This reminds me that this is what annoys me about comedians doing news. Everyone thinks their favorite late night talk show host is better news because they raise awareness in a digestible format. But they arent willing to realize that every single topic - if it is on their show - is presented in a pejorative view.
Between the quick cuts to “here’s a funny photoshop” (said in John Oliver’s voice), it should be a red flag that they aren’t actually balancing out the purpose of an organization or system or how it got to be that way
Its just “system you aren't a part of is bad, we raised awareness, we did it you’re informed!”
Trevor Noah, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, John Oliver, Hasan Minhaj, all do/did it the same
This bothers me. All part of the same polarizing filter bubbles we want to think that only people with different beliefs are in.
I'm reminded of John Stewart on a Tucker Carlson show 15 years ago where Stewart had to explain the difference between his Comedy Central comedy show and Tucker's News show.
I didn't know all the right news was so non-pejorative. Maybe if they'd add a laugh track it would be more entertaining.
It doesnt fix the adage: if you dont watch the news you are uninformed, if you do watch the need you are misinformed
Comedy news is not fixing this by presenting everything as the controversy of the day. They are all still omitting lots and are just aiming to rile you up like the others. “But its funny and feels good and isnt Fox or OAN so it must be balanced!” is really what many of the viewers feel.
I don’t know how people can stand the John Oliver/Hasan Minhaj schtick. The shows are so formulaic with some out of context clip followed by a crude analogy. “That would be like if so and so did this and that and blah blah”.
Research shows that comedy "news" watchers are generally better informed than most other news station watcher. The question is of the comedians are bringing people up or down from where'd they be otherwise.
“Research” shows literally whatever you want it to show. So unless you’re going to link to the “research” for examination, nobody should be taking your claim very seriously.
Who claimed it reflects “most research”? Certainly not me.
My point is that you can find “research” to support any idea that you want it to support. So without a citation, the prefix “research shows...” is effectively meaningless.
> Who claimed it reflects “most research”? Certainly not me.
Sure you did. You declared that Research = shows literally whatever you want it to show. By presenting Research without any limitation, you left the broad inferences in place.
If you wanted to restrict the reach of your declaration, you could have qualified it as 'some research' or 'there is research'.
Ok this is getting ridiculous. You actually interpreted what I wrote as “every single piece of research ever made shows whatever you want it to show?” Or is it possible (likely?) that you’re just nitpicking?
Please review HN guidelines.
“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”
With that in mind I reiterate: “research shows what you want it to show”.
"If you think [single news source] is giving you good news coverage, you are wrong" seems true in general. You need multiple sources if you want to escape bias.
Having comedians in your news diet is quite healthy. A comedian can say things that nobody else would dare to say.
That was true when Stewart's show started, back when being anti-war was pretty unpopular but I don't think it's true in the past decade.
Lorne Michaels (SNL) was interviewed recently and asked about how the comedy skits had changed. He said they could not air today anything like the stuff they did in the 70's and 80's.
> A comedian can say things that nobody else would dare to say.
More to the point, some report on important topics that news orgs don't find sexy enough to cover (eg: Investor-state dispute settlements [corporate sovereignty]).
