Absolutely.
[Reply]

John Oliver is definitely a guy that used to get stuffed into lockers at my high school. Definitely.
[Reply]

It worked out for him.


[Reply]

Kimmel is the classic band/chess geek who got invited to the cool table, so he goes overboard to diss his old friends to keep his seat.

Oh, and massively pussy-whipped. His current wife is like if you put Samantha Bee, Kathy Griffin and Sarah Silverman in a blender with a handul of crack rocks.
[Reply]

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest you were 'too dumb' to see through anything. I just am not convinced that people with enough of their BS-meter alerted, both due to the comedic slant and the time slot.
[Reply]

Ironically, they met because he was at a convention to make fun of people in attendance [which she was one] for a bit to air on TDS. Can't remember if it was CPAC or RNC or fleet week or what, but something patriotic and red-statey. And she sat with him while they waited for some speech or event and convinced him that not everyone there was a loon, and he fell in love.
[Reply]

he may be the best and most extreme example ever of out kicking his coverage.
[Reply]

I doubt that, I have a couple of contestants in mind for that gig.
[Reply]

I rarely find that to be the case. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was renouned for rarely misrepresenting people's views, and have apologized when it was discerned that they did. Colbert's old show was the same, although I never recall Colbert apologizing because I don't recall Colbert misquoting, and I watched just about every episode. (I'm not defending his new show, which is more hacky compared to the Report, which was brilliant.)

Oliver and Bee are uniformly excellent at playing clips of people saying exactly what they mean.

How about we put this to the test, BL?

You name your show -- Bee or Oliver -- and we'll watch their next episode. We'll return here and evaluate exactly how accurate Bee and Oliver were in presenting the opposition's argument through clips.

Keep in mind -- we are not evaluating their arguments, though we can do that, too, if you want. We are evaluating how accurate their clips are of the arguments the opposition in question is presenting.

Let's put our money where our mouth is. Deal?
[Reply]

Or, follow me here, or....

His kid almost died, a politician USED his child to LIE to Americans about healthcare reform, and Kimmel took him to town for it.
[Reply]

Could you be any more of a leftist shill?
[Reply]

No thanks. Particularly after the week of bullshit spin after the FL shooting, I'm not in the mood to scrutinize every word of a basic cable talk show, then argue over the degree of distortion or what is argument and what is assertion of fact with their every word.

I already said that a big part of the pernicious nature of the program format is the sheer volume of info that's presented as accurate, but comedy, truth, but satire, serious, but in a funny light-hearted way.

I'm perfectly satisfied with presenting what I have and making my argument that people need to be more alert to when they're being led around by the nose in the guise of entertainment.

To go beyond that is to invite round after round of sophistry and semantics, ending with an 'agree to disagree' and 'it's just entertainment' just as we have right now.

That is, unless you ACTUALLY want to put you money where your mouth is. Put me on the clock and I'll give you my most professional effort, at my customary hourly rate.
[Reply]

Oliver is running for PM of Italy.


[Reply]

Somebody tell me where the misrepresenting quotes are in this piece, please.
[Reply]

I was only talking about the accuracy of the clips they present, since that's the part you take umbrage with.
[Reply]