't care for it, meh." But the internet has amplified that sort of "be loud and insulting with your first few words." When you do that with a video that's trying to urge people to use the thing they watched as a starting off point on the topics covered, like Last Week Tonight, you're actually going to be seen as advocating people stop watching / listening to the show or the things it tries to spotlight and are doing more harm than good. If your video is nuanced and mild, make the title nuanced and mild.
Henroid on
+5
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Ew people are quoting Sargon? That racist POS GG'er is running for parliament in the UK.
Edit - Also as far as rhetoric goes, there's a world of difference between "THIS THING IS GARBAGE" and then nuanced discussion on a mild level. There's no value to the former whatsoever. It's bad enough that a generation grew up going "that sucks ass" and "that's gay" to things that their actual internal sentiment was "oh I just don't care for it, meh." But the internet has amplified that sort of "be loud and insulting with your first few words." When you do that with a video that's trying to urge people to use the thing they watched as a starting off point on the topics covered, like Last Week Tonight, you're actually going to be seen as advocating people stop watching / listening to the show or the things it tries to spotlight and are doing more harm than good. If your video is nuanced and mild, make the title nuanced and mild.
Specifically I was using Sargon as a juxtaposition of a bad agent using similar reductive statements.
Also I agree. The algorithm, though, son. Furthermore, while I’m explaining and not excusing, folks tend to react to negatively framed stuff more than positive stuff in these sort of cases. I’d almost call it exploitative but that feels hyperbolic and it’s kind of just a thing of the times.
I often find with John Oliver that if you have a superficial knowledge of the subject he's looking at then the show seems great and informative, but if you already know a lot about it then it can seem glib and lacking in nuance. One of my Brazilian friends loves him normally, but hated his pieces on Brazilian politics, which he felt missed out crucial historical information which has ongoing ramifications for the current situation. I can definitely think of a few things where I've been like "hmm, wait." I don't want to armchair criticize, though - I think that kind of elision is a necessary casualty of trying to cram a full primer on a complex subject into a very short space of time, and be entertaining also.
I've decided the best approach is to use the show as a starting point to learn more about the subject, because he often gives out enough information that you can educate yourself in more depth with relative ease.
Isn't that a problem with journalism in general, though? I know "this article missed the point because the journalist didn't really understand the subject" has been an actual issue for quite some time now in science journalism, and I assume most other specialty topics as well. I wonder if we're holding a comedy program to a higher standard than actual journalists.
Welp that sure was a video with a 3 minute point that they somehow stretched to over half an hour.
Yeah, if someone could TL;DR it, that would be really helpful.
Videos with someone just sitting there and talking aren't the best way to deliver information (ironic, I know, since that's what LWT is too!)
Last Week Tonight is fun, which helps
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
While Last Week Tonight can sometimes be a bit glib or not get all the nuances, it also frequently makes clear that they are not the only source, nor should they be, for news. They make clear they aren’t infallible. The show frequently encourages further investigation on the viewers part, and emphasises that it’s a show with one perspective, and that there may be other, equally valid perspectives. However, it is ultimately a comedy show, whether you think that’s a dodge or not, their intent is to find the humour in most aspects, while giving broad and quick overviews or introductions to an issue. Ultimately they are going to go after the silly stuff and gloss over the complexities and they try to make that clear.
It’s not perfect, they’re normally the first to admit it, and I think they would be responsive to criticism, saying that they dodge criticism with the “it’s just a comedy show” isn’t really why they use that phrase. They use that phrase most often to highlight that they aren’t the final word, and that these issues are big and complex so if you’re interested in a subject they raise you should do further investigation from more researched and wider sources
Now it can be problematic as there’s often a call to action. However that action is normally pretty mild, like a twitter campaign with a light joke or silly premise. They’re not exactly calling for people’s heads after mischaracterising them. They’ve even gone over this process, where they put a lot of effort into deciding on who to “go after” with their post show campaigns,and it’s largely powerful public figures who can take it.
Basically they do the best they can as a 30 minute show that’s intended to largely make you laugh alongside a rough overview of an issue. And that’s why I think her criticism video is actually great, it’s good to keep them on their toes. However I also think she mischaracterises their “were only a comedy show” refrain. They don’t make it to avoid criticism or say “just kidding bro”, they do it to remind people this is just a brief overview of often complex issues comedically delivered. They still definitely care about accuracy, will publish corrections for overt mistakes in later episodes, and often come back to issues where they feel they missed something or there’s a new or different perspective they left out
When a racist says it's just a joke: schrodinger's douchbag.
When these comedy news shows say they are just jokes: pointing out actual journalism is failing so hard we have to depend on our clowns to get anyone to say what's actually happening around us.
I think that they are in danger of sunk cost fallacy just because of the way their show is formatted: if upon hours and hours of research, you develop a coherent case, but with hours and hours and hours of research, you should come to a different conclusion, there is an incentive to pack and ship what you've got instead of scrapping your work, especially if you need to keep feeding the maw with content.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
When a racist says it's just a joke: schrodinger's douchbag.
When these comedy news shows say they are just jokes: pointing out actual journalism is failing so hard we have to depend on our clowns to get anyone to say what's actually happening around us.
Yeah, Jon Stewart used to do that a lot. It's more a slam on the current state of journalism (granted, he's been out of the game a while, but things haven't gotten better), than it is a copout.
I remember more than a couple interviews with a diverse group of people, on his show and on theirs, where they either point out how he's considered a trusted name in news (which is when he points out that he should NOT be) or try to compare their lack of seriousness on covering subject material to his own.
The latter, on air, was part of the backlashing that got Crossfire and Tucker Carlson in the shit. Sadly, Stewart won that battle, but Carson won the war.
Fact of the matter is, though, a lot (no, not all) of people aren't interested in serious reports by serious journalists. They either want comedy or vitriol. I'll take the former, especially if it's for the most part accurate, even if missing nuance, instead of the latter, given that hate is usually founded on intentional misinterpretations, or outright lies.
When a racist says it's just a joke: schrodinger's douchbag.
When these comedy news shows say they are just jokes: pointing out actual journalism is failing so hard we have to depend on our clowns to get anyone to say what's actually happening around us.
Yeah, Jon Stewart used to do that a lot. It's more a slam on the current state of journalism (granted, he's been out of the game a while, but things haven't gotten better), than it is a copout.
I remember more than a couple interviews with a diverse group of people, on his show and on theirs, where they either point out how he's considered a trusted name in news (which is when he points out that he should NOT be) or try to compare their lack of seriousness on covering subject material to his own.
The latter, on air, was part of the backlashing that got Crossfire and Tucker Carlson in the shit. Sadly, Stewart won that battle, but Carson won the war.
Fact of the matter is, though, a lot (no, not all) of people aren't interested in serious reports by serious journalists. They either want comedy or vitriol. I'll take the former, especially if it's for the most part accurate, even if missing nuance, instead of the latter, given that hate is usually founded on intentional misinterpretations, or outright lies.
I rewatched that Crossfire segment with John Stewart today. One thing that stood out was this little exchange:
Tucker Carlson: Will it be harder for you to mock his administration, if he (Kerry) becomes president?
John Stewart: If his administration is less absurd than this one (Bush IIs first term). It will be hard to top this group in terms of absurdity.
The Trump administration watched that prior to taking office and went "hold my beer", didn't they?
This whole "they either want comedy or vitriol" thing you mentioned is pretty baked into your society (assuming you are from the US). It is always this "you are either with me or against me" attitude, this constant competition. Its not working together to make the country better, no the sole goal is to beat the other side - nothing else matters.
The fact that Sargon said some video was too long in bad faith doesn't mean it's impossible for a video to, in fact, be too long
Videos being too long is, in fact, a staple of youtube. Especially opinion/hot-take/breaking-gaming-news youtube. The whole point is either to stretch the least amount of information over the most amount of time for the purposes of gaming the ad-revenue algorithm. Or it's because you just ranted at a camera either without a script or with only a first-pass script and so never tightened the whole thing up to make it succinct and punchy and non-repetitive.
And I mean "I don't have to explain myself, you have to instead watch this 150 minute video on why I'm right" has been a staple of libertarianism and it's ilk for ages now.
+21
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
The fact that Sargon said some video was too long in bad faith doesn't mean it's impossible for a video to, in fact, be too long
And I don’t disagree. It’s the similar dismissive tone I have a bigger issue with. Had HappylilElf followed it up with criticism of how it could have been cut down, it wouldn’t present as the post form of an eye roll.
The fact that Sargon said some video was too long in bad faith doesn't mean it's impossible for a video to, in fact, be too long
And I don’t disagree. It’s the similar dismissive tone I have a bigger issue with. Had HappylilElf followed it up with criticism of how it could have been cut down, it wouldn’t present as the post form of an eye roll.
A 37 minute video on how comedy shows need to be better at journalism sounds like a viable candidate for an eye roll. And when you're a relative unknown and name your video "Popular thing is garbage*" you're not exactly inspiring a charitable first impression.
That said, I'm 17 minutes in here and have to punch out, but I hope the point she's eventually making is that we shouldn't rely on a single news source, particularly not a comedy program that insists it is a comedy program. Her criticisms of Jon taking more responsibility seem beside the point, so even if she changes gears to a more useful discussion here, she's already wasted most of that 17 minutes.
*"Popular thing is junk food," which she calls "garbage food" is the analogy she immediately launches into; so, given the accent, I'll allow the possibility that the title is a translation error and not as overt an attempt at sensationalism as it appears.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+4
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
The fact that Sargon said some video was too long in bad faith doesn't mean it's impossible for a video to, in fact, be too long
And I don’t disagree. It’s the similar dismissive tone I have a bigger issue with. Had HappylilElf followed it up with criticism of how it could have been cut down, it wouldn’t present as the post form of an eye roll.
I think most people don't have the time to watch videos let alone ones so long to give a good criticism of it. If you had summarized it when posting that might be possible. There are more videos to watch than time to watch them even for media you already like. This would be true even if I didn't have a job or kids or need to sleep. For me personally, I'd much rather read some information than have to watch a video on it. If I'm looking for a how to or even help getting an achievement in a game, I'd much prefer to skim through some text than be forced to watch a 20 min video and hope it solves my problem.
The fact that Sargon said some video was too long in bad faith doesn't mean it's impossible for a video to, in fact, be too long
And I don’t disagree. It’s the similar dismissive tone I have a bigger issue with. Had HappylilElf followed it up with criticism of how it could have been cut down, it wouldn’t present as the post form of an eye roll.
I think most people don't have the time to watch videos let alone ones so long to give a good criticism of it. If you had summarized it when posting that might be possible. There are more videos to watch than time to watch them even for media you already like. This would be true even if I didn't have a job or kids or need to sleep. For me personally, I'd much rather read some information than have to watch a video on it. If I'm looking for a how to or even help getting an achievement in a game, I'd much prefer to skim through some text than be forced to watch a 20 min video and hope it solves my problem.
That is understandable.
To be fair though, one could say that for all the prominent video essayists like Lindsay Ellis, Dan Olson, and the Noah Caldwell-Gervais types. The format is more accessible and reaches more people than reading in a generation where I imagine most people skip over headlines rather than read every full article.
Me putting in a summary would help in the future.
Hot takes do not make good 20+ minute videos. People will watch 40 minutes of Lindsay Ellis because they are interested in the analysis she is doing. They won't watch 10 minutes just to find out why "I don't like X" presented solely as an opinion piece.
If you wanna make an argument, you can't substitute making that argument with a 20 minute video. You can support your argument with a long-form educational video on a subject, but no one is gonna watch a half hour of youtube just to find out what your position even is in the first place.
This was always the Libertarian tactic, as I mention above. Instead of defending a position themselves, they'd post a 30 minute youtube video full of garbage and demand that you watch and respond to all the points in it or you weren't really being serious. This was a really annoying tactic that most people quickly tired of.
The source (being known, being a known expert, being tied to known experts, etc) goes a long way. I will gladly watch an hour long GDC talk about a game's history, development, mechanics, or theme, even if it's something I've never played, because that source is already curated by a group whom have generally shown good judgement, in my experience.
They get benefit of the doubt there.
Some random person having an opinion and taking over half an hour to share it does not get the same benefit of the doubt. There are too many people with too many opinions on the internet in general, and on YouTube in particular.
I'll take 5 minutes to scan through a page or two here, see the topic come up, and if it had been a glowing reaction (not that it need be positive, but in terms of the quality of the thoughts provided) I might have felt more inclined to give it a shot. Barring a few examples to the contrary, I find this community to be a fairly good litmus test of whether or not something is worth further exploration. So, in a way, thanks all for saving me those minutes?
Frankly, the move to long rambling videos is something none of us will be able to stem, but having read that news sites started doing it because Facebook was overselling viewer engagement on them, feels like it's at the heart of the matter. I remember when 'don't just share the video' was so well known that it was practically infractable to drop a video link as ones argument without further supporting commentary or evidence. Now those things are everywhere, and some people seem to think they're the only way to convey info in an engaging fashion.
Yes, many people don't read beyond the headline. I can say with sincerity I've read every single post of this thread. Of most threads I participate in. It's part of what keeps me out of some of the super active ones (SE++ in general, and [Chat] threads in particular; they generate so much content it's impossible for me to keep up), and I appreciate when someone puts the time and effort into conveying their thoughts and opinions in a manner that I can approach at my own pace. Maybe that makes me an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn.
The reality is that most of us can read faster than a video will convey that same information, especially if it's someone talking at us. That's before we get into the 'Don't forget to click Like, Subscribe, and leave a comment!' nature of so much of this, less about even conveying a point than generating those clicks. This may not be present in this particular case, but it has become widespread enough that these days having a hot take and a click-bait'y title makes me wonder if this is a deeply held belief, or striving to get viral numbers by calling out something popular. Either way, having a click-bait'y title does this no favours.
Kinda getting meta here, so I'll digress. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, and I don't intend this to 'call out' anyone in particular, more tied to coming into the thread and wondering what the hell was going on.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Welp that sure was a video with a 3 minute point that they somehow stretched to over half an hour.
I feel this criticism is reductive in that it could be used to describe a lot of things that could be compressed in the same way and disrespects the person's work. John could leave out all his comedy bits and get to the point in five minutes but the comedy and other points that take up time are used as tools to reinforce the point. Same as the video essayist. People need to take time to explain what they mean. There are many posts on this very forum where they cannot stand twitter because the 180 word limit is too small for discourse versus the forum's available length allowing for more nuance. I find it odd when it is a common sentiment that videos like these, or videos longer than ten minutes, exist and then get snarked on in light of this common complaint.
Twitter sucks because accessing the individual bite-sized chunks is a pain in the ass
Video sucks because you have to sit through it realtime and have to rewind bits and listen again. You can't search, scan or jump around easily, etc. A cut down transcription of a 20 minute video can probably be read in 5 minutes
Fundamentally they both make it hard to access the pertinent information in a timely manner
I mean, there's more to consuming information than how quickly it can be presented to you.
Sometimes, having someone talk about it and have visual aids helps drive a point home better than just having text. Never mind that some people process/retain spoken information better than written information, or vice versa.
There's no one best solution. But complaining about how long something is also ignores a very real problem regardless of medium: It's a lot quicker to spout a bunch of bullshit than it is to disprove the bullshit.
Mark Hamill, the voice actor, does a good impression? I'd believe it.
Yeah I recall hearing it before when he was talking about something Harrison didn't know I can't remember if it was vader was lukes father or something but during the premier he leaned over to Hamil and said "You didn't tell me that kid."
I am a little worried at how much Mark's hands are shaking in the interview. Could just being old, but no MARK NOOOOO
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Last Week Tonight is an extremely welcome presence on the late night scene, and however flawed it can be, we would be worse off if it were gone. Of course they don’t always get it right or contextually complete – not even 60 Minutes pulls that off every time – but the show clearly cares a lot about making the attempt. Certainly a lot more than most other shows do.
Yes, it will occasionally come up short, and it will feel especially unfortunate because when that happens, it happens in the middle of a 30 minute segment of John teeing off on something or someone. But the perspective of the show, which is to try to pay attention to terrible things that do not get the attention or reactions that they deserve, is uncommon and vital. Couple that with their approach – which is to, on occasion, try to do actually do something within their power on the issue – and I’m pretty happy that it exists.
I am really pleased that the show has proven as influential as it has, and unless they really start abusing their watchdog bully pulpit, I won't fault it too hard for being imperfect.
If anything, LWT has The Daily Show Syndrome where its influence is significant and immediate but usually reversed later as the show and audience move on to other things
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
LWT uses humor as sugar to make the medicine go down. And instinctively it is kind of insulting it takes a humor show to highlight shit bergs like the Sackler family (I first found out about them from Sam Bee's show when she highlighted and shit on them too). Because our actual media is too in love with access and people like the Sackler family to actually attack them.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The only thing I don't like about LWT is John's tendency to run a joke about 5 seconds too long. Like he'll make a punchline, then ride that punchline. You made the joke, you got the laugh, you don't need to do a little dance afterwards, it kind of kills the momentum.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Posts
I've decided the best approach is to use the show as a starting point to learn more about the subject, because he often gives out enough information that you can educate yourself in more depth with relative ease.
Some people I follow who are Into Wrestling had a similar reaction to his wrestling video.
People who are in immediate orbit of local events have very valid opinions, but they're not always full perspective.
Ultimately it's a comedy show about current events, not a college lecture. The content is usually topical to keep things moving. The stuff on Bitcoin was a great short walk down crazy economics and an entertaining warning.
FWIW my friend thinks Bolsanaro is a dangerous fascist lunatic. His gripe was about the lack of contextualisation in the episode. And I have the same complaint when Oliver tackles stuff I'm well informed on. I don't really mind, his job is not to give a six-part in-depth documentary series on anything. But he can be glib, and that's not an issue with bias from being in the "immediate orbit of local events", sometimes it's as simple as "I know more about this than he does."
His show isn't right all the time, but it encourages rather than stifles conversation, and as far as news comedies go that's pretty darn close to as good as it's going to get.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I feel this criticism is reductive in that it could be used to describe a lot of things that could be compressed in the same way and disrespects the person's work. John could leave out all his comedy bits and get to the point in five minutes but the comedy and other points that take up time are used as tools to reinforce the point. Same as the video essayist. People need to take time to explain what they mean. There are many posts on this very forum where they cannot stand twitter because the 180 word limit is too small for discourse versus the forum's available length allowing for more nuance. I find it odd when it is a common sentiment that videos like these, or videos longer than ten minutes, exist and then get snarked on in light of this common complaint.
Comedy really helps a long video to have staying power, as does having a huge team of top writers and researchers and top production values. It's tough.
edit: wow, that is a huge image on the desktop version
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They're less good when you're just ranting, or when you really want to get a message across to lots of people even if they aren't super into whatever it is you're talking about
That needs more context and requires a more specific understanding of history to interpret why people from the area can reasonably feel a specific way about a topic a comedy show covered in 22 minutes.
The Duterte thing was just something that stood out to me. The people I was eating lunch with didn't believe he was a hero, but family back home did and with their personal experience of life in the region they understood why.
I worded it poorly, I apologise.
Edit - Also as far as rhetoric goes, there's a world of difference between "THIS THING IS GARBAGE" and then nuanced discussion on a mild level. There's no value to the former whatsoever. It's bad enough that a generation grew up going "that sucks ass" and "that's gay" to things that their actual internal sentiment was "oh I just don't care for it, meh." But the internet has amplified that sort of "be loud and insulting with your first few words." When you do that with a video that's trying to urge people to use the thing they watched as a starting off point on the topics covered, like Last Week Tonight, you're actually going to be seen as advocating people stop watching / listening to the show or the things it tries to spotlight and are doing more harm than good. If your video is nuanced and mild, make the title nuanced and mild.
Specifically I was using Sargon as a juxtaposition of a bad agent using similar reductive statements.
Also I agree. The algorithm, though, son. Furthermore, while I’m explaining and not excusing, folks tend to react to negatively framed stuff more than positive stuff in these sort of cases. I’d almost call it exploitative but that feels hyperbolic and it’s kind of just a thing of the times.
Isn't that a problem with journalism in general, though? I know "this article missed the point because the journalist didn't really understand the subject" has been an actual issue for quite some time now in science journalism, and I assume most other specialty topics as well. I wonder if we're holding a comedy program to a higher standard than actual journalists.
Yes. I. Would.
Yeah, if someone could TL;DR it, that would be really helpful.
Videos with someone just sitting there and talking aren't the best way to deliver information (ironic, I know, since that's what LWT is too!)
Last Week Tonight is fun, which helps
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It’s not perfect, they’re normally the first to admit it, and I think they would be responsive to criticism, saying that they dodge criticism with the “it’s just a comedy show” isn’t really why they use that phrase. They use that phrase most often to highlight that they aren’t the final word, and that these issues are big and complex so if you’re interested in a subject they raise you should do further investigation from more researched and wider sources
Now it can be problematic as there’s often a call to action. However that action is normally pretty mild, like a twitter campaign with a light joke or silly premise. They’re not exactly calling for people’s heads after mischaracterising them. They’ve even gone over this process, where they put a lot of effort into deciding on who to “go after” with their post show campaigns,and it’s largely powerful public figures who can take it.
Basically they do the best they can as a 30 minute show that’s intended to largely make you laugh alongside a rough overview of an issue. And that’s why I think her criticism video is actually great, it’s good to keep them on their toes. However I also think she mischaracterises their “were only a comedy show” refrain. They don’t make it to avoid criticism or say “just kidding bro”, they do it to remind people this is just a brief overview of often complex issues comedically delivered. They still definitely care about accuracy, will publish corrections for overt mistakes in later episodes, and often come back to issues where they feel they missed something or there’s a new or different perspective they left out
When these comedy news shows say they are just jokes: pointing out actual journalism is failing so hard we have to depend on our clowns to get anyone to say what's actually happening around us.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Amber Ruffin is amazing.
Yeah, Jon Stewart used to do that a lot. It's more a slam on the current state of journalism (granted, he's been out of the game a while, but things haven't gotten better), than it is a copout.
I remember more than a couple interviews with a diverse group of people, on his show and on theirs, where they either point out how he's considered a trusted name in news (which is when he points out that he should NOT be) or try to compare their lack of seriousness on covering subject material to his own.
The latter, on air, was part of the backlashing that got Crossfire and Tucker Carlson in the shit. Sadly, Stewart won that battle, but Carson won the war.
Fact of the matter is, though, a lot (no, not all) of people aren't interested in serious reports by serious journalists. They either want comedy or vitriol. I'll take the former, especially if it's for the most part accurate, even if missing nuance, instead of the latter, given that hate is usually founded on intentional misinterpretations, or outright lies.
I rewatched that Crossfire segment with John Stewart today. One thing that stood out was this little exchange:
The Trump administration watched that prior to taking office and went "hold my beer", didn't they?
This whole "they either want comedy or vitriol" thing you mentioned is pretty baked into your society (assuming you are from the US). It is always this "you are either with me or against me" attitude, this constant competition. Its not working together to make the country better, no the sole goal is to beat the other side - nothing else matters.
Videos being too long is, in fact, a staple of youtube. Especially opinion/hot-take/breaking-gaming-news youtube. The whole point is either to stretch the least amount of information over the most amount of time for the purposes of gaming the ad-revenue algorithm. Or it's because you just ranted at a camera either without a script or with only a first-pass script and so never tightened the whole thing up to make it succinct and punchy and non-repetitive.
And I mean "I don't have to explain myself, you have to instead watch this 150 minute video on why I'm right" has been a staple of libertarianism and it's ilk for ages now.
And I don’t disagree. It’s the similar dismissive tone I have a bigger issue with. Had HappylilElf followed it up with criticism of how it could have been cut down, it wouldn’t present as the post form of an eye roll.
A 37 minute video on how comedy shows need to be better at journalism sounds like a viable candidate for an eye roll. And when you're a relative unknown and name your video "Popular thing is garbage*" you're not exactly inspiring a charitable first impression.
That said, I'm 17 minutes in here and have to punch out, but I hope the point she's eventually making is that we shouldn't rely on a single news source, particularly not a comedy program that insists it is a comedy program. Her criticisms of Jon taking more responsibility seem beside the point, so even if she changes gears to a more useful discussion here, she's already wasted most of that 17 minutes.
*"Popular thing is junk food," which she calls "garbage food" is the analogy she immediately launches into; so, given the accent, I'll allow the possibility that the title is a translation error and not as overt an attempt at sensationalism as it appears.
I think most people don't have the time to watch videos let alone ones so long to give a good criticism of it. If you had summarized it when posting that might be possible. There are more videos to watch than time to watch them even for media you already like. This would be true even if I didn't have a job or kids or need to sleep. For me personally, I'd much rather read some information than have to watch a video on it. If I'm looking for a how to or even help getting an achievement in a game, I'd much prefer to skim through some text than be forced to watch a 20 min video and hope it solves my problem.
That is understandable.
To be fair though, one could say that for all the prominent video essayists like Lindsay Ellis, Dan Olson, and the Noah Caldwell-Gervais types. The format is more accessible and reaches more people than reading in a generation where I imagine most people skip over headlines rather than read every full article.
Me putting in a summary would help in the future.
If you wanna make an argument, you can't substitute making that argument with a 20 minute video. You can support your argument with a long-form educational video on a subject, but no one is gonna watch a half hour of youtube just to find out what your position even is in the first place.
This was always the Libertarian tactic, as I mention above. Instead of defending a position themselves, they'd post a 30 minute youtube video full of garbage and demand that you watch and respond to all the points in it or you weren't really being serious. This was a really annoying tactic that most people quickly tired of.
They get benefit of the doubt there.
Some random person having an opinion and taking over half an hour to share it does not get the same benefit of the doubt. There are too many people with too many opinions on the internet in general, and on YouTube in particular.
I'll take 5 minutes to scan through a page or two here, see the topic come up, and if it had been a glowing reaction (not that it need be positive, but in terms of the quality of the thoughts provided) I might have felt more inclined to give it a shot. Barring a few examples to the contrary, I find this community to be a fairly good litmus test of whether or not something is worth further exploration. So, in a way, thanks all for saving me those minutes?
Frankly, the move to long rambling videos is something none of us will be able to stem, but having read that news sites started doing it because Facebook was overselling viewer engagement on them, feels like it's at the heart of the matter. I remember when 'don't just share the video' was so well known that it was practically infractable to drop a video link as ones argument without further supporting commentary or evidence. Now those things are everywhere, and some people seem to think they're the only way to convey info in an engaging fashion.
Yes, many people don't read beyond the headline. I can say with sincerity I've read every single post of this thread. Of most threads I participate in. It's part of what keeps me out of some of the super active ones (SE++ in general, and [Chat] threads in particular; they generate so much content it's impossible for me to keep up), and I appreciate when someone puts the time and effort into conveying their thoughts and opinions in a manner that I can approach at my own pace. Maybe that makes me an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn.
The reality is that most of us can read faster than a video will convey that same information, especially if it's someone talking at us. That's before we get into the 'Don't forget to click Like, Subscribe, and leave a comment!' nature of so much of this, less about even conveying a point than generating those clicks. This may not be present in this particular case, but it has become widespread enough that these days having a hot take and a click-bait'y title makes me wonder if this is a deeply held belief, or striving to get viral numbers by calling out something popular. Either way, having a click-bait'y title does this no favours.
Kinda getting meta here, so I'll digress. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, and I don't intend this to 'call out' anyone in particular, more tied to coming into the thread and wondering what the hell was going on.
Twitter sucks because accessing the individual bite-sized chunks is a pain in the ass
Video sucks because you have to sit through it realtime and have to rewind bits and listen again. You can't search, scan or jump around easily, etc. A cut down transcription of a 20 minute video can probably be read in 5 minutes
Fundamentally they both make it hard to access the pertinent information in a timely manner
Sometimes, having someone talk about it and have visual aids helps drive a point home better than just having text. Never mind that some people process/retain spoken information better than written information, or vice versa.
There's no one best solution. But complaining about how long something is also ignores a very real problem regardless of medium: It's a lot quicker to spout a bunch of bullshit than it is to disprove the bullshit.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah I recall hearing it before when he was talking about something Harrison didn't know I can't remember if it was vader was lukes father or something but during the premier he leaned over to Hamil and said "You didn't tell me that kid."
I am a little worried at how much Mark's hands are shaking in the interview. Could just being old, but no MARK NOOOOO
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, it will occasionally come up short, and it will feel especially unfortunate because when that happens, it happens in the middle of a 30 minute segment of John teeing off on something or someone. But the perspective of the show, which is to try to pay attention to terrible things that do not get the attention or reactions that they deserve, is uncommon and vital. Couple that with their approach – which is to, on occasion, try to do actually do something within their power on the issue – and I’m pretty happy that it exists.
I am really pleased that the show has proven as influential as it has, and unless they really start abusing their watchdog bully pulpit, I won't fault it too hard for being imperfect.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
pleasepaypreacher.net