How the 'John Oliver Effect' Is Having a Real-Life Impact

In one case he fails to address the perspective of the guest (which means he emotes a lot and asks questions they don't answer) and in the other they more or less just smile knowingly at each other for 5 minutes.

I suppose another way to say it is that much of the problem is that he tends to make the interview about himself.

Agree.. and same goes for our corporations.

To put it another way one is comedy news, the other is a comedy news magazine.

I don't think anyone feels the same about any other anchor on TV right now, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. I'm not saying Stewart is a journalist, him being able to sit on the fence like he does upsets guys on the networks, but he is effective with his hosting and I don't think he's doing anyone a disservice.

http://mocktheweek.wikia.com/wiki/John_Oliver#List_of_appear...

One of them even specifically told us about his strategy before he started his series of lectures. Basically, when people get bored they stop absorbing. Once in a while he will "trick your mind" (i.e. confuse it), and you will pay attention again. To be honest, its why I know as much about operating systems, locks and threads, as I do.

To make this story relevant. Humor is just that, a trick someone plays on your mind.

Maybe it's evolutionary? The people who when presented with a problem were able to keep their spirits up while tackling it perhaps had a better success rate then those who lost perspective on their responsibilities to their own emotional wellbeing.

It's not, but entertaining people is a good way to keep them engaged and comedy is a relatively easy way to entertain while telling.

When the content is dry and the delivery is dry and completely unengaging people just tune out, even if the subject is interesting in the abstract.

Comedy is not the only way, Attenborough is entertaining without being comedic, but it's a good way nonetheless.

And comedians are observers of human nature by trade, so they might have an easier time couching down and expressing more "serious" topics than some other entertainers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin

And if in-depth news analysis was something people wanted, well, the Economist would have a much higher subscription base than it currently does.

Same stuff was said seriously but when you hear someone describing with serious tone how reality is absurd you don't believe him.

{{Citation needed}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Morgan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrap_Saturday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_11_O%27Clock_Show

I run into a new website with this problem less frequently than once every few months. It's always the same few, like Time, still using their stupid hand-rolled content engines.

It's not my job to cater to special snowflake syndrome.

The Lottery I completely failed to see his point. It was funny no doubt. But gambling is pretty much common throughout the history everywhere. The only problem with lottery I see is that it is mostly government controlled. A more private enterprise in this field could have given more competition and made the overall business more profitable towards the consumers. But that was not his argument.

The Wealth Gap I dont know where to start in debunking these idiotic claims that are being circulated by even the educated people. Fact 1 for example: 50% of Americans belong to top 10% at least once in their lives. People do not deserve higher wages, they have to earn it and at the moment US is the best country that gives that opportunity to everyone without bias. That is why the likes of Jon Oliver come to this country from UK and crack jokes about very same things that made him rich.

Haven't see the "Miss America" one personally (and I won't) but I can tell you that that particular institution has been a laughingstock for decades. If he has something new to ridicule about it, kudos, but I doubt it changed any already fully-formed opinions from his viewers.