|
zoux posted:LWT seems more willing to take a position than the other two, at least. Probably helps that HBO is a subscription based service, and currently enjoys massive success with ever rising ratings for Game of Thrones. John doesn't have to give too much of a drat about viewership ratings - though obviously dipping too low is still a problem - because its unlikely he'll be a massive determining factor in whether or not people are paying for the service. That's Game Of Thrones' job, and its unlikely a show like John's would ever get axed to put the budget to better use when he doesn't need all that much of a budget.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
zoux posted:LWT seems more willing to take a position than the other two, at least. Yeah, that has a lot to do with being on HBO. It's pretty hard to take a stand on much when your employer has to worry about stepping on the toes of its sponsors. Sometimes I'm surprised by what Colbert manages to get away with. Also, what the above post says.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
So it seems like the segment about Bill Nye was really showcasing how Bill's not only rather ineffectual in getting his point across to 'the other side' (it's a communication bridge that probably can't be crossed at this time) but how he's actually doing a disservice to the scientific community/crowd at large by willingly allowing himself to be this sort of easily disregardable figurehead of the idea of climate change by the owl deniers. He may have significantly come back into the limelight as a result, but it feels like it's either for misguided or greed-based purposes. The Climate Change deniers already exist in some sort of echo chamber of ideological comfort, but being able to have a specific figurehead to rally against seems like it helps to entrench ideas more successfully than having a constant steady exposure and pressure to alternate thoughts. It's harder to talk over a general social realization than a person. Drifter fucked around with this message at 01:13 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Drifter posted:So it seems like the segment about Bill Nye was really showcasing how Bill's not only rather ineffectual in getting his point across to 'the other side' (it's a communication bridge that probably can't be crossed at this time) but how he's actually doing a disservice to the scientific community/crowd at large by willingly allowing himself to be this sort of easily disregardable figurehead of the idea of climate change by the owl deniers. I wouldn't say that. Putting aside the question of how effective he actually is, it's much better that there's a recognizable figure of authority promoting the climate change issue than some random douche spouting the exact same couple talking-points on every network. At the very least, he does actively fight against the idea that there's a dichotomy to the issue and is easily one of the best people to have in that position. Also, it is monumentally easier to talk over a general social realization than a person, that's why people are so quick to use anecdotal and "personal" stories as proof for their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Is it just me or does high definition do no favors for John Oliver? I'm not the only one who can't stop looking at his teeth am I?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Is it just me or does high definition do no favors for John Oliver? John Oliver posted:What did you just say? Sure his teeth are a little non-normative but I think he looks totally fine. And his smoking hot wife does too, I'm sure. Not everyone needs or cares to have the crazy straight white teeth that might require surgery and chemical treatment. Also, his teeth look more short than they look 'british'. I'm not sure braces could fix that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Drifter posted:So it seems like the segment about Bill Nye was really showcasing how Bill's not only rather ineffectual in getting his point across to 'the other side' (it's a communication bridge that probably can't be crossed at this time) but how he's actually doing a disservice to the scientific community/crowd at large by willingly allowing himself to be this sort of easily disregardable figurehead of the idea of climate change by the owl deniers. I don't know how often you've seen scientists on the news but every single one of them gets bombarded with questions that range from completely irrelevant to downright aggressive.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Is it just me or does high definition do no favors for John Oliver? BRITISH DENTISTRY IS NOT ON TRIAL HERE
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
^^^ - It's not on trial because it's already lost.  Lumberjack Bonanza posted:I don't know how often you've seen scientists on the news but every single one of them gets bombarded with questions that range from completely irrelevant to downright aggressive. Scientists should only be going on the Late-night talkshows, of course. Most news is for silly people who want to affirm their beliefs and confirm their fears. Who wouldn't want to see a scientist play "smash an egg on my head" with Jimmy Fallon?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Scientists should only be going on the Late-night talkshows, of course. Most news is for silly people who want to affirm their beliefs and confirm their fears. Throw in a few facts about global warming and they'd probably get something done. Lord knows they can't get a word in edgewise on Fox Business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5ka418oeE This clip even starts out okay but then they bring in the attack dogs.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Throw in a few facts about global warming and they'd probably get something done. Lord knows they can't get a word in edgewise on Fox Business. I love the silliness of the whole thing. One guy's all, "...but look at what this stuff has brought us, in spite of global warming. In the 1900s per capita income was $500 and now it's $8000..." like that's some sort of good thing. The relative value of that $1 back in 1850 is ~21 times the value of the current dollar. Using that guy's numbers, back then, now, per capita would've been around 10k. But this whole thing still an incredibly simplified representation of cost and value. It's so frustrating that many people look at changes in things without understanding the context within that change. That applies to every thing, not just that silly money example. Drifter fucked around with this message at 19:57 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I love the silliness of the whole thing. One guy's all, "...but look at what this stuff has brought us, in spite of global warming. In the 1900s per capita income was $500 and now it's $8000..." like that's some sort of good thing. The relative value of that $1 back in 1850 is ~21 times the value of the current dollar. Using that guy's numbers, back then, now, per capita would've been around 10k. But this whole thing still an incredibly simplified representation of cost and value. You've also got to love how Bill begins to explain the human cost of having to move everyone away from the coast and one of those psychotic fuckwits says "But if we have money it'll be okay, right?" It's like they speak a different language.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
And that's why I think it's pointelss to have Bill or someone approach this in a form of a debate. The 'Bible is my science' cum Fox News crowd sees the world in a totally (wrongly) different way. There's no communication happening, they're just setting him up to be pilloried within their circle. But he still does it; it's utterly pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You've also got to love how Bill begins to explain the human cost of having to move everyone away from the coast and one of those psychotic fuckwits says "But if we have money it'll be okay, right?" At this point, I'm not all that uncertain Colbert's remarks/implications (I realise, wrong thread) that these people nigh-on worship capitalism is accurate. They prioritise a goddamn economic system over seemingly everything else, whether its fair politics, education, welfare, even their own supposed faith and adherence to a religion where the main dude's #1 rule was 'love people'. They'd be blowing a gasket if they knew about the AstraZeneca/Pfizer talks over here, because the government dares to involve itself with the dealings of big business to make sure it won't end up screwing us over in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Drifter posted:And that's why I think it's pointelss to have Bill or someone approach this in a form of a debate. The 'Bible is my science' cum Fox News crowd sees the world in a totally (wrongly) different way. There's no communication happening, they' just setting him up to be pilloried within their circle. But he still does it; it's utterly pointless. Yeah, I agree about that. I wish scientists in general stopped showing up on Fox. They must know by now they're just going to be lined up in front of a firing squad. They might get more traction if a bunch of prolific scientists boycotted the network; none of the diehard conservatives would care but maybe they could leverage it in order to tell everyone else how to make a difference or at least how we can start to cope with the way the climate's heading.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Is it just me or does high definition do no favors for John Oliver? Oh my god. Oh my god. Close to three years and my avatar is finally paying off. Totally worth it! Edit: Aww gently caress, you couldn't let me have this one, eh? mcbexx fucked around with this message at 21:58 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Yeah, I agree about that. I wish scientists in general stopped showing up on Fox. They must know by now they're just going to be lined up in front of a firing squad. They might get more traction if a bunch of prolific scientists boycotted the network; none of the diehard conservatives would care but maybe they could leverage it in order to tell everyone else how to make a difference or at least how we can start to cope with the way the climate's heading. That won't really change much either because the foundation of Fox News is putting itself on the cross of the LIEBERAL MEDIA and being the "one true news source" to the millions and millions of persecution-complex-affected retards who believe that poo poo and watch the channel. By the law of averages they'll be able to get some unscrupulous shitlord in a lab coat to tell them that global warming is actually good for life on this planet, and the echo chamber will be intact and tightly sealed. Don't take this to mean I think scientists or anyone with a grain of sense or a moral compass should go on a Fox channel, at best it would be a complete waste of time for them.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
raditts posted:That won't really change much either because the foundation of Fox News is putting itself on the cross of the LIEBERAL MEDIA and being the "one true news source" to the millions and millions of persecution-complex-affected retards who believe that poo poo and watch the channel. By the law of averages they'll be able to get some unscrupulous shitlord in a lab coat to tell them that global warming is actually good for life on this planet, and the echo chamber will be intact and tightly sealed. I'm considering Fox drones as mostly unsavable. They'll probably by coastal property just to spite the snooty scientists telling them differently. There are plenty of normal people who don't understand global warming, ways to help lessen its impact, and how to reduce our dependence on oil.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
mcbexx posted:Oh my god. Oh my god. Close to three years and my avatar is finally paying off. If it helps soften the blow, I immediately thought of your avatar after the feed line. Really enjoying this show - it has all the best features of the Bugle and of the Daily Show, as well as bits of the Onion. It also reminds me of an old Armando Ianucci BBC show - the Friday Night Armistice, if any UK goons remember that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Drifter posted:So it seems like the segment about Bill Nye was really showcasing how Bill's not only rather ineffectual in getting his point across to 'the other side' (it's a communication bridge that probably can't be crossed at this time) but how he's actually doing a disservice to the scientific community/crowd at large by willingly allowing himself to be this sort of easily disregardable figurehead of the idea of climate change by the owl deniers. The thing that gets me disagreeing with you is that Bill Nye is the silliest of scientists that the world can recognize. He does nothing to feed the "Big Science" or oppressive atheist regime these people have developed in their minds because he's inherently goofy. You can't feel victory if your one scientist you've got to back your position is opposite someone kids love. Like winning an argument against Big Bird, there's no takeaway victory there. But it's kind of a best of both worlds type thing because Bill Nye can bring the argument to a forum but he also has this persona which is likable so he's a good face to go on these pointless "debates". I don't know if it's better that they have no dissenting voice on their channels or have one shouted over, but if it has to the latter, I'd prefer to think that having Bill Nye seem like he makes a valid point between the nonsensical statements thrown around, it might sink into one person out of a thousand who watch it. Unopposed I doubt there'd be much call to really pay attention to what's being said. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Get (re)famous any way you can and then use your fame to promote positive change? I can see it, and I can to a point agree. Maybe sacrificing yourself in those 'debates' serves to promote discussion outside of those debates between people at home/work/recreation. He's only goofy if you have watched his show in the past. If you're not aware of his history overly much he's just another man in a Drifter fucked around with this message at 02:10 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
There are not many smart people with a science background who are good on camera. It's pretty much him and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Even ones who aren't incompetent on TV are just a bunch of "some guy"s. I recall there were plenty of scientists who aren't Bill or NDT on The Daily Show or Colbert shilling their books, but I can't remember what many of them actually said. People under 22 or over 35 might not care that Bill once had a popular PBS program, but he has a good screen presence and persona that can still get through to people who are listening. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Nice NoHo shout out!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
THIS IS AWESOME!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Start the reactor,
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Frank Luntz, master of Mansplaining 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
That was great, top to bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Awesome episode. I hope Colbert does interviews like that when he takes over The Late Show. That line about the American dream--
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
It was a great episode; this show has landed, I am glad that John has managed to give his show a different vibe than TDS.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Yeah I've gotta say I enjoy LWT way more than TDS. I think having more time to get in-depth on stuff and being able to talk about multiple topics rather than "1 topic, commercial, maybe some correspondent stuff, commercial, interview" allows the show to breathe a bit more. Plus I think the interviews are always the terrible part of talk shows, but there is some value to them so I like how LWT does a little bit of it and puts the rest online.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
"So you knew of a potentially fatal ignition problem for 13 years. Let's be clear, that means a child attending her first day of school the day you found out would be old enough to die driving one of your cars the day you loving did something about it." That's a tremendous line, dripping with righteous fury from the text alone, and Oliver nailed it in a way Stewart never could.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Digging the show. That whole GM thing was pretty upsetting with how little deterrence and punishment there is for companies (I mean, it's the same old story, so it's actually hard to remain upset these days), and I liked the interview with Zakaria - the India talk was interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
I dunno they could've gone into a little more (any) detail on the growth of right-wing Hindu nationalism and Modi's role in sectarian violence as the chief minister of Gujarat.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I dunno they could've gone into a little more (any) detail on the growth of right-wing Hindu nationalism and Modi's role in sectarian violence as the chief minister of Gujarat. They touched on the latter in the first episode.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I love Shep Smith
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:I love Shep Smith It's always incredible how goddamnededly stupid those people are.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
That GM segment was wonderfully vicious. I think they've got the pacing down now where they're not rushing through everything like the first couple of episodes. If Oliver can show he can handle long form interviews on a consistent basis I think they should look into stretching the show to an hour.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
I think the interview worked because it was more akin to the kind that tends to happen mid-show on TDS and TCR - rather than someone stepping on to promote a book or whatever, Oliver was asking Zakaria to better clarify the political situation. It flowed from and continued the commentary, and I honestly don't think this episode's coverage would have been complete without it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I dunno they could've gone into a little more (any) detail on the growth of right-wing Hindu nationalism and Modi's role in sectarian violence as the chief minister of Gujarat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAR3cb1V_ss
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Scorchy posted:That GM segment was wonderfully vicious. I love how far he can take it, not having to worry about corporate sponsorship.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
