• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - returns Feb 12th 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never thought I would say this, but it's hard to go back to the daily show after this. John Oliver has killed every night, and every night he actually educates me on a fucked up thing in our society.
 

Siegcram

Member
I never thought I would say this, but it's hard to go back to the daily show after this. John Oliver has killed every night, and every night he actually educates me on a fucked up thing in our society.
Agreed, Daily Show just feels stale and rushed compared to this. It feels their segments are like 2 minutes long.
 

ZenaxPure

Member
Agreed, Daily Show just feels stale and rushed compared to this. It feels their segments are like 2 minutes long.

It's because of the interviews man, I don't know how the daily show operates obviously if they have to do them, but I feel like it'd be such a better show if they didn't. Usually the interview takes up half the show and then you have commercial breaks which puts the actual show at around 11 minutes or so and thus there isn't as much time for the jokes/stories.

I still like the daily show a lot, but last week tonight is just soooo much better. Being able to have just 1 story/bit last as long as all the stories of the daily show does so much for the quality.

Basically (and obviously) what I'm saying is fuck interviews every single episode, I always turn off the daily show when it gets there, I'm glad last week tonight doesn't do it.
 
I really enjoy this show, quality stuff every week.

I used the entire segment (17 minutes) on prisons to do a 5 minute presentation for my intro to policing class; I got 10/10 on the presentation.

#GoGetThoseGeckos
 

Siegcram

Member
Basically (and obviously) what I'm saying is fuck interviews every single episode, I always turn off the daily show when it gets there, I'm glad last week tonight doesn't do it.
Same, unless it's someone interesting or someone funny like Louis CK or Tracy Morgan idgf.
I don't care about the author of the 1000th book about Wall Street or politicans regurgitating party lines.
 
Same, unless it's someone interesting or someone funny like Louis CK or Tracy Morgan idgf.
I don't care about the author of the 1000th book about Wall Street or politicans regurgitating party lines.
Yup. Most of the Daily Show interviews are boring to me.
LWT is pretty much all I watch in this genre now.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
It's because of the interviews man, I don't know how the daily show operates obviously if they have to do them, but I feel like it'd be such a better show if they didn't. Usually the interview takes up half the show and then you have commercial breaks which puts the actual show at around 11 minutes or so and thus there isn't as much time for the jokes/stories.

I still like the daily show a lot, but last week tonight is just soooo much better. Being able to have just 1 story/bit last as long as all the stories of the daily show does so much for the quality.

Basically (and obviously) what I'm saying is fuck interviews every single episode, I always turn off the daily show when it gets there, I'm glad last week tonight doesn't do it.

I was about to post about how I originally wanted to see the Daily Show expand to an hour because it would allow interviews to not be sent to the Internet( I hate that) and would open up more opportunities for investigative pieces and in depth analysis but this idea may be more realistic.

Expanding to an hour would force more stress on everyone involved and Jon will never do that.

But being more flexible with their format would be a smart move. You could eliminate the interview on nights where you want to go in depth on a topic or do a longer investigative piece. When you line up a great guest you could shorten segments or just have a 22 minute interview. Because frankly I don't think the daily show really needs Hollywood guests anymore. Maybe a few throughout the year, mostly comedians, but it just seems like a holdover from the early years where, like most daily comedy shows, they chase celebrities to boost ratings, but the show has moved beyond that. Lots of hollywood guests jut force the show into something it no longer is.
 

Keasar

Member
Great bit about the advertising in news media. Thankfully it hasn't been as noticeable here in Sweden but its a scary thought. Makes me think about the bit on The Daily Show where Jason Jones managed to pay a Indian newspaper to print a "researched" article he wrote.
 

waypoetic

Banned
Great bit about the advertising in news media. Thankfully it hasn't been as noticeable here in Sweden but its a scary thought. Makes me think about the bit on The Daily Show where Jason Jones managed to pay a Indian newspaper to print a "researched" article he wrote.

I'm sure that if you visit Aftonbladet or Expressen's website you'll find some.
 

rezuth

Member
Great bit about the advertising in news media. Thankfully it hasn't been as noticeable here in Sweden but its a scary thought. Makes me think about the bit on The Daily Show where Jason Jones managed to pay a Indian newspaper to print a "researched" article he wrote.

It's all over Aftonbladet and Expressen.

Edit: Mentioned above but still they are the two largest "news" paper.
 

Matush

Member
This is pretty much the only "Talk Show" I have ever watched and I love it! Is this confirmed to run the whole year? (except some holidays)
 
John Oliver's bit on the convergence of editorial and paid advertising, while accurate and entertaining, kind of misses the point. This isn't something new at all -- there have been "advertorials" (i.e., sponsored news stories) in newspapers for decades. It's the shift to online advertising that's making a stir.

The majority of these native content activations aren't malicious in intent; they're not designed to swill the reader into clicking on an ad. (What would the point even be? The success of most online campaigns nowadays is measured by purchases, not by clicks.) The majority of native advertising campaigns are there to create parity between content that consumers value and the values a brand is looking to represent. By highlighting utilitarian content that most readers actually value, native content has been found to be preferred versus traditional advertising (according to a recent study, 70% of individuals want to learn about products through content rather than through traditional advertising).

And to address Oliver's comment that the majority of folks can't even tell the difference between ads and editorial, well, that's really up to the consumer. The American Society of Magazine Editors has created actual rules and guidelines to be followed when advertising natively on websites -- this isn't something that's unregulated. The onus is really on the reader to determine whether content they're consuming is editorially driven or if it is sponsored. And that's easy to do when native ads must include language saying that it was paid content.
 

sangreal

Member
John Oliver's bit on the convergence of editorial and paid advertising, while accurate and entertaining, kind of misses the point. This isn't something new at all -- there have been "advertorials" (i.e., sponsored news stories) in newspapers for decades. It's the shift to online advertising that's making a stir.

It's a problem in print too.

The majority of these native content activations aren't malicious in intent; they're not designed to swill the reader into clicking on an ad. (What would the point even be? The success of most online campaigns nowadays is measured by purchases, not by clicks.)

Who said they're trying to trick you into clicking an ad? That would be redundant. The problem is the content is the ad. You're tricked into believing it is objective content, when it is not.

The majority of native advertising campaigns are there to create parity between content that consumers value and the values a brand is looking to represent. By highlighting utilitarian content that most readers actually value, native content has been found to be preferred versus traditional advertising (according to a recent study, 70% of individuals want to learn about products through content rather than through traditional advertising).

Of course they want to learn about products through content rather than through ads. I'm sure they don't mean non-objective content, which is just an ad.

And to address Oliver's comment that the majority of folks can't even tell the difference between ads and editorial, well, that's really up to the consumer. The American Society of Magazine Editors has created actual rules and guidelines to be followed when advertising natively on websites -- this isn't something that's unregulated.

That's not a regulation. Also, the guidelines are a joke. Oh, you have to give notice that there is sponsored content? Sounds great. So open GQ and somewhere in the middle of the magazine there is a page saying 'check out our sponsored content on pages x y and z'. Real useful. I don't mean to pick on GQ since their sponsored content is usually pretty clearly marked (despite being designed to resemble normal pieces), I just happen to have one next to me.

The onus is really on the reader to determine whether content they're consuming is editorially driven or if it is sponsored. And that's easy to do when native ads must include language saying that it was paid content.

Yes, a tiny little bar at the top of the page saying 'Advertisement' on a page specifically designed to fool you into thinking it is not an advertisement (at least on first glance)
 
It's a problem in print too.

Not really. I've never heard of a reader having any problems with advertorial content.

Who said they're trying to trick you into clicking an ad?

This was one of the points John Oliver made in the segment.

That's not a regulation. Also, the guidelines are a joke.

These are editorial guidelines that most publishers have agreed to follow. They're obviously being rewritten as the industry moves forward, but at least it's a start.

Yes, a tiny little bar at the top of the page saying 'Advertisement' on a page specifically designed to fool you into thinking it is not an advertisement (at least on first glance)

I'm obviously not going to change your mind about this, but in my opinion, if the reader can't be bothered to read the page, or doesn't have the capacity to realize that content is sponsored, then that's really not the publisher or advertiser's problem. The point is that it's not a shady business practice when it's clearly marked as sponsored content. It's a proven method of reaching target consumers, of engaging them in content that's (most likely) relevant and valuable to them. And readers have noted that it's valuable to them.
 

Jarrod38

Member
Found last night's episode to be the weakest one so far. After last week's episode it would have been hard to top it.
 
The payday loans bit was great and eye-opening, but I can't imagine that many of the people who actually use those services are subscribers to HBO. It is great that most of his bits are posted on YouTube, though, so hopefully it'll get the right exposure there.
 
I used to take out payday loans years ago. Stop doing so for the reasons Oliver covered in the video. They're just there to fuck over poor people.
 

ReAxion

Member
i used to do payday loans, too. was in such a shitty spot. i saw one today and had sad flashbacks.

show's great, as if that needs saying.
 
Brilliant episode.

Glad we're finally back!

E5pOT8l.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom