Oliver does nothing but present facts – facts which one could nevertheless interpret in a positive or negative manner provided some intellectual nuance – and proceed to make snarky remarks which trivialize the matter at hand. He then lets his Orwellian laugh track confirm to you that, yes, the matter is indeed this laughably simple, and that the opposite view is so plainly comical so as to not be deserving of serious thought.

Rather than construct an argument and back it up with some jokes and comical observations along the way, he *presents* the opponent as itself the joke without making an effort to *make* it at all funny. There is no need to prove that the other side is laughable – this is built into his prior assumptions. He constructs a strawman view of the matter at hand, lets his drones laugh at it, and ends with a resounding conclusion as to what is right and what is wrong. This, I think, is why he is more broadly disliked than were his stylistic predecessors.

He is quite literally dulling the ability and willingness of his liberal viewers to think at all critically by engaging in a simple practice of belief confirmation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950226)

is it theire ez 4.0 -> hls power?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950244)

now, back to our substantive, smart, wickedly funny, and top notch show...

now watch me suck my own dick, as a modern art exhibit against trump, proving that i, oliver, am the new age ARTIST.

goodnight audience. and dont forget to tune in next week, where i show hilarious photoshopped photos, tell dick jokes, and get all serious on your ass within seconds. oh what a show we have! *EJACULATES ON THE CAMERA*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950316)

Facts = bad. We need more small-dick jokes and shouting matches!

He's the best show out there, a leap up from Jon Stewart (even if he doesn't have quite his comedic chops), who was fairly superficial, though he admittedly had to churn it out every day. On the other hand, Oliver will spend 20 minutes exposing pressing problems in detail, and not just obvious ones (admittedly the segment on Trump was a bit silly, because that's like an exposé of the dangers of cigarette smoking).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950344)

>Oliver begins to suggest that Trump’s campaign is not entirely self-funded

>Cuts to video of Trump saying that he receives donations on the order of a few dollars from individuals, which are impractical to return

At this point, an intelligent person makes the following observations regardless of his political orientation or opinion regarding Trump:

>Trump isn’t (that we know of) taking donations from companies, special-interest organizations, etc. As concerns his claim regarding his financial independence, what’s important isn’t simply that the money is coming from his own pocket – it’s that he doesn’t have to answer to anyone looking for political favors in return for donations. As small individual donations carry no political capital, the fact that he accepts them isn’t a material point as regards his financial independence.

This doesn’t take a large intellectual leap – it simply evaluates the significance of the facts in the appropriate context. More thoughtful people will, and do, find better reasons for which to criticize Trump.

Now we return to the video:

>Oliver creates imagery of Trump imagining old ladies stuffing envelopes with ‘grimy dollar bills’ and ‘writing ‘Donald Trump’ on the front

>Audience laughs

>Oliver mentions that he’s received $7.5 million in individual donations, and that he has two ‘donate’ buttons on his website. His campaign is not self-funded, QED.

There was no substantive point to be made in this case. But Oliver ignores the very obvious counterpoint to the idea that Trump’s campaign isn’t entirely self-funded (indeed, one so obvious that it’s difficult to call it a ‘counterpoint’ as such, as though there were some meaningful point to be countered at all). He then proceeds (A) to suggest that Trump is lying to us regarding the financial independence of his campaign and (B) to create a strawman of an out-of-touch Trump so naïve so as to think that little old ladies are sending in their change from the supermarket. The crowd laughs, confirming the point, and he moves on.

This isn’t a matter of simply ‘ignoring the other side,’ which all political commentators with an argument to push invariably do to some extent. This is a matter of cherry-picking facts and, upon presenting them, framing them in such a way that they confirm the house opinion. There isn’t a debate to be had – only facts stacked against his opponents. This isn’t a matter of simple bias, which infects all political commentary, liberal and conservative alike. It’s a matter of presenting information which is framed as entirely objective and neutral, but which is in fact not – and which, when it could be, is presented in such a way that it can’t help but to be seen through a particular tint of glass.

Vox, some writers on Fivethirtyeight, etc. play the same game, writing ‘explainers’ which purport to present ‘just the facts,’ but which are undeniably designed to push some opinion. That they are skewed by political bias is not significant, and is to be expected. What is worrisome is that political opinion and moral views are sold as empirical and undeniable truth, and the public consumes them as such.

This is also why his “IT’S [INSERT CURRENT YEAR]!” comments are not merely innocent and silly appeals. Oliver’s modus operandi is to present information as though there are no real debates to be had – and when there is no debate to be had, policy can and should move in only one direction. Never mind that some people might have logical reasons to oppose the Obergefell decision – it’s impossible to see it as anything but a matter of expanding equality for homosexuals. So, with no reasonable moral basis upon which to oppose it, why haven’t we created a more equitable society already? It’s 2016! It’s impossible to see healthcare as anything but a human right, so why haven’t we expanded the state’s role in supporting healthcare costs already? It’s 2016!

I’m no fan of Jon Stewart, but he at least had the willingness to address the fact that his opponents weren’t automatons or mindless idiots, and debated many of them on his show, to varying degrees of success. Oliver instead constructs strawmen and is content to laugh at them from a distance, hiding behind the situations as he presents them rather than pushing his opinions in the face of those who might contest him, and presenting his vision of the world as the only real way through which to understand a topic.

As for the Trump piece – he makes some more substantive points through the segment, some less. But how does he end the show (18:25 to end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ&t=18m25s )? Not by making some appeal as to the potential consequences of us electing him, which would perhaps be the most logical thought to address. No, he quite literally creates a new strawman for us, telling us to see Trump not as the proud and illustrious ‘Trump’ but as the bumbling idiot ‘Drumpf.’ How could we vote for him then? The audience bursts in laughter. QED.

Oliver’s game is to strip all possible nuance from political matters to ensure that we see facts and debates from only one perspective, and to make moral and political appeals on that basis. Say what you will about Trump, but this piece adds nothing to a critical mind’s understanding of and opinion on the Trump phenomenon. It simply tells us what we should think about him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950857)

But it's pure propaganda. That's fine when the issue is actually black and white, but when they aren't it is really painful. His analysis of Trump was one of the dimmest I've seen. Like, yeah man I know he is a salesman and it can look sleazy. The issue is that the actual politicians running against him are way sleazier, and without addressing that, Oliver looked very low IQ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950454)

trump has a few ventures fail, HE'S A BAD BUSINESSMAN IN SPITE OF HIS BILLIONS

clinton sets the fucking middle east on FIRE, oh what a strong leader to defeat trump!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29950494)

and trump's corsican bitch support group gets all butt hurt

imagine that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29952607)

but obviously their election coverage is gonna be a completely dishonest hatchet job of trump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3148180&forum_id=2#29972985)