Tuesday, October 25, 2016

The John Oliver Effect

(Democracy Chronicals/Creative Commons)
One of my guilty pleasures is curling up with my laptop or phone and binge watching episodes of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. There is something about him that I instantly like; maybe it's the British accent or his glasses. It looks like I'm not alone in liking him, either. Even though the show is only two years old, 4.6 million people tuned in to watch his show every week in 2015, according to an HBO press release. The show's Youtube channel alone has 4,185,191 subscribers with 902,822,519 million views.

And maybe that's the beauty of it. When it comes to late-night talk show hosts, interviews with celebrities, comedy bits and performances are just as important to the shows as the host's own commentary and content--both satirical and serious--on social issues and current events. News satire shows such as The Daily News Show with Jon Stewart  and The Colbert Report had already popularized the genre before HBO started airing Oliver’s show each Sunday, but Oliver--who was a writer and occaisional stand-in host for Stewart--has gained some celebrity in his own right based on the content of his shows.

“Comedians mock our cultural and political institutions on TV all the time.” Victor Luckerson wrote in an article for TIME, “But it’s not every day that a comic’s jokes crash a government website or directly inspire legislators to push for new laws.”

The typical Last Week Tonight episode goes as follows. Oliver recaps the week, laced with snarky jokes and humor (example). Then Oliver delves into the main part of the show that focuses on a particular issue such as the death penalty, the legitimacy of scientific studies and doping. Although the topics Oliver focuses on are sometimes grim and controversial, Oliver still manages to bring sketches, jokes and analogies that tastefully lighten the mood and dispels negative emotion through laughter.

One example of this was in Oliver’s opening moments of a segment on abortion, in which he addressed Americans who were against abortion under all circumstances, “Frankly, you are excused from watching the rest of this, but do rejoin us at 11:29 because once I’m done talking about this we’ll all be watching a video featuring a bucket of sloths and I promise you it is almost violently delightful.”

During the segment Oliver ran soundbites and referenced stories about the difficulties of state abortion laws, many of which were meant to invoke a sense of sadness or anger as a way to persuade viewers on paying attention to abortion policy issues going on in the country. Yet, not only did Oliver mock politicians for their policies, he delivered on his promise at the end of the show by showing the sloth video and showing a real sloth in the studio.



Humor has always been used to give social commentary (“Never speak disrespectfully of society, Algernon,” Lady Augusta Blackwell chided in Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, “Only people who cannot get into it do that”). The humorous appeals Oliver makes to offset the tension or heavy emotion in his segments might be a bit ridiculous, but that just makes Oliver seem that more appealing. He’s able to appear like he knows the issues and his sense of humor lightens the mood and makes audiences more open to what he has to say.

With that in mind, having such a command over his audience has led to what Luckerson called “The John Oliver Effect.” This effect was felt when the FCC website servers crashed after Oliver urged them to engage with the regulatory body regarding net neutrality. About two days after Oliver criticized Miss America Organization assertion that it is the largest provder of scholarships for women, one of the organizations John Oliver mentioned, the Society of Women Engineers, received $25,000 in donations. When Oliver established his own church to exploit how easy it is for televagelists to take money from people, he received $70,000 from “church-member” contributions that he ultimately donated to Doctors Without Borders. Luckerson also attributes Oliver’s segment on civil forefeiture as the reason why Attorney General Eric Holder would enact limitations on the law.

Even though Oliver’s show is news satire, the reach and impact of some of his shows--such as where he roasted Trump and “Donald Drumpf” became a popular search term--is the kind that many journalists aspire to have. Many of the segments on his show are well-researched, as well; according to NPR he has four researchers on his team with journalism backgrounds.

But as Oliver said himself in that same piece, he has a firm opinion on whether his work can actually be considered journalism:

No. There's a pretty simple answer to that. No, it is not. No, we are a comedy show so everything we do is in pursuit of comedy. ... It's confusing to me somehow the fact that this is often the line of questioning. ... It almost makes me feel like, when people say: "This is journalism," it almost makes me feel like: Am I a terrible comedian? ... Is it like looking at a sculptor and saying: "Well it's not art, so are you trying to build a wall? What exactly are you working on here?"

As a journalism major, I don’t consider his work as journalism in the traditional sense, where many of his presentations, it can be argued, are skewed with a liberal bias. I do, however, know that what journalism looks like changes all the time (in the old days, for instance, a journalist would write “this reporter” when referencing himself or herself, but today it’s acceptable to use “I” and “me”). Perhaps Oliver's brand of comedy will become an acceptable way of receiving the news, especially now that newspapers are undergoing massive changes...and much for the worse.



But while his work isn’t traditional journalism, it seems to me that Oliver’s show puts a slightly higher emphasis on “news” in “news satire” than some of his contemporaries. Instead of merely reacting to the week’s news cycle, Oliver delves into issues and hosts a show that gives at least the impression of being extremely well-researched. And regardless of Oliver’s intentions, the result of mixing an in-depth look at journalism with humor makes people more open to taking in the information and reacting to it--which they are, to the tune of millions each week.

Perhaps I should take a class on how to be a comedian. “The Carreon Effect” has a nice ring to it.

7 comments:

  1. This is a really awesome post and I totally agree.

    As someone who is personally a fan of John Oliver, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and so on I do think this is a new means of getting everyones attention. Like you said, not a traditional kind of Journalism but maybe one that is more effective and can be better received by the public.

    Maybe the liberal bias, as you mentioned, may be an issue for others who want to look at it from a non-partisan perspective, but their ability to inform others about the issues today in a more entertaining manner is a new approach that I feel will resonate best with our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked this post a lot. I agree, John Oliver is not a real journalist. But instead of trying to categorize him into a source of news that we are accustomed to, perhaps it is more sensible acknowledge that maybe comedy/entertainment could instead be seen as a legitimate news source. I can name several TV shows I binge watch that are inarguably fiction that have influenced my outlook on the real world. Shows like Scandal made me question things in politics, Orange is the New Black takes a critical look at the prison system. John Oliver, on the other hand uses real facts and real events to make his point. It's what our generation is accustomed to, and I think it works.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your conclusion too, and I think the influence of dominance like Oliver, Stewart and Colbert represent our shifting method of information-sharing; the rise and prominence of technology now favors the lateral model versus the top-down one, where established news organizations were solely responsible for headlines. Now, more and more people are relying on alternative news sources in that "anti-establishment" sentiment that's caught fire this year, and while most of the above talk-shows mentioned have an undeniable liberal bias, their humor can better transcend partisanship than FOX or MSNBC. I wouldn't be surprised if that role only escalates in the future, and these comedians find more intense pressure to adopt a more journalistic approach. Whether or not that's a good thing is debatable, but the influence over their audience is powerful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Entertainment has become attached to every aspect of human life, including politics and news. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, as it makes it more approachable while also making it harder to take anything very seriously. John Oliver's take on current events is always a good watch, but his opinions are often taken as gospel even though his main objective is not to teach or to offer the unbiased truth, but to entertain an audience. He is an incredibly smart person and his insights are often both gut busting and thought provoking, but he should always be taken with a large grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think this is really interesting. I have always watched shows like his as less "news", more "research inspiration"- meaning that if I see something on one of these comedy news shows that I have not already heard about, I will usually go on to research it. In that way, I have learned a LOT from comedians like John Oliver and Colbert, but I would not have actually learned real information without adding my own research to it. Unfortunately, many don't go on to research anything after watching and accept the comedy at face value. Do we only have the attention span for news when it is funny or entertaining?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, the blogging website deleted my first post and now I have to make another comment on this post. I am very frustrated with blogger and wordpress.

    In my opinion, John Oliver, while being very smart, is very destructive to the progressive cause. While I do not agree with that neo-nazi asshole, piece-of-shit Richard Spencer, I still think John Oliver does not properly represent the Left.

    In a a sense, John Oliver embodies the conundrum many leftists find themselves in. An important question remains: When engaging with John Oliver, should progressives give in to the faux leftism of television progressives?

    In my opinion, if we are to defeat the fascism of Donald Trump and Richard Spencer, we cannot capitulate to to the politics of Stephen Colbert and John Oliver. We need a working class program that does not talk down to working people but, instead, provides them with serious economic solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ^ First, Dara I feel your pain. Second, I absolutely love John Oliver and regularly watch his show as well. The part you have in your piece where Oliver is saying his show is obviously not journalism shows one of the reasons I think he is great. And yet, at the same time I look at these other supposedly "real news stations" and I have to question, are these people really journalists either? So much of our news we get is biased but at least in shows like Last Week Tonight and The Daily Show, you know you are watching a liberal political comedy show.
    To me it seems to be more of an issue that other news sources are so unreliable with what they are reporting that I actually find myself turning to shows like John Oliver to get news because at least I know what I will be getting.

    ReplyDelete