43 thoughts on “Late-Night Journalism

  1. after seeing some of these late night news segments i became dumber than i was before watching them

  2. I must politely disagree with you on several of the points made here. First and foremost, these are comedy shows and should not be held to the level of expectations for news pieces. By the very nature of the shows, they will have more bias than normal, and use big language, it is a performance. Most of your statements are fine and have multiple sides to the argument, which I could see from both points of view. Full frontal for example. You point out the lack of statistics and say that a video segment of a white woman saying she doesn't like black people isn't very convincing or making a proper argument. But it can also be taken that she was viewing public opinions on it, and was showing some opinions that people had. Did she show statistics, no. was the segment invalid or contribute nothing to the argument, also no. But on your Stephen Colbert segment, you start to waver in this rigor. You criticize his use of the word 'attack' pertaining to the senator's tweet against another senator. But if the perceived intent of the tweet was to damage him in any way, his reputation or otherwise, then it would classify as an attack. It is also a commonly used work in journalism and pop culture to describe something that is not intended to help someone. So focusing so clearly on that really detracted from your argument. Additionally, when you criticized him for only using part of the quote, that is just how quoting works. I would refer you to the MLA standard for quoting, in which they specifically mention what should happen if two parts from one segment are to be joined while leaving out some middle section. Also, something I find rather ironic is that you then didn't proceed to show the full clip (just something to note). Overall, I think these were rather weak arguments that do not have very much value and are not presented fairly. It would appear that you are taking place in some of the things you "preach" against. Also, these are COMEDY SHOWS.

  3. They are all like this, always. There are no good examples, even their more honest sketches are riddled with lies/misinformation. It is propaganda meant to poison youths, pure and simple.

  4. The worst thing about political satire nowadays is the blatant bias shown by these modern satirists. True political satire should be without bias to one side or another. They’re supposed to point out the ridiculousness found in all sides, not push their political beliefs in the form of jokes.

  5. Leno went political on The Tonight Show well before Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show as host. Plus, The Daily Show was just Comedy Central’s replacement for Politically Incorrect, when Bill Maher took his political/comedy show to ABC.

  6. I stopped watching Seth Myers when he said that the pope was homophobic because of something he wrote without even quoting what was written. My reaction was “they took it out of context didn’t they? They have to have taken it out of context…”

  7. If you're going to criticize late night shows liberal bias. Wouldn't it help to criticize Fox news "commentary" shows as well? It seems to me you lean too much to criticize the left to the point I'm starting to believe your channel is just propaganda

  8. I don't think it is political bias so much as it is laziness. They just don't bother to really go that deep into things, and that bugs me. John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah (Sometimes) do this correctly and masterfully. The others just fall flat.

  9. 5:00 here's the joke: Meyer is implying that Gohmer lifted the story from Remember the Titans because he couldn't think of a time he got along well with a black person.

  10. "Just because they're supposed to be funny does not mean they can't be criticized when they aren't well spoken."

    Big facts

  11. I have seen and called out several times each of these hosts has gotten lazy or shot in the wrong direction on an issue, and I can see how Meyers dropped the ball in most instances you cite. But I wonder if today you would still so blithely defend a wealthy white politician's right to give advice as though they were black. It seems, though it was inelegantly offered, that Giuliani would do well to respect that he cannot claim the ability to imagine the reality of being black any more than he could offer useful information on what it would be like to be any other ethnicity. And given the realities facing black people in America, contrasting Giuliani's level of privileged and disconnect from common people, that particular hypothetical is breathtakingly insensitive, and probably best left unsaid. Meyers might have been crass, but Giuliani was far more so. Frankly more politicians might benefit from occasionally keeping their advice to themselves.

  12. I find a few of these arguments missing context. Right wingers are being racist but only shows one racist act implies the argument is valid if they show every right wing racist act they can in their time slot? That doesnt make much sense. But besides that spot on.

  13. Coming here two years later… I enjoy your take on things even if I don't agree with them, but your analysis of Colbert felt awkward and one-sided to me. You acknowledge that Rep. Walker is referencing the Woolworth's sit-ins, and you acknowledge that Walker most likely knew John Lewis had led some of the sit-ins. Saying "the thing you're doing now is an insult to the great thing you did before" is both an attack ("you are tarnishing your own legacy") and a lecture (educating Lewis about what a "real" sit-in is).

    Either Walker knew and intentionally tried to demean and condescend to Lewis's present sit-in, or he didn't know, and he's trying to "educate" Lewis. Either way is certainly an attack.

    Additionally, re: Seth Meyers's "that's just a fact" – he's making a claim about racism that is well-known and has been proven multiple times over. If you don't know what he's talking about, perhaps it's on you to do some homework. We don't need to rehash Newton every time we talk about gravity.

  14. I agree with your counter arguments but I wanna beef up the "they are just joking" excuse: I feel its meant to be something of an in joke, something where if you find humor in it regardless of the fallacy its a nice release for the tenseness that is naturally in politics. Colbert specifically comes across as a straw man for a particular agenda and purposely misrepresents arguments as an uninformed person of extreme opinion may be inclined to do, that overall idea being the joke. I can't speak of the other people mentioned as I am only familiar with the Colbert character.

  15. This video just didn't work for me, sorry. It completely misses the point and lacks exactly the coherence that the attacked bits allegedly have. Calling a fucking COMEDY SHOW a "disgrace" after criticizing that in said comedy show some things are being exaggerated… did he even listen to himself when he wrote this? The dumbest thing about this video is how the narrator complains about jokes "ad hominem" and in the outtro he literally inserts "some people don't know how stupid they are"… wow he's so sophisticated… not.
    And apparently people don't really feel that way like he does, since the late night shows massively gained popularity since 2016. Apparently they do something right.

  16. It seems to me that John Oliver is doing a better job, not perfect, but at least he often consider his adversaries point of view, and my perception of his show, is that it invites to laughs more at arguments. But it's true that he definitely has a political agenda (not as obvious as fox news…but still…). Back on the bright side, not being American, I still appreciate his commentary on different themes such as pyramidal schemes, that are supported by studies and statistics.

  17. Well they are comedians and not journalists but maybe you're right. Maybe it's time they stepped up their game a little and started getting the facts right. What do you think of John Oliver? He seems to always want to give the other side the best chance possible, to steal man them but I don't fact check him. Lol.

  18. It’s leaking into Britain. Russell Howard (whilst debatable as the typical late-night show) and Nish Kumar (spelling?) definitely have found their genesis in these examples

  19. This is why I like John Oliver. He's guilty of the reductive jokes occasionally, but overall, he discusses topics that very few ever talk about and provides sufficient evidence to back up his claims.

  20. People don’t watch late night to learn news, they do it specifically because it is skewed on purpose. They are not journalists and it is well known they are comedians.

  21. List a single legitimate reason in support of brexit please? I haven’t seen any yet and I’ve been following it for quite some time…

  22. I appreciate how you criticize both sides. The left here and Trump and his people in the newer videos. It really helps seeing the faults within your own side, without creating hatred or a dismissive attitude towards a supposed enemy. Of course, if someone is first introduced to your videos that oppose them, they might start off on the wrong foot and therefore have this happen anyway, but having videos criticizing both sides at least limits the possibility of this happening. I have personally learned about mistakes I didn't know I made from watching these videos, and I consider myself relatively good at debating and keeping debates civil and on the point. It is really helpful to have someone like you who summarizes bad arguments and how to avoid them.

  23. 11:35 nope you got this wrong. not a country but an entire fucking continent, it's like me saying "pff, Asians, I'm right". ow and BTW, yeah ofc its a European thing because KKK is from Europe.

  24. Of the late night people I think Jon Oliver is the best at representing investigative journalism and I think Bill Maher’s is the best at appearing like mainstream news rather than just cheap laughs at politics by comedians. And that isn’t necessarily a compliment.

    I think the issue isn’t that these late night people aren’t accurate. I’d say the bigger issue is that people are treating them like intellectual authorities. The better way to utilize them is for some laughs with an understanding that they are trying to be funny while in funny mode. What’s more important is looking into the topics by better, more fair and transparent sources first.

    I do think late night is also sometimes a step in the pathways for young people to start to looking into better understand the bigger complex issues. People ought to remember foolish the average 18 year is compared to the average 25 year old. Sophisticated political awareness is a constant struggle anyone and it’s even harder when your just dipping your toe into politics.

    There are a lot of people who don’t even know or care about what is being discussed on late night comedy shows. Let alone what is going on in real journalism. And that is rather horrifying.

    There are also some types of shows which are worse than late night. I’d argue that Fox News, Breitbart and Alex Jones alone are all often worse than late night or nothing for a person’s political understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *