Discussion»Questions»Politics» I learn MORE about politics from John Oliver and Samantha Bee than I do from the news shows.. Is that MY fault, or the NEWS SHOWS fault?
Think about what constitutes television "news" nowadays.
How long does a "news" channel spend on any particular topic? 2 minutes? Maybe 3 minutes? (Yes, some will rehash the same 3 minutes of talking points endlessly, but that's NOT the same as covering the story in more depth)
How much does the "news" channel challenge conventional wisdom or assert (with evidence to support the claim) one side of the political spectrum is factually plain wrong?
What we typically call "news" nowadays is mostly stenography of the talking points of the political class.
Hence, comedy shows like those of Oliver and Bee, who take time to go into depth, provide context, and point out where the talking points get the underlying reality wrong, are FAR more informative than most "news" content.
Couple things.. How come right wingers don't have equivalent shows? Is it because right wingers just aren't funny, or they CAN'T explore their policies in depth because there IS no depth to them?
@excon -- I think there are a couple reasons for the lack of "right-wing" comedy
The basis of humor is violating a stereotype or expectation ("Take my wife...please!"). Broadly speaking, right wing political policies tend to be more rigid and doctrinaire ("We'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," "Tax cuts are always good," "The war against Iraq was a stunning success," "Ronald Reagan was the greatest President ever"). Hence, they are easy to lampoon, because one can easily point out where those policies/beliefs are clearly incongruent with reality.
Another reason is that humor, by and large, is how we explore our shared humanity and reassure ourselves that, regardless of our station in life, others who would purport to be our betters are not that different from ourselves. Hence, humor aimed at the Powerful is much more popular than humor aimed at the Powerless. Despite fulminations from various parts about TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ, our political system is largely dominated by the political right and has been since about the mid-1970s. While President Carter (like all good Christians should) had a semblance of a social conscience, he also bought into the Neoliberal Consensus on economic issues and American Hegemony for Cheap Oil in international affairs. Recall US policy stating that any attempt to influence the Middle East and interefere with US access to cheap oil was an attack on US interests was orginally called The Carter Doctrine. Our government has mostly followed those tenets ever since.
Because our power structure is largely right wing, there are no easy targets for right wing humor. Instead, right-leaning humorists have to CONSTRUCT stereotypes/caricatures to lampoon, and many people recognize those caricatures are not well-grounded in reality.
I recall several years ago Fox News tried to have a news-humor show which was meant to be the right-wing equivalent to John Stewart's "Daily Show." It bombed horribly and quickly went off the air. In contrast, Stephen Colbert succeeded wildly by playing the role of a Fox News personality (esp. Bill O'Reilly) and taking the role to its logical extreme. I think faux-Daily Show's failure and Colbert's popularity support my thesis.
You make some good points. I think a big part of it is the far right has a tendency to take themselves way too seriously as a matter of principle. The far left does too, but there are more people on the left with centrist mindsets these days than there are on the right. The far right has alienated those who are middle road but slightly more right. So what's left these days as the vocal right are a bunch of miserable pricks who try and hide their fears and spiteful nature behind a BS veil of false stoicism.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 31, 2016 10:03 AM MDT
@Glis - to a certrain extent, the "far right" (loosely defined) HAS to take itself too seriously, because their political/social beliefs are faith-based houses of cards. Show one card in the house to be ridiculous, and the whole structure falls apart. Hence, they have trouble laughing at themselves or their beliefs.
As someone in the (compartive) political middle, I can laugh when something I advocate doesn't succeed or gets corrupted and say, "OK, that didn't work. It seemed like a good idea, but I was wrong. Let's try something else." Believers in faith-based political constructs don't have that luxury ("Wait, the tax cuts didn't self-finance? I guess we need...MORE TAX CUTS!")
I don't know the other one, but I do know Jon Oliver always gets it RIGHT. I think Comedy Central had more to do with Obama winning the election than anything Fox had to offer. Same thing this time around.
Samantha Bee was a regular on the Daily Show. She's married to Jason Jones, the other hilarious character on the Daily Show.. Now, she's on Turner Broadcasting.. She shoulda got that show. Instead they gave it to an unknown guy who I NEVER watch.
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives 