The Oliver Effect: What does it tell us?

[Kubra]

The solution, of course, is to elect comedians and their writers to the highest political offices available.

[Shofercia]

source

His show has crashed websites, boosted donations and inspired legislation

Comedians mock our cultural and political institutions on TV all the time. But it’s not every day that a comic’s jokes crash a government website or directly inspire legislators to push for new laws.

John Oliver, host of HBO comedy news program Last Week Tonight, is quickly building up that level of cultural cachet. While his forebears and former colleagues Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart spend as much time lampooning the news media covering world events as they do analyzing events themselves, Oliver’s show stands out for its investigations into topics as varied as the militarization of the police state, Net neutrality and Argentina’s debt crisis.

-cont-

In June Oliver discussed how bail is often to used to keep poor, low-risk defendants locked up before they’ve even been found guilty of a crime. He noted that people who can’t afford to pay bail have two bad options: plead guilty to avoid waiting in jail or stay in jail until a trial. “Jail can do for your actual life what being in a marching band can do for you social life,” he said. “Even if you’re just in for a little while, it can destroy you.” In July, just a month after Oliver’s monologue, New York mayor Bill de Blasio announced that the city would relax bail requirements for people charged with nonviolent crimes and misdemeanors.

Oliver was highlighting corruption at FIFA, the world’s most powerful sports organization, long before U.S. officials arrested several of the federation’s top executives. In 2014 Oliver compared FIFA (unfavorably) to organized religion and called out the organization’s poor treatment of migrant workers. He was back with an even more scathing takedown on Sunday, calling for FIFA president Sepp Blatter to step down. “The problem is all the arrests in the world are going to change nothing as long as Blatter is still there,” Oliver said “To truly kill a snake, you must cut off its head — or, in this case, its asshole.” On Tuesday, Oliver got his wish—Blatter abruptly announced his resignation from FIFA.

You can read more of the article at the source, it goes over a few other Oliver takedowns. Interesting read.

Anyway, what with the millenial liberal bend of NSG, i'd wager many people view Oliver as something of a messiah speaking what they've been thinking for a long while but to a wider audience, and as a conservative i'd agree with many of his common sense points, such as the Miss America Pageant, FIFA, etc. His community actions to influence decisions is remarkable and truly rare, and it's excellent that he's able to do that and takes the initiative in doing so.

However I think it's kind of sad how that democracy has eroded to such a point where we rely on comedians like John Oliver, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert to be the voice of the people and show how the government is regularly trampling the principles the people approve of. All due respect to those above, but we should be elected our representatives, not hoping that comedians echo our beliefs. We won't always have an Oliver or Stewart, and I think that we need to ask ourselves some profound questions as to how our representative democracy is so un representative.

NSG, your thoughts?

That he's just a useful cog in the wheel. Things that he took down were already well under way, like the anti-Net Neutrality, or FIFA corruption. I think that, aside from being entertaining, he had very little to do with FIFA's takedown. He's very articulate and occasionally funny, so I'd rather have him on my side than not, but he's not some messiah. ALEC is still laughing at him. Despite his brilliant anti-prison show, not much happened. Same with the Argentinian Debt Crisis.

On the things that went his way, the initiative was there long before he did, or it involved massive political gamesmanship, as was the case with FIFA. If Platini didn't hand the World Cup to Qatar, both Blatter and Platini would still be on top, Oliver or not. I think the only comedian that can change the US is Jon Stewart, but he's sadly retired. I'd love to see him do for Sanders what he did for the Zadroga Act.

[Ratateague]

I'd say it's a pretty bad sign of the state of mainstream journalism and journalistic ethics that some of the most honest, accurate, and hard-hitting journalism is coming from comedy shows rather than the actual news. For awhile, my main news sources were, NSG, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. I could get better news from multiple perspectives and fact checking from a couple of comedy shows and a web forum largely populated by teenagers and young adults than I can get from any given combination of mainstream journalism outlets.

That's not even an exaggeration. That's exactly what I was doing for the longest time, at least until Jon Stewart left. I'd read the morning paper (WaPo) from front to back, scroll through online feeds, occasionally see TV stories while running errands, and then come home after work and catch up on NSG and watch Daily Show, and go "So THAT'S what's been happening lately." For the few good media outlets there are, even telling the daily news as it debuts isn't enough. There has to be better organization for stories that share a connection, better review of developing stories and ongoing crises, better follow-up to a front page piece that isn't buried days and pages later, hell even better coverage. Sometimes there will be a story big enough to warrant a multiple page spread and a breakdown of the timeline. All too often, though, a big story will be spread throughout multiple sources/outlets with days, even weeks in-between. Making it near-impossible for your average reader to make the connections. And piecing all of that together is what people like Stewart, Oliver, and Colbert have excelled at.

[Alvecia]

I'd say it's a pretty bad sign of the state of mainstream journalism and journalistic ethics that some of the most honest, accurate, and hard-hitting journalism is coming from comedy shows rather than the actual news. For awhile, my main news sources were, NSG, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. I could get better news from multiple perspectives and fact checking from a couple of comedy shows and a web forum largely populated by teenagers and young adults than I can get from any given combination of mainstream journalism outlets.

This was commented on by Oliver actually when he was interviewed by Jorge Ramos.

Ramos, who noted recent exclusive interviews Oliver has done, including NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, said “you have more credibility than most journalists here in the United States and, I would say, in many other countries.”

Oliver said that speaks volumes about journalism in America, and not about him. “I’m doing the job of a comedian. So, I make jokes about the news…That is more an insult to the current state of journalism than it is a compliment for the state of comedy.”

[Frank Zipper]

It tells us about the detrimental effect Rupert Murdoch has had on the quality of journalism.

[Luziyca]

Please, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert had similar effects.

[Archempire]

When the serious political news programs are a joke, it's only natural that you need to rely on the jokesters for serious politics.
It's like a weird boomerang effect or something.

[Jochistan]

That it's 2016?

[Jochistan]

People here have a point though, comedians have influenced politics and in the mind of some mass of people "told it like it is", throughout history.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Unfortunatly politicians usually focus on what their cue cards then anything else

[Pope Joan]

Respectable outlets such as NPR, the NY Times and Washington Post want to maintain access to those in power, because that's where the stories come from. So they try not to offend, but rather to laud, the putative front runner for the moderate left. They believe this is Hillary. That is why although Bernie has won more delegates in the primaries, they keep repeating that he's "lagging" and fighting a come-from-behind battle. It's misleading, to the point of duplicity.

Oliver need not worry about such concerns as access to stories.

[The Free Rational City of Rapture]

It tells us about the detrimental effect Rupert Murdoch has had on the quality of journalism.

Journalism has been biased since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer.

[Esternial]

It probably tells us that politics need more capable politicians running for public office and not asshats like Robert Morrow.

Except capable and smart people are probably too sane and moderate to ever be noticed, and even if they do, people will shit all over them and blame them for all kinds of unrelated shit. Compassionate people that genuinely want to help can't thrive in that kind of toxic climate - unless they lose the side of them that politics actually needs more of.

It's like taking a dump and them complaining there's shit in the toilet.

[Gauthier]

The solution, of course, is to elect comedians and their writers to the highest political offices available.

Which explains Trump's frontrunner status.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The solution, of course, is to elect comedians and their writers to the highest political offices available.

Which explains Trump's frontrunner status.

...We need to discuss your definition of comedian.

[Camicon]

I'd say it's a pretty bad sign of the state of mainstream journalism and journalistic ethics that some of the most honest, accurate, and hard-hitting journalism is coming from comedy shows rather than the actual news. For awhile, my main news sources were, NSG, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. I could get better news from multiple perspectives and fact checking from a couple of comedy shows and a web forum largely populated by teenagers and young adults than I can get from any given combination of mainstream journalism outlets.

This was commented on by Oliver actually when he was interviewed by Jorge Ramos.

Ramos, who noted recent exclusive interviews Oliver has done, including NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, said “you have more credibility than most journalists here in the United States and, I would say, in many other countries.”

Oliver said that speaks volumes about journalism in America, and not about him. “I’m doing the job of a comedian. So, I make jokes about the news…That is more an insult to the current state of journalism than it is a compliment for the state of comedy.”

Oliver made another point in that interview, which speaks to why his show has more journalistic integrity than what you find on main stream networks.

His jokes mock and shame situations and circumstances in American society. In order for people to understand those jokes, they need to understand the current state of the situation, and then they need to understand why the current state is "wrong", for lack of a better word. If he gives people a false understanding of the situation, then his jokes fall apart and the show has failed. The journalistic integrity of his show is a necessary foundation in setting up the kind of comedy he performs.

Which explains Trump's frontrunner status.

...We need to discuss your definition of comedian.

There's still an outside chance that he turns around after winning the primary and says "Haha! I tricked all of you dumb idiots! You're so dumb! Ha!"

[Daffyflippingduck]

Whaddaya know, you put a spotlight on something, people react.

[Frank Zipper]

It tells us about the detrimental effect Rupert Murdoch has had on the quality of journalism.

Journalism has been biased since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer.

I think William Randolph Hearst and Rupert Murdoch are comparable figures, but I don't think every newspaper proprietor/media mogul is an evil moustache-twirling villain.

[Trumpostan]

However I think it's kind of sad how that democracy has eroded to such a point where we rely on comedians like John Oliver, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert to be the voice of the people and show how the government is regularly trampling the principles the people approve of. All due respect to those above, but we should be elected our representatives, not hoping that comedians echo our beliefs. We won't always have an Oliver or Stewart, and I think that we need to ask ourselves some profound questions as to how our representative democracy is so un representative.

NSG, your thoughts?

It isn't democracy that has eroded, it is the quality of newsmedia across the country. I don't understand how you are making that leap to blame an expansive political system, for a lack of information and/or public interest. Representatives tend to represent those groups who are either larger and louder or contributing constituents, regardless of how informed they are on he subject. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. I've witnessed self-described accounts from politicians who are actually well-informed on the issues to understand the nuances, but fail to do so, because there aren't nearly enough proponents on the other side, "and who in their right mind would vote against something which is generally seen as a boon to security/economy/insert-anything-here, regardless of the logistics/trade-offs" to paraphrase one. Problem is there aren't enough people raising the alarm on seemingly routine policy decisions. And say, on subjects of encryption and privacy, the people who do speak up seem to outnumber those who are genuinely informed and understand the pitfalls.

As for the media, when a bunch of satirists do a better job on informing the public than your average pundits and papers, you really have to wonder.

The quality of the newsmedia, that is exactly what it is. Its been a trend for some time but the quality has (with few exceptions) nosedived, particularly since the 1990s or so when I first became aware of them. How often do they act as fawning cheerleaders of whatever is the latest war that some politician is calling for/has started. I think there's some correlation between this problem and the fact that the media is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands/owners.

[The Sotoan Union]

For every obvious problem he's tackled he's also approached controversial issues that only inspired argument, unhappy fans, and death threats.

Similar problem for democracy. You act like it's so easy but what happens when you run into the issues that there is no obvious right answer for?

[The East Marches]

CURRENT YEAR

I internally "REEEEE" 'd at that. Thanks for reminding he started that shit.

[The balkens]

Ah yes, i love being told by some brit that its "Current year".

we should get him a calendar so he can tell us its 2017 next year despite the fact how "Current year" has no basis in fucking policy, thought or anything whatsofuckingever.

Jon Stewart was always better then him anyway, at least he wasnt a pretentious twat.

[Differing Opinions]

I havent really followed the trend since Dennis Miller who used to turn me inside out in the 90s. Its not a wholly unique feature. Im sure every generation has had some figure who fit this bill. I mean with comedic actors often simultaneously making some of the best dramatic actors, who better to comment on something as dramatic as politics than a comedian. I dont believe that this anomaly illustrates any fundamental flaw in democracy.

[Esternial]

It'd be more representative if more people actually made an effort.

Shit candidates running unopposed is just sad.