RE: A Few Words about the John Oliver Show
You seem to conflate delivery with content. Yes, delivery follows more or less the pattern you underline. And indeed following such a delivery pattern one gets the message across very effectively, about as effectively as possible.
This is American TV. Just like American anything, when they set out to do something, they focus on doing it the best they can. So the wrapping is almost perfect - if the content is any good then the combination is perfect and it makes money for HBO. That's all HBO cares about. Heck, that's all corporate America cares about, making as much money as possible ("The business of business is business", as Milton Friedman used to say)
So probably if John Oliver were to do shows about how the Earth is flat, he could at least count on HBO to provide him with as good a tribune as it gets.
But you haven't looked at the content at all. You were so impressed by the wrapping and what horrible things could sneak through in such a perfect and seemingly trustworthy wrapping that you forgot to inspect whether the content was indeed horrible
So what now, the content is necessarily bad because the wrapping is too perfect to hold something that is actually good? That is ridiculous
Of course people can be bent on will without them even realizing it, it's always been like that. And of course the armory is much more potent today than it was. But you have to realize that both sides have to use the same armory or else the fight is unequal.
So you, probably leaning reactionary right, are very alarmed discovering that the liberal left dares use the same level of armory as your side ! How dare they fight with the same weapons !
But at no point you analyse what is actually being said in John Oliver's shows. At no point you bring any argument about the content, about what is being said. You are just very alarmed that, whatever is being said, it's delivered in a quasi-hypnotic package.
Now tell us what is the part that is not substantiated in his shows, according to you, if you think there's a point in engaging with your readers. Argue about the content, not the packaging
I don't think the content was the point of this post.
The bottomline is that people are easily deceived and manipulated through seemingly harmless sources such as comedy.
Yes, that is true and it always has. So in a sense, had it been just that, what's the point of writing an article ? I think his point is that specifically John Oliver is deceiving and manipulating people. Which might or might not be the case, we can't tell because he doesn't provide any proof of the substance
yes, he doesn't. I guess this is more clickbait.
I myself stopped watching John Oliver about 2 years ago. He jumped on the Trump-ridiculing bandwagon and that was it for me.
If you just watch this episode:
I have watched that episode and from over the pond, un-biased and dispassionate (I don't give a dry flower on either the Democrats or the Republicans) I can tell you he is spot-on.
For people outside America, things do not split along the "Democrat vs. Republican" dimension because that is irrelevant for us. They split along the "right vs. wrong" dimension. In the past, sometimes the "Democrat" position was "right" and sometimes it was "wrong". I've seen Hillary for instance and her hypocrisy as appalling and very "wrong".
But here, in the Kavanaugh debate, if you strip aside the "Democrat vs. Republican" facet which might cloud your view, I can tell you that John Oliver is simply "right".
And what do the comments under his videos have to do with anything??? I mean come on, you seem to be confused if you bring that into the discussion ... is Oliver in any way responsible for the comments under his videos???
Comments are a reflection of what the audience of his show thinks and surprise surprise, most seem in favor and based on what, feelings?
For me John Oliver is clearly wrong.
of course most people take a position or another based on feelings not on rigurous analysis. That is precisely why, in a democracy where both the rational people (10% of the population) and the "gut feeling driven ones" (90% of the population) hold equal votes, you need to put perfect packaging around any message, right or wrong.
So yes, in the comments you'll have all those who got there based on feelings, on the "wrapping". That does not reflect in any way the quality of the content itself, which could be right or wrong.
And then there's the real debate - is it right or wrong - this is done based on what's in it, the substance
One take:
These guys are too worked out there I believe.
Let me tell you that I am a 48 year old Romanian who was born and spent the first part of his life (19 years) in the "Communist paradise" of Nicolae Ceausescu. What is happening in Venezuela now, I lived through, firsthand in Romania. I know only too well what's happening in Venezuela. At no point watching John Oliver's show I was under the impression that he's trying to justify either Chavez or Maduro's policies in any way.
Methinks that what these guys are doing is an unwarranted application of "transitivity": "Venezuela = Socialism" therefore "All Socialism necessarily leads to Venezuela" That is too simplistic - "socialism" is just a sometimes convenient political tag to get elected (or, in America, prevent someone you dislike from getting elected). There are many shades of "socialism", it's not a "AOC" like "feta cheese" or "Bordeaux wine".
For me John Oliver at no point defends the Venezuelan regime nor socialism in general, quite the contrary. It is rather this movie that is peddling fallacies - the most important one being that if one can, by any means, attach the "socialist" tag to someone else's policies then inevitably those policies are going to lead to Venezuelan-like collapse. Or that because he's not "horrified" about something ("being horrified" about something tends to ruin a comedy show) then he is necessarily admiring that thing - that is a fallacy
Let me be very clear, I believe the socialist ideas are really misguided and unsound economically - I lived and watched France for many years go from bad to worse under socialist leadership and socialist economic policies.
But I can debate a socialist, I don't need to demonize him nor do a hysteric show about it.
Another take:
This guy here seems to be taking the exact opposite angle - he dislikes Oliver's show because he feels Oliver tarnishes Socialism's name !? Am I dreaming here ? When someone is attacked both from the left and from the right it's a pretty good sign that he is spot on ...
A third take:
That, there, looks and sounds like a lady I would not want to take seriously ...