Late Night Hosts Single-Handedly Saving News
North Korean missile program. The U.S. federal budget. Marijuana. Guantanamo Bay. Brexit. Every issue that plagues this human-inhabited planet has some sort of significance to each individual in one way or another. However, living in a world where we are more connected than ever, modern issues and news stories reach every corner of the earth and can carry influence in the most unimaginable ways. The self proclaimed "unbiased" news outlets we get most of this information from often flood the consumer with so much information they often fail to ignite actual change and decisiveness. For this reason and more, people are seen to turn to lighter and more upfront sources for their news and flow of information. In this modern day and age, it is impossible to be unbiased when reporting news, but such tv personalities as John Oliver do not shy away from the fact and actually do a better job at initiating change than any other outlets. A piece in particular that can be looked upon for scrutiny would be straight from his hit HBO weekly late night talk show, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” in particular, the clip entitled, “North Korea.” This piece and many others like it can be found on the “Last Week Tonight” youtube page or any other HBO streaming app. In this essay, the piece, the host, the tv show, and talk show hosts as a whole will be overgeneralized and be referred to as John Oliver for the sole purpose that he is presenting this “text” and not necessarily that he believes it himself as an individual.
To attempt to address the “elephant in the room,” it should be noted that John Oliver is clearly biased. Bias is not a bad thing. Everyone is biased and there is no true escape to it. However it is key to analyze and identify some of the biases this piece, and in turn John Oliver as a tv personality posses. The general format in which the show follows is to present an issue, argue both sides, and in conclusion to suggest some kind of solution. The way in which Oliver covers this topic as a story directly falls under narrative bias. Following that line of reasoning, the midsection of the majority of his pieces where he presents both sides of an argument, in this case the different viewpoints between North Korea and America with regards to nuclear weaponry, is a textbook example of the fairness bias. An article on media/political bias by an unnamed author explains fairness bias elegantly. “Whenever one faction or politician does something or says something newsworthy, the press is compelled by this bias to
get a reaction from an opposing camp. This creates the illusion that the game of politics is always contentious and never cooperative. This bias can also create situations in which one faction appears to be attacked by the press.” Although the host covers both sides of the argument, he still violates one more bias, the status quo bias. Oliver argues North Korea’s viewpoint but he is quick to discredit their paranoia and although he doesn’t agree with some of the responses on America’s side, he still argues that the American way is the only way and that anyone that disagrees is plainly wrong. Bias is not something anyone can escape but it’s important to recognize another’s bias when drawing our own conclusions.
That being said, it’s also noteworthy how this piece falls under the persuasion category of information rather than the already disproven unbiased transferring of information one might expect from a television personality presenting the news. John Oliver wants to sell you something. It’s not something tangible, rather a concept or idea he wants to you to understand and believe with him. Within the 30 minute segment, the narrator hits all points in Aristotle’s theory of persuasion. The piece displays ethos by taking advantage of the host’s celebrity status. Oliver uses his celebrity to exonerate his message and attain credibility with his audience so that the public would be inclined to believe him more, solely on the fact that he looks as if he knows what he’s doing and talking about. Additionally, Oliver’s platform is a ratings-craving, HBO produced, tv show, therefore he needs to present a message people would tune in to see. The host strikes on the fears and worries of his audience, in turn displaying pathos, in order to get sufficient ratings and keep the show going. Finally, Oliver mixes in facts, figures, statistics, and other data to back up and provide counterarguments in his piece, displaying logos.
“Fake news” is a phrase we’ve heard so much that it seems to be haunting us in our sleep. Mainly to blame for this self-inspired epidemic are traditional local or nationwide news networks. The problem is that traditional news outlets pride themselves most on being unbiased. In the event where they get caught on false broadcasting or bias, all credibility is immediately in doubt. On the other hand, in recent times with growing awareness of the modern political climate, talk show hosts have stepped into the role of passing along information, making the argument that late night television is saving the pseudo “news messenger” community. The difference therein is that talk show hosts have clear viewpoints they aren’t afraid of sharing whereas news outlets act to be impartial and merely report. John Oliver has a clear viewpoint and aims to persuade his viewers that his view is sane while the other side comes off as preposterous. Such talk show hosts provide the issue, the facts, and perhaps most influentially, their opinions and viewpoints as to how to resolve the issue. The main point to remember from the contrast between these two outlets is that when you watch a talk show such as Last Week Tonight, you know what you’re getting. You know where the host stands. You can make inferences on his belief. This type of reporting is superior because the audience isn’t being deceived and is in turn able to look toward a solution to an issue rather than scrutinize on the delivery of the information.
The piece that was being rhetorically analyzed was about the North Korean Missile program but after watching the clip, realistically, what stays in the audience's mind? After watching the clip, one might remember most North Korea’s obsession with the accordion (6:43). Another might remember the bit on Kim Jong Un’s silly haircut (5:22). Even the wacky, out of nowhere performance at the end of the show by weird Al Yankovic (24:30) will probably leave a more lasting impact than all the statistics mentioned throughout the show. The show takes advantage of the use of humor in its skits and cutaways to deescalate the situation and maintain its audience’s attention. In doing this, it presents North Korea’s and America’s responses and ultimately aims to reaffirm the American way but in doing this it sparks a dialogue within the audience.
Before analyzing this text, one would assume that an in-depth look would be described with regards to the issue of the North Korean missile program however looking past the content of the piece, we analyzed the entire late night talk show news outlet epidemic as a whole. Through humor and emotions, we are subconsciously lead into thinking more about something we never thought to consider. In an era where we are more connected than ever, obtaining information about current events has almost become an essential part of basic survival in such a modern age. In conclusion, it is impossible to be unbiased when reporting the news, but thanks to such programs and tv personalities as John Oliver, we are receiving our news and being able to create a dialogue to solve and put serious thought into resolving our problems. We owe so much gratitude to sources like this who are changing the landscape of political climate, one monologue at a time.