Late-Night Journalism

[@louisvictor3473]

"If you didn't even laugh, it was a complete waste of oxygen". I am stealing that.

[@steliostoulis1875]

Everyone will

[@anrick1362]

200th like. What do I win?

[@gloriouscontent3538]

I mean, if you're not choking maybe you're doing it wrong.

[@hogannull7022]

This channels old vids are super altright cringe.

[@gifzwerk]

...and of energy and time

[@TheRenegadeMonk]

I wonder how many journalistic mainstream news shows consistently meet the standards you are expecting of comedy shows.

[@Ed-quadF]

Good point. My guess is none.

[@jojodelacroix]

This is honestly exactly what I was thinking. A lot of these arguments are fair but I think actual news channels are doing just as much if not more harm. For instance a lot of times shows will misuse facts or statistics out of context to prove a point they don't really prove.

[@TheJudge064]

@@jojodelacroix But that doesn't mean that these shows don't have to follow the rules of journalism just because others don't. That's almost like saying that it is ok to break the law since there are a lot of people have done so anyway.

[@pre-packaged_9692]

Yes! No standards for anyone!! Many people get their news from these 'comedy shows' so no, their jokes do not excuse these shows' tendency to mislead the public.

[@aixamagr2897]

They should all be held to a high standard. To say these show have a massive influence on voters is an understatement. Given their extremely biased nature, they need to be considered as ''colluding'' to influence elections. That is after all exactly what they are doing and they know it.

[@Knightlyfrog]

Remember when John Stewart used to criticize others for this kind of thing? Going as far as to tell them, "Your're hurting us." Ever wonder if the real reason he left the Daily Show was because he could see himself becoming what he hated?

[@Leivve]

He left because he felt like he was a "shit miner." He retired because the grind of "Mining for shit" was getting to him after so long.

[@Azaism]

@@Leivve You say that as if the real reason and the pubicly stated reason can't be different.

[@Seth9809]

I loved John Stewart, he attacked everyone rather then picking a camp and parroting what he was told to say.

[@aixamagr2897]

@@Seth9809 No he wasn't that clean. He was just better at covering his bias. He was very careful to not criticize Obama too harshly and Islam as well.

[@hogannull7022]

He left to do social and civil rights activism. You know, something no republican is doing or will ever do.

[@jizunk_in_my_trizunk]

Protip: take everything with, at the very least, one grain of salt.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

I take it with a whole bag of salt, minimum.

[@mccookies3664]

More grains of salt means more trust, because salt used to be currency. Please learn this. Spread the word. It pisses me off.

[@trashman4500]

I use it with the combined salt from the 2016 election, Counter Strike, and Call of Duty.

[@bitpumpkinn2923]

@@mccookies3664 wow maybe he meant that

[@gloriouscontent3538]

That's a recipe for heart disease.

[@a.i.l1074]

"Hypothetically Black Rudy Giuliani" Just found a name for my new math rock band, thanks :)

[@elementofbadhumor3859]

Write a song called exponential where the tempo increases every ten-twenty seconds

[@stupid132435]

People don't care about facts anymore. They just want to affirm their own prejudices and preferences. Critical thinking is apparently a rare talent in society.

[@alfredpeverly2093]

This is why I want to become a philosophy professor to teach it

[@ciaranmoogmcneill1001]

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.

[@zoomspilo6798]

That part always peeved me about this video, glad I'm not the only person who noticed.

[@ehsbe1056]

Ohh, I mean I just thought he was name-dropping the movie as a comparison, and its kinda easy to get that impression of you don’t think about it, but it’s actually a pretty decent dig.

[@arturravenbite1693]

I think you're giving the host way too much credit

[@bloodrune329]

@@arturravenbite1693 reading deeply into a direct quote from someone to comfort their own distorted views

[@vaylonkenadell]

Yeah, this channel intentionally overlooked that point because it's right-wing propaganda. Of _course_ it's going to support a racist insurrectionist.

[@TheJophus13]

it's sad because most young americans get their news from these shows. sure they are funny but alot of people are swayed by these half truths.

[@Horny_Fruit_Flies]

Though I've also seen some older Americans take "sources" like BreitBart and InfoWars seriously, when they the LEAST reliable sources of info available.

[@PrinceSnot]

i wouldnt even say theyre funny. Jesus christ the jokes are so cringey the only reason i tune in anymore is for the mystery musical guest

[@SuperSupermanX1999]

Horny Fruit Flies So what? That doesn't make either of them ok. All you've really done there is say "yeah? but what about..."

[@blackearl7891]

Not really, I see them for laughs. I kinda don't watch t.v. for news but read newspaper and articles. 24 tv network take too long to get the point, and too much gossip for it to be taken seriously, as well considering most articles are about 2 to 3 min long to read at most and most tv shows take a 10 min to 20 minute segment, I rather save 18 minutes to get to the point.

[@miniclip1162]

so true! i WISH i got thought this in school. i'm about to look for a book that teaches you these fallacies. you have any recommendations?

[@rocco_toronto]

I would really like to know your opinion on John Oliver and the 'main stories' on his show

[@theananyo]

The line between political commentary and political comedy has recently been blurred. That's the issue.

[@swine13]

Yeah because up until now, political commentary was always a gleaming beacon of honesty, integrity and openness 😒

[@theananyo]

@@swine13 never said that.

[@megauser8512]

Sad but true!

[@JayV27]

19:06 "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" -Shakespeare

[@youngbloodfantasy91]

I feel all late night TV shows have become homogeneous. All of them have the same slant; all of them reek of mediocre humor, and all of them invite people, including my friends, to cite them as actual sources for relevant news information. For instance, John Oliver popularized the whole "Drumpf" thing and I don't understand how that is even remotely funny or satirical. It's like if I called Mickey Rooney "Joe Yule" when speaking about him as a person and his acting. Does anyone actually care about Trump's non-Anglicized name? And yet, some of my friends exclaim "LOOKS LIKE *DRUMPF* IS SINKING IN THE POLLS." What difference does it make that you call him Trump or Drumpf?! Again, where is the comedy in that?! Speaking of people like Seth Meyers, who demonstrates such an obvious slant, it seems all night shows reflect that too. Colbert, at least, represented a comical conservative, but everyone else seems to present the same viewpoint. This of course means these shows recycle the same formula. In addition, given that they're supposed to be comedy segments, obviously some of the writers are going to slack on details and fact-checking. These people are not here for a debate. They are here to be inflammatory and make off-color remarks and call it "humor," when in reality they are all shoddy attempts at sounding politically relevant. I don't mind observational humor and potshots as much as the next person, but if it's just insulting and acting smug, then it's not funny to me. It's simply one-dimensional tripe. I dunno, maybe my humor is a far off cry from these so-called news outlets which people use as credible sources for godforsaken reasons, but I will be yet another to say they are boring, manufactured, and grossly biased.

[@Firebird20XX]

Not to defy you but I'm pretty sure Colbert and Stewart are horrified at the idea of their shows being used as a straight news source, while Oliver has said that while he tries to bring awareness to big issues he and his crew are flabbergasted at the idea of being treated as journalists when they're just entertainers. When have they ever deliberately tried to make people view them as legit news?

[@Firebird20XX]

***** Yes, I read it. He's got good points. All I'm taking issue with is his suggestion that all the late night shows "invite people...to cite them as actual sources for relevant news information." I can't say I've ever seen any of them actually try to invite people to take them as serious news sources. I never said anything about the validity of his points, only that I disagreed with the way that was worded.

[@txdmsk]

I'm not sure they slack on details or fact-checking. I think it's just as likely that they try to push their political views or are epistemologically incompetent.

[@charlesvan13]

The "Drumpf" "joke" about Trump is about as funny poking fun of Obama's middle name. The NY Times even reported that Trump's family last used that spelling in 1680. So the attempted joke isn't even accurate.

[@charlesvan13]

Not to mention the fact that regressives have no self-consciousness. The whole joke is "Ha ha, Trump had a funny sounding name." They always accuse others of bigotry for that.

[@MarcAlcatraz]

when a counter arguments video is 20 min long, you know shit is about to go down

[@Raziberry]

Great video, and exactly why I stopped watching late night television.

[@samuelbach1631]

David Razi hi David

[@Nox444]

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.

[@Kaiwala]

I was looking for this comment, as John Oliver is the only one I've ever actually watched. Granted I did absorb the information mindlessly and didn't put in the effort to be critical of what he was actually saying, so when I saw this video I wanted to see if he was actually a good role model or not. I'll probably watch some more of his videos now and be more critical of them to see if he actually holds up, because I don't remember these sort of red flags popping up when I watched him. If he does turn out to be just like the rest though, It'll just be like how I used to watch LeafyIsHere all the time before finding out that his videos are rather bad.

[@fjlkagudpgo4884]

@@Kaiwala yeeeea +1! I feel represented now.

[@Innengelaender]

Same goes for Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. Imho less jokes that fall flat but a similar journalistic approach/research to a wide variaty of topics that deserve much more attrntion.

[@choosetolivefree]

Yea. Did you fact check any of Oliver's content yourself? Or did you just accept the evidence he presented at face value, without engaging in any critical thought? I know I'd put my money on you having not done any genuine and original research in order to fact check the information Oliver might disseminate. I don't watch him, therefore I don't have an opinion about him. But I do have an opinion about the majority of Americans, and that is that they are incredibly easy to deceive because no one engages in critical thinking, nor are Americans very good at being able to discern between fact and fiction

[@Nox444]

​@@choosetolivefree Yes, mate, I actually do my own research lol. That's kind of the entire reason I brought it up because he'll discuss a topic that's never really been on my radar and will make me want to look it up on my own. But the man sites his sources. Why don't you actually watch the show and judge for yourself how gullible I am? Kind of seems like you're the one making the assumptions w/o much evidence here since you're judging my skepticism on two sentences.

[@Jcolinsol]

Good comedy comes from the truth. This comedy is mere propaganda, and that's why people react negatively.

[@charlesvan13]

How is it even appropriate for an American, Samantha Bee, to get smug over a British democratic political issue. Are Sweden and Switzerland naughty for not being in the EU? How is it even her concern?

[@mariovera7899]

charlesvan13 bro it is APPROPRIATE to add your opinion on anything, you just need to back it up, your comment reminds me of accusing others of splaining. 😕

[@Texas06Exige]

Why does Trevor Noah get to tell Americans how our political system is supposed to work? It's part of the programming to get people to not think critically.

[@krokodilegrundee5101]

Texas06Exige not a strong argument, most criticism comes from the outside. That's why writers have editors. why we have 3 branches of government. you are arguing that you couldn't criticise ISIS or the Chechens for killing gays en mass, cause you don't live there? criticism is to be figured out on a case by case basis, not only by your in group

[@TheTechZombie]

You are so criminally under-subbed. I watch and love every video. You are so damn articulate with the points.

[@iKhanKing]

I think this is more the fault of individuals than it is of the late-night hosts. I don't watch Russel Peters comedy bits to learn about other races. I don't watch Louis C.K. bits to learn more about gender sociology. I watch them for comedy often in the form of exaggeration and hyperbole. So why do people seek to learn the news from comedians?

[@nickolasbrown3342]

If a person gets high on cocaine and kills someone they otherwise wouldn't, do you blame the dealer or the taker? Both. You blame both.

[@dontask8294]

7:17 having Counter Arguments say "just shut the f0ck up" makes my day.

[@dakotawidenor9283]

I feel like this isn't fair to compare late night commentators with professional journalist. The point is that they are NOT journalist, they are PARODY of journalism. John Oliver on "Last Week Tonight" did an entire segment explaining why he and other late night comedians like him, are not journalist.Its meant to be political satire and commentary. Unlike professional News groups which are supposed to remain (or at least appear to be) neutral when discussing current events, shows like "Late Night" and "Full Frontal" make a point of carrying their own opinions about current events in politics. They are not journalist, they take the information from journalist and examine from their own point of view. Are they often biased: absoulutely. But that is the entire point. This dosnt mean they can not be informative as they often are. But their main focus is to get people interested not to discuss why exactly they are right or the others wrong in long elequent debates.

[@CounterArguments]

This opinion piece does not hold late-night hosts to the same standard as journalists, nor does it even imply that they be journalists themselves to provide political commentary. Furthermore, this opinion piece doesn't take issue with late-night hosts voicing their own opinions. And it was never insisted that they host debates. Disagreement with this opinion piece is welcome, but only with what was actually said in it.

[@dakotawidenor9283]

+Counter Arguments No, what was said is that the host should go in depth and provide concrete reasons as to why they support one thing or another. The argument was that Host commentary on things can be dangerouse and counter productive if done incorrectly. However the means In which you decide what is "incorrect" ignores the enviorment in which the context resides. Late night shows do not paint them selves as sources of information, they are entertainment that provide insight into information. How "dangerouse" these shoes are, really depend on how seriouse the viewer interprets it.

[@danielyoung633]

I'd like to point out that an opinion piece is one thing but if these parody pundits go as far to make claims about entire demographics, then present pie charts and such, it seems like they might be overstepping their bounds into actual journalistic territory. But if you've given such a point of view, wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the same of anyone we are engaged in discussion with to provide evidence of serious claims? The dangerous thing about human nature is that we seek to confirm already existing biases and actively avoid things that might prove such biases wrong. Stoking the opinionated fire of a misrepresentation is surely a step in the wrong direction. The muddied waters between truth and entertainment are not always clear... Especially for fans of Full Frontal or Late Night with Seth Meyers...

[@sakketin]

I'd genuinely be interested to hear about these decent arguments for Brexit because I haven't heard any.

[@thomasknash]

+Jamming InDaStreets Look up Mark Blyth regarding Brexit. Blyth is a critic of austerity and very much a leftist, and he list a number of legitimate complaints regarding the EU and justifications for voting for Brexit.

[@eddielasowsky7777]

John Stewart started all this by pulling the classic "It's comedy, not journalism," defence when asked about his influence on viewers. He then spent years soft balling democrats and eviscerating Republicans at every turn. His acolytes Colbert and Oliver are doing a fine job of continuing this.

[@coolergman8629]

I know It's like People claim that it's fine that x is a terrible film it's just a kids film. Look comedic journalism should be held still do what regular journalism just in a light hearted and comdeic form.Of course becase comedy invoves Exaggerating reality to a certain certain extent I don't think it can be quite as obejective and factual as actual journalism. Comedic Journalism should at least have some thruth to the satire. Comedic Journalism should be held to account when it spreads lies and disinfromation because even though it's not as formal as CNN and should still be taken more light heartedly it still is suspose to provide news to it's audience and it's not because it makes stuff up it distorts the minds of it's audience. J

[@thoughtlesskills]

+cooler gman I agree that such "comedic journalism" should be held accountable for what they say, and how they say it. But I must insist that our actual journalistic media(the ones that can't argue it's comedy) is held to that standard first.

[@waynepoint]

+cooler gman There is no such thing as comedic journalism!

[@iMaDeMoN2012]

+eddie lasowsky Satire is not journalism. People can only understand satire if they follow politics or journalism. Jon Stewarts critiques journalists and politicians.

[@PerlasNegrasXII]

eddie lasowsky soft balling democrats, really now

[@stupidtreehugger]

Great content: logical, calmly patient, incisively explanatory, educational, balanced. And great production values too. Double thumbs up to Counter Arguments

[@yasedky]

We want more from this ! It's training me to think for myself clearly

[@Erlaxis]

What a great video. Didn't know about your channel and now it's my favorite. Congratulations and thank you for your great work!

[@he1ar1]

Last night talk shows aren't journalism. Satire isn't journalism. Satire of journalism isn't journalism.

[@CounterArguments]

Of those three statements, none of them are the thesis of this opinion piece.

[@vantahawk2834]

Counter Arguments Who says that he1ar1 was definitely claiming that these were the thesises of your opinion piece? With your comment you are technically almost doing the same thing - assuming his/her intention - which I don't necessarily have an issue with, I am just pointing it out because you apparently do care about this (in this instance). Furthermore the thesis you may intend is not necessarily the thesis you convey. I for one think he1ar1's comment seems very valid here. I agree with some of the criticisms you drew from your examples, but for instance: Criticising Colbert for exaggeration? Srsly?! Last time I checked exaggeration was one of the most used and well known devices of satire. You portray it as some kind of comedic fallacy... As many people have already pointed out, I don't think these shows should be understood as journalism but entertainment first and foremost. People are supposed to be appatised for several topics through these shows, not derive their whole worldview from them. Only because they cover the news in some way or another does not mean that they claim to be journalism.

[@Monoptic]

Are we supposed to conclude that he1ar1's comment exists in a void, detached from the content of the video? To the extent that it's safe to assume anything, it's safe to assume he1ar1's comment was a rebuttal to the video (given that he left it on said video). Other people in the comment section are making the same statement - that late night comedians shouldn't be held accountable to the same standard as journalists. So, CounterArguments interpreting it as if it were meant to be a rebuttal is the only sensible conclusion. I don't know why people are having such a hard time with this. Is Seth Meyers a journalist? No. Should he be expected to conform to the standards of journalism? No. Is anyone here claiming that he should? No. Does this mean he gets to say whatever he wants, distorting facts and misrepresenting events under the guise of "comedy". Ummm. No. There is not even a pretense of intellectual honesty coming out of these shows, yet it is clear that they are trying to sway public opinion. They are trying to make political points. They invite politicians onto their shows all the time, including presidents. We ought to expect them to at least be truthful about what they're satirizing, which is the basis of satire. That's the whole point. Jesus fuck this is not that hard to figure out.

[@Chrinik]

If someone writes "first", it´s a rebuttal to the video, it´s left on it, but it has nothing to do with the contents of the video XD

[@tomstokoe5660]

You can be a satirist just don't be a propagandist. Chris Morris did satire, these people don't. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3qke5ijorRgmMk You notice how he actually demonstrates how stupid politicians are rather then just saying to the camera "HEY ISN'T THIS POLITICIAN DUMB XD"

[@JerkDouglas]

pal you really hit the nail on the head.

[@XxKINGatLIFExX]

Like if you think this channel is arguably one of the most important, underrated, informative, useful, special, golden, necessary and entertaining channels on KZbin right now or indeed ever. I genuinely feel so privileged and lucky to have stumbled across this brilliant channel and brilliant guy.

[@joshuaspeer2503]

Unfortunately, amusing makes more profits than substantive... Equally unfortunate is that many people find figures and data very off putting. :(

[@rjl404]

Are you saying that Gohmert's statement that Obama's should 'bring people together' was directly related to the shooting of policemen? I took it as Gohmert's piss poor attempt to link Obama to the shooting. It was was done so in-artfully that he deserved to be ridiculed.

[@usffan5775]

In no way did he link Obama to the shooting, where did you get that from? He only said he didnt like Obama's reaction to the shooting

[@ParrisPrime]

You need more subscribers, it sad to see you with only 10K ;-; Keep up the good work :D

[@danzwku]

Michael parris ha

[@dbdist1]

2 years latter and he has 218k. Still needs more.

[@deeta000]

Your channel is great. Thank you.

[@rogerfvb]

This video just made me realize that Kubrick didn't coin "here's Johnny!"

[@PockASqueeno]

I never thought of late night talk shows as being “journalism.” I’ve always thought they were for the sole purpose of entertainment.

[@wowwee26]

I have been looking for a channel like yours for years!!! Thank you for existing!

[@alexanderreusens7633]

The biggest problem is that those show often do cover important things well. Sometimes even better than traditional news agencies. And that is worrying

[@superjj1850]

What is the difference between using examples and using anecdotal evidence? Are they the exact same or is there a clear way line that can be drawn.

[@rubyjohn]

great video!!! personally I still like John Oliver but I do lack enough time and resource to recheck what he said... how can you not be a total sheep when you have to rely on all kinds of unreliable information source!?

[@rice_frying_shrimp]

Although a lot of people "accuse" him of it, John Oliver really isn't as left winged as many other show hosts. The lack of (strong) political bias makes for more informed and thought-through content. That is not to say that he isn't anti-certain things, such as Trumps politics or foreign politics, but he seems to take a different more professional approach at it. A lot of other people said that late night is basically comedy, not journalism, but what it claims to be is satire, a form of -you guessed it- amongst other things journalism. John Oliver is the closest a late night host will ever get to a real journalist, although he never claims to be one. (Sorry for the long text, just felt like weighing in because I totally agreed with your comment)

[@Innengelaender]

@@rice_frying_shrimp John Oliver as well as the often overlooked und way underrated Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. I tend to even prefer the latter.

[@megauser8512]

Sad!

[@DarranKern]

Ive long since stopped watching these kinds of shows. It's not just that they are pedantic and sometimes even dishonest, it's that so few of them are even _funny_ anymore. Seth Meyers and Samantha Bee are both unfunny and dishonest.

[@treydunn8497]

They aren’t that funny and I’m left leaning as well I’d prefer John Oliver

[@megauser8512]

Sad but true!

[@frankdelgrosso8297]

Satire has always been a form of argument by absurdity has it not? Here is Googles definition “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” By that definition all 3 shows are acting in exact accordance with how they ought. Historically many people who could not be moved at all by reason nor logical debate were moved from their position via satire. Even ancient rulers often employed jesters to humble them as they would reject the advice of most, but the jesters mocking could still reach him and make him consider things again which others could not. What disturbs me is not that late night shows do this, for they are recognized as satire, I am much more gravely concerned that that programs claiming to be sincere news programs are also operating in the same manner. I will listen to the jester and it may provoke new thought, but when I listen to my scouts I expect to hear only facts. If my scouts report eminent danger I act without hesitation because I trust them to be telling me what is, not conjecture and opinion.

[@SuperSupermanX1999]

Sure satire is argument by absurdity. The problem here is that they're not really taking what people say and making it absurd, they're just making character assassinations. Take the Seth Meyers "Black father" part for example. There's no satire in that, it's just a quote mine and a character assassination. Same with the Colbert segment on the sit-in. He wasn't exaggerating what was said for comedic effect, he was misrepresenting it and using it as the basis for an insult.

[@alexisvoutouris6649]

I happen to agree with Colbert there, but that is not really the point. It does not seem very convincing to criticize late night for its general attitude and then provide only a couple of examples in support of your view. Anecdotal evidence is supposed to be what we shouldn't accept, according to this video.

[@666or999]

He said very early in the video that it wasn't his goal to criticize the particular shows.

[@Vladimir_4757]

As an author of satire I can say that no, satire is more complicated. Lets just take political events. The average person would just jump on Trump as fast they can and that is a good place to start. I satirize Trump in my writing. But this is where satire and comedy are different. They're satirizing but they're not doing a good job at it. Satire doesn't have to be comedic, look at George Orwell's 1989 or Animal Farm. Look at V for Vendetta. All of these are satires and have nothing to do with comedy but instead extreme exaggeration of an issue. If a late night comedy show cannot blow a political subject out of the water with comedic undertones then its not satire. You cannot just say "Donald Trumps mom was a horse f****er because Trump hates homosexuals." You make a bold statement for comedy but you also said something that has nothing to do with what was political apparent. That statement can be satire, but as satire it does the opposite than "shock, offend and draw attention." because what is the issue here? Trump hates homosexuals or Trump's mom engages in sexual acts with a horse? What are people going to take from this? And this me to the core issue with "satire in the current media/late night shows." is that for satire to work you HAVE to distance yourself from the issue at hand and all relatable jargon. When there is no disconnect it is just and constantly bringing up the ACTUAL issues you end up with opinions being seeded into the mindsets of people, and there is no take-away. If I satirize something I'm not going to just make inflammatory false statements directly aimed at what I'm satirizing, you have to create a fictional idea for that so people know that what you're talking about may not be real but the things you have said they done is similar to this human being. When I satirize Trump I analogue him to a racist bigoted character. That character acts like Trump times a thousand, that is satire. Example : "Our great American president is our toddler-in-chief. He's constantly rolling on the floor and crying to get his racist agenda along. 'Oh just another day in America!' Our stupid adversaries along this world cry as they act like global warming is an issue. Swine, California needs that water in the ice-caps anyways. Our toddler prince has just declared that thermonuclear weapons should be in the hands of the any white race because they are superior and it is as God wished. He also sent is condolences to Mexicans as they'll be locked into tinier cages because you're a baboon. And speaking of baboon's the African-American community finally living conditions are higher because we just asked Russia for their dilapidated apartments and replaced those here with the ones there. Glory to those Russian bastards who gave birth to our great leader." Believe me I can go on that topic even further, if it feels Rushed it shows how hard it can be to cram enough satire into a short subject. People have done it (Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a good example, but that was a pamphlet, so it was not what I consider short). But satire isn't easy, if it was as easy as just commentating on the recent political climate then what does that make something like V for Vendetta? like late night talk-shows shouldn't be called satire for lazy attempts at humor because that is an insult to actual satire that tries harder to bring up an issue.

[@Verilee1970]

I don't use late night comedy for news, I use it to laugh at the news I already know. Frankly, we need more outlets that serve this purpose.

[@cortster12]

Not everyone uses it that way. Most get their news from them, sadly.

[@martinszemberg-goldgraber8772]

That's exactly why there is a difference: Late night talk shows are NOT journalism! They definitely bear more resemblance to just stating their hosts' opinions. We could get into whether people treat these shows as their source of news, but to my knowledge, they never claim to be journalists.

[@ParkDanger3556]

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.

[@tankwfw]

This really goes to the point of our generation consuming memery as fact.

[@zieo108]

"How did the world end? Was it famine? Nukes? Disease?!" "Memes.... turned out to be the memes."

[@tsuntsunsweetie]

Actually a super accurate statement, considering that 'memes' as just bits of information spread and repeated over and over again.

[@AssailantLF]

Memes were a mistake.

[@cadenhenderson4322]

welcome2havoc No. I don't see how this shows this at all.

[@trashman4500]

E who controls the memes controls the world. (which is why the meme-friendly and meme-creating Trump won more than 40% of the country despite the media.)

[@unicockboy1666]

3:20 Why is the woman in the background just standing still like frozen? Lol...

[@Omaricon]

Although I agree with your point in this video you do fall into the same trap they do at the end here using the Monty Python skit out of context blatantly calling them stupid. Although the Monthy Python skit has a point, it is completely out of place and not used as intended. MY point here being, everyone can do mistakes. Generally speaking Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver (who you showed videos of, without really commenting why he was or was not there, implying simply that he has doing mistakes as he is shown with people you have pointed mistakes (which is once again falling into the same trap the mistakes you pointed out did)) do have a quite decent coverage of their stories if not a little left winged. However I'll let it slide this time as your content is generally on par and is far superior and critical compared to most of what you can find out there. I do hope you read this though.

[@SamPhoenixKnight]

Pretty much all TV is trying to be amusing more than substantive - even ‘reputable’ news stations. That’s kinda the point of TV.

[@Kitties_are_pretty]

People in the comments are arguing that these shows shouldn't be taken seriously because this is just comedy and should be treated like comedy, which would be valid if they were talking about fictional events in a hypothetical, parodic society. But they are sometimes making concrete claims about the world, and citing statistics to support their points. John Oliver regularly makes specific claims, couched in comedy, that he supports with bad evidence and bad arguments. People come away from that believing things on bad evidence and convinced by bad arguments. A person making claims and dishonestly supporting them is doing a bad thing whether the claims are made humourously or not. I have a hard time believing that people watching John Oliver disregard his evidence and arguments as mere comedy.

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

“People come away from that believing things on bad evidence and convinced by bad arguments.” I would say that if someone is convinced by bad arguments, it is in large part the fault of that person for falling for bad arguments. It can be considered a bad thing to misinform the public, but the video goes further than that: He comes dangerously close to saying that the comedy shows in question shouldn't be allowed (phrases like ‘I am against this’ and ‘is it too much to ask’ show up repeatedly), which is exactly the sort of assault on freedom of speech that he rips apart in some of his other videos.

[@Kitties_are_pretty]

Badly Drawn Turtle Thank you for reading my comment. I'm not willing to advocate for the regulation of late night comedy news, but I believe dishonest statements in the media should receive pushback in the form of the video we're commenting on, and my comment (and now your comment). Late night comedy news seems to be an informational wild wild west where the shows feel no obligation to fairness and honesty, and I think it's wrong of them to mislead people in this way. Yes, if people form their opinions based on what John Oliver says they should expect to end up misinformed and they can avoid that by behaving better. But I think as long as late night comedy news is like this it should expect to be treated badly by people who care about evidence.

[@ssach7]

Except John Oliver has admitted in the past that he has been wrong, he just makes jokes about pop culture and issues and they often go together. These shows are good because they give a base information to the audience while making it entertaining and comedic. But it shouldn't be treated with the same seriousness as tv news because it is COMEDY

[@IoRobot_98]

You should link the ending clip in the description too! I had a bit of a hard time find it, it's "John Cleese on stupidity"...

[@johannesweger5296]

I dont think personally that you can compare John Oliver with Colbert or others. He is more International, talks about Venezuela, China not so much (direct) criticizing the Political Spectrum. He talks about Situations like Infrastructure. And sorry about my bad English (Im Italian)

[@silverlightsinaugust2756]

Johannes Weger In any case, what all of these shows miss is critical thinking. A joke that plays well is not an argument.

[@selahanany5645]

@@silverlightsinaugust2756unlike the other shows oliver makes jokes, and then makes points. and he always liks studies to prove them.

[@DannySullivanMusic]

Hello, I am from the future. Congratulations on your first million subscribers!

[@compositeur8455]

Why don't you have at least 100k subs by now? Anyways great video, I subbed to your channel.

[@IrradiatedOne]

I know this video is old, but I wish ya showed more of the counter point. Like someone doing it properly to show the differences ya know. I mean seeing how it is done properly just shines the light on all the faults you mentioned more.

[@TheCleverADHDstudios]

Honestly John Oliver is more grounded than most and that's part of why I love him

[@danielbeiski9428]

Thank you for this, man. I have been trying to articulate my problems with these shows for a while now.

[@CheapGlassofWine]

I don't disagree that if Late Night dabbles in politics it should be held to higher standards of fact. You've emphasized the role these shows play in educating their audience as justification. I think equally important is the fact that - as Jon Stewart once said - the jokes aren't funny if they're based on half-truths. My problem is that, sadly enough, news networks aren't held to the same standard of truth to which you're holding these shows. In your intro you've skated through shots of pundits, all of whom you said "contribute to the conversation." Their mistakes, you've asserted, are in some way more legitimate. That was the first time in all your videos (of which I'm a devout viewer, I should say!) where I simply couldn't abide by the premise. The level of distortion that occurs in tv news proper is astonishingly high. It could be benign and pathetic (journalistic laziness, lack of critical rigor, unexamined biases) or it could be intentional. These, I'd argue, cause the greater harm to the conversation by truly cementing a culture of siloed misinformation. As for "contributing to the conversation" - if the conversation is what we're interested in, then we must take the Late Night shows' jokes in context. There's a difference between the JS's Daily Show, which was overtly and sweepingly political, and Seth Meyers. The latter is a variety show that jingles politics only because it sounded good when Jon Stewart did it. People watch it for the easy laugh. People watched Jon Stewart to get outraged, to have their inner political monster awoken. That's why Stewart (against his own protestations) was taken as a political figure, and why Meyers is not. Now while this distinction shouldn't exonerate Meyers or Colbert of sloppiness, it should at least put things into perspective. That said, it's been fun disagreeing with you. :) A

[@CounterArguments]

There may be no disagreement after all. It was never implied, let alone asserted, that mistakes made by journalists and pundits are more legitimate. Not only are they not more legitimate, they're not legitimate. No mistake is. And no one should be held to a higher standard of truth than journalists. What was asserted in this video is this: The reasons why journalists and pundits make mistakes tend to be better than the reasons why late-night hosts make mistakes. (They're still mistakes- they're still not legitimate). Making a mistake because of political bias presents an opportunity for an ideological opponent to challenge that commentary with their own political convictions. Once both sides of the debate are out there, people can analyze the two sides and decide for themselves who came closer to the truth. This is the idea behind the phrase "contributing to the conversation." By contrast, making a mistake due to lack of trying does not present such an opportunity if a case wasn't made in the first place. When Meyers says "That's just a fact" or when Colbert says "You idiots", there's nothing there for an ideological opponent to challenge. Thus nothing is contributed to the conversation. If this opinion piece isn't critical of actual journalists and pundits, it's only because they are not the subject of it. So this is not to say that you haven't made great points regarding the news. You have. They just belong in a separate conversation. Thank you for disagreeing, Mr. Amsterdam.

[@poeglives]

Even Fox News and MSNBC have corrected, half handed, errors in their reporting. Never heard of any late-night or HBO talking head addressing any of their political fallacies. That's an enormous difference.

[@poeglives]

Irish Jester Then satire being regurgitated by its viewers and presented as fact would be simply morons acting as such? I can buy that.

[@TCt83067695]

Counter Arguments hmmmm sounds like deflection to me but i'll allow

[@MrThatonebitch]

Your videos are so good!

[@brod2man]

I assume analyzing John Oliver is going to need his own 10 part video

[@saikyocentral]

brod2man Tell me about it.

[@brod2man]

insert clever name here the king of late night bad

[@fuzzwobble]

He's the worst because he flat-out just fucking lies.

[@AcasualRant]

The "gateway drug" of late night talk shows, like the daily show and the Colbert report, definitely sparked my love of politics and inspired me to pursue my polisci undergrad degree as well as my masters in political communication! :D

[@SamPhoenixKnight]

You’re analyzing these shows like their goal was to present a complete argument. They aren’t journalists - they’re comedians - and super well researched complete arguments just... aren’t very funny.

[@tommystrizzle5265]

His problem was with smearing and twisting the news. If you have to do that to make a joke then objectively the joke does not work, regardless of how subjectively funny it is

[@edwardnewtonLA]

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.

[@PepinsSpot]

Oh wow, never thought of it that way. I love those shows but mostly I find them outrageously amusing, not serious.

[@loicndame5678]

but they are comedy they are not journalist the only reason this video is made is because he is giving then the mantle of journalist

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

+Loic Stephan No, it's because people watch these shows and take them as news rather than the opinion pieces they really are.

[@loicndame5678]

But that situation only arise because there is a sense that the mainstream media is falling "very very badly" like Trump would say

[@PepinsSpot]

I think that he is presenting the danger that comes with some people believing what late night shows say at face value. At least for me, it makes me look up what ever it is that interested me. But for the most part is just outrageous, funny, satire.

[@loicndame5678]

In a country where FOX news is considered journalism no wonder

[@andreashauschild7757]

A well done presentation. And agree with each of the shows displayed diagnoses. But, the question that arises after watching it. Why where the shows examined all with subjects leaning toward the left? Is there no show that presents a conservative view points wrongly? So even by presenting the facts perfectly, a viewer may get the idea that left leaning night shows are misrepresenting the news, thereby promoting fake news. Again, I agreed with every point you made. Very well presented as individual arguments. But the overall result does project a bias. I may be wrong. Just my observation.

[@haldir108]

It is probably more profitable to wholly appeal to one group, and not challenge that group at all about their preconceived notions, than it is to challenge both/all sides on an issue. Giving both sides a fair shake challenges the other side, and when people are challenged, they might not return. The easiest way to not challenge is to not actually present the opposing view, but putting up misrepresentations and strawmen.

[@megauser8512]

Sad but true!

[@ianwagner4281]

I appreciate that you encourage skepticism in fields that don’t receive much of it.

[@DerekBladeGoMW]

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

[@addisonwatkins2721]

Your channel is awesome I like how you point out bad arguments to help people argue better.

[@Aristocles22]

Comedians who seek the persuade people using humor are guilty of propagandizing their viewers. They don't usually make good points and they sell their package because they are funny, not because they have a valid argument. Satire no longer speaks truth to power, but lies to weakness.

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

People who propagandize are only bad if they're doing it for a cause you disagree with.

[@cassideyousley406]

After watching this channel, I think i have a good idea of how to properly argue anything. So many concepts I really didn't think to acknowledge. I feel like im in high school literature class.

[@YannYann12345]

can we just stop to thinka bout how he said Europe was a country? It's beautiful, really.

[@bjkorb7272]

I thought he was referring to Britain...

[@cole2714]

I appreciate that you keep your videos unbiased.

[@koalanectar9382]

Man.. watching this was tough. I'm kind of in the midst of a personal transformation right now where I'm starting to hate all the TV personalities I used to love. Great job on this... hard as it was to watch. Also A+ easter egg on this one.

[@Sowiso4]

Another great video from a great channel !

[@gumpwumper3752]

It late night COMEDY. people watching these shows aren't watching for information. They want to have a good time and laugh

[@khimeraQ]

True, late night shows like this are fine if you are attentive to the news as well. For a lot of people who don't pay attention to the news late night shows can be very misleading.

[@PyroEnderSlayer]

Gump Wumper Except they are, many people do.

[@envisci_bi]

8:19 I think i hear "Revolution" in the background

[@paxtonlynch1251]

This seemed a little nitpicky but I agree with the conclusion.

[@Theevileye00]

Excellent video, love your content!

[@justink2653]

Totally agree. I've been getting more frustrated with mainstream media and all the left leaning talk show hosts. There is no conservative thought equally represented in Hollywood, media, comedy, talk shows pretty much everything on TV. It's only been on KZbin that we are seeing a new serge of Conservative representation and people are flocking to it in the millions. I'm all about having a conversation with people and sharing viewponts and civil disagreements. NOT name calling and immediately labeling someone you disagree with as racist, sexists, bigot, homophone, xenophobe ect.

[@diegotheraptor5142]

Justin K i feel bad for conservatives but they did do some bad things

[@gur262]

Counter arguments is very selective and not quite fair here. To me most of the mentioned don't always claim to tell the whole story and mark the fake stuff as such. And are joking. Mostly they do convey the facts and it's easy to know. Rightwing has an equivalent. Just without jokes. And tucker talking of coup is dead serious in his bullshit. And your right wing KZbinrs are very wrong and serious often.

[@thecrazymarioshow]

11:06 Hey it's Geert!

[@Firebird20XX]

Well, I don't entirely agree with you, but you've got great points. You got a new subscriber! Do you plan on making a video on The Daily Show (Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah's versions) and Last Week Tonight? I'd love to hear your critique on that too.

[@CounterArguments]

The purpose of this video was to discuss how the late-night format can damage discourse. The programs that appeared in this video were intended to be examples (cited to make this point), but not the focus of the video. Now that the case has been made and the opinion expressed, it's very unlikely that it would be rehashed for the sake of critiquing a few more examples. This is not to say that The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight couldn't be scrutinized in another video addressing another topic. At any rate, thanks for subscribing, Mr. Wonderfluff XIII. Welcome to Counter Arguments.

[@VolvoCommand]

You disagree with what exactly? Counter Arguments is simply pointing out that talk show hosts like Myers aren't trying to engage an argument. You are free to disagree with the interviewees in the clips, but surely you recognize that Myers isn't even doing that much.

[@Firebird20XX]

Drewbii Never mind...

[@Firebird20XX]

Drewbii In hindsight, I think I just disagreed with this video because I wanted to defend the shows like The Colbert Report that I'd loved, when these shows were good. Nowadays I completely agree with this video. I shouldn't have bothered to mention disagreement if I couldn't articulate it.

[@mute3189]

Another great video. Thank-you.

[@judebreheny3925]

A Closer Look is meant to be a silly, liberal perspective of politics. It isn’t meant to be serious, but it is a great example of how not to argue a point properly.

[@lukesaylor6742]

He also stated throughout his disagreement with the claim "But its just a joke". Its meant to be a joke, but many people use this a s a source of actual politics which can negatively impact society

[@gregevenden6515]

One of the main issues as I see it is not only that we have obscurantist political comedy shows like the ones being criticized here, but that these shows are being treated as substitutes for the actual news, which given the state of actual news makes some sense at least. People are perhaps justified in ignoring actual news because it is so difficult to parse good news from still more obscurantist crap, even when they are often from the same source. If I didn't know any better, I would rather get bad news, laugh a little, feel morally superior, and convince myself I'm informed all at the same time. My hope is to have better informed citizens thanks in large part to KZbin channels like this, but I fear that educating people to read the news critically doesn't go far enough, and proves much more difficult to do since peoples' first instinct when they become disenchanted with a news source seems to be to turn to another, equally malignant news source. We need better, moral institutions that deal in facts and who don't prioritize ratings or sponsors. Beats me how to do it though. The dubiously informed among us are quite comfortable with the status quo, no matter which side of the aisle they're on.

[@maxlee6739]

John Oliver is a good source if you like late-night shows but also want to be 100% sure you're getting the right news. He doesn't put out a show everyday so there is less of a chance for mistakes.

[@axirnindar4171]

Also he tends to back up his arguments with statistics and sources. I think it actually adds to the entertainment value.

[@raymantisful]

This channel is going to explode. ( in a good way). A well constructed argument (if I agree or not) will always incite my undivided attention. To tired of people making things as black and white as possible, nudging the argument to the most popular buzz to words to condemn my opinions. A well constructed argument is an effort to educate me, and that alone shows respect for me and the open forum for ideas.

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

Criticism is fine, but you take a step too far when you say “If they're not prepared to address the substance of those issues, and they're willing to distort them for the sake of a punchline, that I am against.” That is coming dangerously close to telling people what they are allowed to say. In the end, late night comedy shows are not intended to inform, they are intended to be humorous. To criticize them for not being formatted to inform because they are formatted to be humorous is… well, stating the obvious.

[@prestonsteimel1907]

To be against something would not necessarily mean that they think it should outright be eliminated. It's not allowance, it's more of what's right/wrong. It's the thing that they're trying to format them in a way that presents accurate stuff as funny, but as counter arguments stated, they're willing to distort them for the sake of a punchline. I am also against it. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it at all, or rules be imposed upon them.

[@ashleyashleym2969]

I'm 20, have an Associate's degree (in science), I'm not xenophobic in fact I love people from all around the world, I love different cultures, I love meeting new people and finding our similarities and being able to bound over our humanity. I am slightly anti-establishment however there are occasions where I'm for the establishment. I love globalization because I'm able to connect with so many different people but at the same time I'm not blind to the negative effects of it. I am white but I grew up in black majority country and don't relate to white people, white culture is incredibly foreign to me and I find it entertaining just to watch white people because they're strange honestly. However I support brexit because all countries have the right to defend and protect their borders and their people.

[@MidlifeCrisisJoe]

Look dude, if we were talking about people making logical arguments in a debate, or even on an actual political analysis show, you'd have many good points. But you're missing the forest for the trees with your entire premise here. The format of a comedy show is to try and make jokes. To create setups and deliver punchlines. Like it or not, these shows aren't "comedy journalism", they're "current event comedy" and there IS a difference. I mean, Jay Leno went and got up on stage every day for 20 years and did a set about what was going on in the news that day. That is fundamentally what these people are doing too, except they've glossed it up with a presentation that is similar to a standard news show, because (in the cases of Samantha Bee, Wilmore, Oliver, and Colbert) that's the style of comedy they practiced on The Daily Show and are known for. Seth Meyers also was known for telling jokes based on news stories, since he did the Weekend Update segment on SNL for years. Which leads to the point - Weekend Update, in some form or another, has been on SNL since the 1970s. Making fun of current events in a newscaster format has literally been going on for over forty years at this point. But it's never really been a problem with anyone until recently. Seriously ask why that is the case, and you'll find the real issue here. The thing is, you can't really criticize comedians for not being journalists. It's a silly argument to make. Do you criticize firemen for not being bakers? Why is it that when ever they reach into a fire, they don't come out with a bunch of delicious bread? That's what you're doing here. While I do think it's a problem that so many people take them so seriously, it's unfortunately much more the fault of the audience for being idiots than it is for the comedians to ape the style of news anchors. Bits parodying news are a tried and true comedy device, and yes, it's frustrating that so many of them are ultra-left progressives more than willing to push their agenda into their comedy bits, but that's really an issue with how polarized and atomized the media has become over the years than it is with the comedians themselves, because it used to be that this kind of behavior would cause a comedian (or newscaster for that matter) to get fired. In an extremely atomized media environment, hitting your target demo is all that matters, not broad appeal anymore. Saying that someone should follow the values of the thing they're purposely parodying misses the point of comedy. It's no different than the feminist who says "no rape joke is ever funny" and wants comedians to stick to a higher moral standard. It's no different than the millenial who says we shouldn't wear a halloween costume because it culturally appropriates a race - you're superimposing a value system on what should just be a silly laugh that means no harm. Comedians are supposed to make fun of things and aren't meant to be taken too seriously. But in a world where no one can trust the media, lots of people have ended up trusting the jesters instead. How is that the fault of the jester, and not the media at large?

[@JewTube001]

great rebuttal

[@CounterArguments]

There are two main points that need to be corrected. The rest can be disputed by anybody else. #1. The purpose of this video was not to blame these late-night talk shows (for anything) nor to remove all responsibility from their audiences' decision to regard them as news sources. Nowhere in this opinion piece was it insisted that these shows change or that their fans stop watching them. The only purpose of this video was to highlight how late-night hosts are not in league with journalists and pundits. That's it. What these programs or their viewers decide to do about it is their business. #2. Since this opinion piece is not insisting that these talk shows cannot do what they're doing, it's a little unfair to compare this to the feminist who says "You can't tell a rape joke" or the social justice warrior who says "You can't wear that Halloween costume." Frankly, this opinion piece is not critical of the comedy whatsoever. It's critical of the substance; the lack thereof. So aside from simply getting facts straight, no value systems are being imposed.

[@Jcolinsol]

Things tend to go wrong when the fool becomes king. And that is what has happened.

[@MCHellshit]

This is bad comedy though. It doesnt make me laugh because I know its based on bullshit.So it fails on both levels, as political commentary and as comedy.

[@NoxUmbrae]

Rewatch 12:00.

[@awkwardathena434]

As soon as Woolworth's was brought up I got hella confused... Woolworth's is a supermarket here in Australia

[@groundfloorguthrie]

Kinda sad you didn't pick on Oliver's show... I've taken to calling his program 'Sophistry Tonight'...

[@TruckerJenkins82]

brilliant stuff, all the best for the future

[@McGrewer]

"stop it at the border and send it back to where it came from." Jeez, why not just build a wall?

[@RPNocando]

This is a great video. I've enjoyed much of Seth Mayers, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver on KZbin lately. I consider them being good entertainment and simultaneously getting an insight to their mainly US -based issues and coverage of events. But I also regularly follow many international news sources, so I keep the actual way of things and the entertainment separated. You made an important point in your video, that people who generally follow only a little news find these talk shows informative. The fact that some people get their only source of news distorted is a problem in my opinion too. Facts aren't usually fun and the shows usually don't dig deeper than the surface which is why they more often make a laugh of someone's appearance than debate the substance. As I'm European and we in Finland have only recently gotten meaningful 'infotainment' shows, I of course can't know fully how large the issue is there in the US. You point out rightfully that it is somewhat harmful when talk show hosts only focus on making fun of things and let the boring but correct arguments fade. It's bad when talk show hosts become more credible and trustworthy in people's eyes than real news and experts, and the media is partly to blame here. Mainstream media is constantly losing ground everywhere because these charismatic hosts are delivering the liberal message for young adults faster and in many cases talk shows are openly more critical towards politicians.

[@krombopulos_michael]

Think you got a bit too emotionally involved in these. I also don't think it's really accurate to call any of these hosts (except maybe John Oliver) "journalists". They're not doing any research or anything, they're just commenting on existing news. That said, I did used to watch these. I generally agreed with what they said, but it did wear me down after a little while. The comedy started feeling quite stale and there's something that I just find a bit tedious about hearing my own opinions fed back to me over and over again.

[@joshuadrew5223]

Are you really going to claim that mainstream news shows don't do the exact same things that late night shows do? You're the one making blanket statements and saying news sites "just" use this or that prejudice.

[@TheKirbyT]

As an aspiring comedy writer and a journalist-in-training, I completely disagree. I don't think that any late night host has any responsibility for fairness or bullet proof philosophical arguments in their coverage of stories. It's NOT journalism. It's comedians making jokes. These shows aren't framed as traditional news shows. These shows aren't seriously trying to be sources of news. There is a far enough removal from the frame of traditional news that you have no pretense of being an unbiased news program, and anyone who confuses the two genres is woefully misguided. It's comedy primarily, information is a distant second.

[@MCHellshit]

and yet its being taken as information. The whole "its just a joke" bit doesnt work when people take your jokes seriously, and they often do. Counter Arguments literally makes this point in the video.

[@TheKirbyT]

I would argue that this isn't the fault of any show, but the audience who would rather get their news from comedians than from actual journalists.

[@dodgeyaussie]

That's more the responsibility of the person receiving the "information" vs the deliverer. If the audience is gullible enough to treat these shows as hard fact based news, well that's on them for not actually doing their own research. There is such a thing as comedic license with this stuff. I would also add that this whole "late night tv hosts as news sources" dynamic is probably more reflective of the sad state of actual real news journalism that is foisted upon us on network and cable TV.

[@Jcolinsol]

So you're okay with comedians doing lazy comedy? It's kind of an interesting assertion, considering how often we hear people say that political correctness makes comedy less lazy. I think good comedians doing political commentary fact check their material. Carlin did and look how timeless his work remains. Frankly, many of the comedians today are deeply out of touch with what's happening with the world.

[@kintuppa]

I love your counter arguments and have agreed with literally every point of every video I've watched of you so far!

[@Thunderscreamer]

I don't think you presented this argument well. To highlight this, let's look at your criticism of Colbert. 11:44 At this point you streamline the clip to the point at which you only have the points Colbert makes that you wanted to address. 13:34 At this point you criticize Colbert for essentially streamlining a tweet to only have the point Walker makes that Colbert wanted to address. In your case you are taking things out of context just as much as he is, and in that light not presenting your argument well. In fact, maybe even more so in your case given that, while Colbert only read from one part of the tweet the entire tweet is still visible on screen. In your case, however, you did not show us point Colbert made, only the joke he made about it. Normally this would not be a problem, given you tend to cite the videos you are rebutting, but in this case the Brexit clip is not found in the end card. Additionally, in the second Colbert clip starting at 13:00 you begin with criticism and do not show us the uninterrupted clip until 16:08. This made your argument harder to follow because it made it harder to understand Colbert's argument. For one to really understand a rebuttal, they must first understand what is being rebutted.

[@sirreginaldfishingtonxvii6149]

She didn't just insult an entire country, she insulated an entire continent! And a darn large one at that!

[@Charlie-qi1xn]

Guys I have searched through the KZbin jungle and found the voice of reason out in the wild.

[@hunterkirk480]

The priority isn't journalism or dispersing facts... it is about forward a political movement and motivating action.