Hacker News Reader

Comment by Amorymeltzer | Hacker News Reader

The article says so briefly, but what makes his show wonderful is the comedy mixed-in with in-depth news research and assessment. It's the kind of thing you'd want or expect on a constant basis from massive, 24-hour news networks, but is either largely absent or lost in the noise. I personally gave to the Society of Women Engineers (http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/) after his show because he did such an effective job of conveying his message. More news programs could learn from him.

View on HN

I'm English and my first exposure to John Oliver was the segment he did on Civil Forfeiture which I found both interesting and entertaining. What struck me was how more like a British satire the show was. Do others think it matters that John is British and thus gets a little extra leeway (we do like our swearing) and can play the outsider role somewhat?

John was also a panellist on literally the first Mock the Week and few others during its 1st/2nd seasons and available on YouTube. Although I think he was still finding his style back then.

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

Slightly OT, if you like John Oliver, you may enjoy The Bugle, a podcast which features Oliver and his friend Andy Zaltzmann discussing world news, often focusing on America and the UK.

What I don't get is why it's necessary to have comedy to get people engaged? What is it that news requires the 'chaser' of comedy? I don't think we can attribute it to people being base/vulgar. Why can't a serious, well researched news program do well? Why does there have to be a chaser to make it successful?

So I'll put it to you this way, through highschool and university the best teachers or professors I ever had were comedians. Maybe "entertainers" is a better word.

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.

I think you might have a point there. For an instructor I can attribute it to personality or style. They know you a bit and try to engage but broadcast is simplex so i think its something else. I think they're trying to reproduce a type of gossipy jocular delivery of news. Maybe a bit like a town crier but still different.

My feeling is they're trying to seem like they're your friends, so you feel more engaged and listen and don't mind the bias because, you 'know them, and you accept that trait'. The unattached news delivery was not engaging us psychologically (for whatever reason we may need that) so they came up with this new recipe.

Never the less in other countries I've had news delivered pretty matter of factly --with built in biases of course but the news wasn't chased with comedy satire etc. There might have been irony but anyhow there's something about the need for comedy to make it digestible for us

This speaks very closely to my own development as an educator. Being a 'fonte of knowledge' is only engaging to student who're already intrinsically motivated to learn. With the expectation that every student be engaged and successful in their learning (regardless of the baggage or apathy they carry with them into the room) I've found myself actively attempting to improve the performance aspect of my job. It helps that my partner is an improv comedianne, but when I began this work (as as natural introvert) I didn't imagine that a daily self-review of my "performance" would consider timing and delivery as significantly. In any case, it works and because it works I try to improve this skill.

I think it's because finding the funny in even the worst news is an important part of being human. It's an important feature in our ability to cope and deal with things.

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.

> What I don't get is why it's necessary to have comedy to get people engaged?

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.

Because comedy provides a veneer of safety around an issue. The hahaha part of human nature is largely about reacting to being uncomfortable. People avoid things that just make them seriously uncomfortable, and comedy provides a safer, lighter way to deal with it. It also makes it harder for opponents to attack. It's really complex. It's nothing to do with vulgarity, vulgarity is just common in comedy because it's another thing that makes people uncomfortable.

The word "vulgar" originally meant, "in the common language people understand", instead of "the elite formal language of the elites". That's precisely the point here, to meet people where they are and communicate in a way that feels natural, not arcane and ritualized.

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

Cognitive dissonance puts viewers in tension. Laughter resolves that tension.

Hmmm, sort of like they are finding the jocular humor, the ironies, the satire _for_ you, so you don't have to. They are doing all the work for you and you get to sit down and _not_ think. So you get to eat your cake and have it, as it were.

Most people don't like sitting in front of a TV and being lectured and/or read to. They need something to satiate their need for acceptance. Comedy is far safer than the popular alternatives: FUD, hate, and conspiracy. A great personality is another good one, but those are rare.

I think television is terrified that you would turn to another channel, etc; Telling a joke keeps you for a few seconds, enough time to tell another. And then you're engaged. But you have to make the case to watch your show in the span of 30 seconds. The advantage of comedy is that you're always telling a joke - users can enter at any point and will stay to hear the rest.

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

60 minutes seems to do fairly well. I'd classify it as John Oliver-esque without the comedy.

In addition to what everyone else has said, even the most serious of the serious hard news reporters have never read the news in a completely dry monotone. Humans actively filter such boring stimuli; it isn't immoral to do so, it's inevitable.

It's because many millennials demand to be entertained and have the attention span of a gnat. There are younger folks that can tell you everything about Kardashian's new ass but can't name the Vice President.

Content is absurd so comedy as vessel is totally fitting.

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

The comedy makes it more engaging. Simple as that.

I would speculate that the audience for TV news these days might not be looking for well-researched news.

John Oliver's show is (relatively) well-researched. That's half of its value and appeal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com