Last Week Tonight - Because it's the current year

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Without A Gout

Without A Gout

MORMON JESUS
kiwifarms.net
Registrado
22 de Ago, 2014
Well, I didn't see a thread on this show, so I figured it was time to have a little discussion on LWT and John Oliver's show in general.

Personally, I think the show has some good points, and does have some very good episodes, but it's completely overshadowed by an extreme liberal bias. If it was actually neutral, this probably would be one of the better shows out there right now. But for now, this is just wasted potential.

Here's last week's feature about #Brexit, which was full of absolute bullshit and extreme spin towards keeping Britain getting buttfucked in the EU.


Here are some episodes I find to be pretty decent, since they aren't shadowed with "current year" and "progressive" bullshit.

 
Every news show panders to some kind of audience. This show is a spinoff of Jon Stewart's Daily Show (on which Oliver was a common commentator), and targets the same demographic of college-educated white liberal. It's basically the exact same show as Stewart had, but without a guest at the end of each episode.
 
Optimus Prime dijo:
I really only watch it for the gags and what kind of insane thing they'll do at the end of the show.

And Trump insults. Sentient Circus Peanut still cracks me up every time.
Presiona para expandir...

That's the thing that gets me. Why not do an episode on Hillary, too? She's got plenty of skeletons to lampoon and roast.

Trump deserved his episode (except for that pathetic #DonaldDrumpf thing), but the fact that they won't touch Hillary is pretty damning.
 
DerSandstrom dijo:
That's the thing that gets me. Why not do an episode on Hillary, too? She's got plenty of skeletons to lampoon and roast.

Trump deserved his episode (except for that pathetic #DonaldDrumpf thing), but the fact that they won't touch Hillary is pretty damning.
Presiona para expandir...
I'm sure they'll get to Hillary eventually. Some day. Any day now.
 
Null dijo:
Fuck this guy. His only argument against people like Nigel is: "THEY'RE RACIST"

I'm so sick, so fucking sick, of the words racist, sexist, and islamophobia.
Presiona para expandir...
it's getting to the point where i think just saying "Racist" or "sexist" "islamophobic" means nothing
I think people need to learn to back their shit up or shut up
Deadwaste dijo:
I'm sure they'll get to Hillary eventually. Some day. Any day now.
Presiona para expandir...
but we need our strong wimmin viewers
 
Remember when Fox News would report unsubstantiated conjecture and opinion as fact, and when they would label anyone who disagreed with or criticized Bush Jr. as an un-American terrorist sympathizer? How come when the political left does this, it suddenly becomes acceptable?

Shows like this are the journalistic equivalent of junk food; a reconstituted double cheeseburger pumped full of salt and fat, chased down with thirty-two ounces of sugary, caffeinated soft drink. It’s unhealthy and habit-forming, and it leads to nothing except a massive coronary. But outrage sells, whether real or manufactured. It sells like crazy, and we can’t get enough of it. Every media outlet knows this, so that’s what they produce and market: more outrage. Even if said outrage comes from a place of unsubstantiated conjecture and opinion, written by someone with no talent other than the ability to string together the “right” snarl and purr words.
 
It's kinda redundant to call out this show's liberal bias when its not supposed to be a news show. Its literally just a guy talking about his opinion and throwing out evidence to back up his opinion.

That being said my personal complaint is how little investigation his show has made into issues like the environment, but its a minor complaint.
 
You could flip through his show, Larry Wilmore's, and the current host of The Daily Show and not notice a difference.
 
Wallace dijo:
Remember when Fox News would report unsubstantiated conjecture and opinion as fact, and when they would label anyone who disagreed with or criticized Bush Jr. as an un-American terrorist sympathizer? How come when the political left does this, it suddenly becomes acceptable?

Shows like this are the journalistic equivalent of junk food; a reconstituted double cheeseburger pumped full of salt and fat, chased down with thirty-two ounces of sugary, caffeinated soft drink. It’s unhealthy and habit-forming, and it leads to nothing except a massive coronary. But outrage sells, whether real or manufactured. It sells like crazy, and we can’t get enough of it. Every media outlet knows this, so that’s what they produce and market: more outrage. Even if said outrage comes from a place of unsubstantiated conjecture and opinion, written by someone with no talent other than the ability to string together the “right” snarl and purr words.
Presiona para expandir...

All American news is like this some way, Fox News being the prime example. Because they're completely private media companies totally reliant on advertising revenue, it pays for them to know what kind of person will be watching them. Think about it: what kind of person watches Fox News? What kind of person watches Last Week Tonight? They're two totally different demographics, but they both generate large amounts of marketing potential.

When you're selling tv ads, you can charge a lot more for the slot when you can sell the client the guarantee that exactly X kind of person will be watching at that time, far more than you would if you were selling ads that appealed to a far more random, general audience. TV stations know this and create content that they know a certain type of person will watch. That's why you get obviously biased coverage like this; it makes the TV station way more money than general, objective news.

This stuff is the reason that my primary news outlet is the BBC, even as an American. The BBC has less incentive to be sensationalist and covers a much wider variety of news. They don't rely on ad revenue nearly as much, because they're essentially the British government's state media outlet.

Sorry for the tl;dr. I get verbose when I'm stoned.
 
0xDEADBEEF dijo:
All American news is like this some way, Fox News being the prime example. Because they're completely private media companies totally reliant on advertising revenue, it pays for them to know what kind of person will be watching them. Think about it: what kind of person watches Fox News? What kind of person watches Last Week Tonight? They're two totally different demographics, but they both generate large amounts of marketing potential.

When you're selling tv ads, you can charge a lot more for the slot when you can sell the client the guarantee that exactly X kind of person will be watching at that time, far more than you would if you were selling ads that appealed to a far more random, general audience. TV stations know this and create content that they know a certain type of person will watch. That's why you get obviously biased coverage like this; it makes the TV station way more money than general, objective news.

This stuff is the reason that my primary news outlet is the BBC, even as an American. The BBC has less incentive to be sensationalist and covers a much wider variety of news. They don't rely on ad revenue nearly as much, because they're essentially the British government's state media outlet.

Sorry for the tl;dr. I get verbose when I'm stoned.
Presiona para expandir...

The problem is that LWT isn't an ad-based program. It's on HBO, which doesn't air commercials during the show itself. It's pretty much unfiltered opinion.
 
0xDEADBEEF dijo:
This stuff is the reason that my primary news outlet is the BBC, even as an American. The BBC has less incentive to be sensationalist and covers a much wider variety of news. They don't rely on ad revenue nearly as much, because they're essentially the British government's state media outlet.
Presiona para expandir...

I would argue that the British government has an agenda too, just maybe not one build around pulling in as much ad revenue as possible.

It's a sad thing to see principles getting thrown under the bus in exchange for more profitability.
 
Última edición:
Deadwaste dijo:
I'm sure they'll get to Hillary eventually. Some day. Any day now.
Presiona para expandir...
She's running against a man who took out a fullpage ad in the NYP calling for the execution of 14-year-old blacks and latinos for an interracial rape they weren't even involved with, and he's only gone downhill from there.

She could crash her car into a single mother's house while drunk and nothing would be done.
 
I liked the first season quite a bit. They seemed to be bigger on the whole investigative reporting/comedy thing then and that was a good niche to fill.

The 'sanitized liberal outrage over current event of the week' schtick is why I can't stand the Daily Show, and it's a shame to see Last Week Tonight go down the same path.
 
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo