Critique of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver – 9/26/2016 Episode


I used to enjoy John Oliver. I liked how he covered various topics that deserve to be covered that a lot of mainstream news wouldn’t cover. I liked some of the causes he took up to try and make the world a better place. And sometimes he was funny. I didn’t always agree with his more liberal (that’s not the right word to use for people like him, let’s just say democrat) stances, but I was willing to overlook those for everything else. But nowadays it’s just gotten way to politically biased, too skewed, and too condescending when the same complaints he makes can be turned on him. I’ve had enough, so now I’ve gotta get this pent up rage out of me.

The only positive I’ll give this episode is its covering of the Wells Fargo thing that’s been going on. But there were 2 other topic he covered that finally angered me enough to where I just had to respond. Probably going to stop watching his show if his next episode doesn’t shape up. And I know what some of you are thinking, “Oh come on, it’s a comedy show, he’s a comedian, he can be biased and unfair.” Which is true, but that doesn’t mean someone can’t call him out on his biased bullshit.


So he begins with the whole Charlotte incident, with police shooting a black man (so this becomes a #blacklivesmatter thing now), and the riots and looting that erupted from that incident. Oliver’s first point is that the police are not being transparent about the incident, not releasing the video, and makes a case for this by being biased, in that he only shows a portion of the interview with Charlotte police chief Kerr Putney to make his case. Transparency vs. releasing the videos to the public. Oliver stated that it’s hypocritical to claim to have a transparent status while not releasing the police footage, which is a fair point. But it’s also fair to mention that the chief stated they would only show the footage to the victim’s family, and not to the public, at least not right away (the footage was later released and is pretty much exactly what the chief said it was, bodycam footage that didn’t show anything the public hadn’t seen already). Now, I’m not sure if I agree with that or not, but it’s a fair gripe on Oliver’s part.

Where he takes a stance I disagree with is his response to a statement made by Rep. Robert Pittenger (Republican).

“The grievance of the mind is uh the animus, the anger, they hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not. I mean, yes, it is a welfare state. We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare, but we have put people in bondage, so that can’t be all that they are capable of being.”

Oliver replies, “Wow, that is some toxic stuff,” and goes on to state that this is racism being put on display here.

My reply to Oliver’s reply, is it racist if it’s true? Is North Carolina a welfare state? Is the black community being put in bondage by the system to where they rely on welfare? Are they jealous of the white community’s status? Because I have to tell ya, I’ve seen some convincing arguments that that is the case.

Dinesh D’Souza, for instance, argues that Democrats make laws and environments where they make black communities reliant on welfare and government-run programs to where they are no longer dependent and can’t live without it.

Hell, this same argument was made in the 90s in the film Higher Learning (1995).

And from other sources:

So no, you can’t just brush off Pittenger’s remark as just being racist and hateful when it’s just stating the obvious which fucktards like you, Mr. Oliver, choose to ignore.

Anyway, that’s one of two points Oliver covered that ticked me off. The other point is Hillary vs. Trump. To my surprise, he covered some of Hillary’s scandals. The problem is that he didn’t go anywhere near the depth with them as he did with Trump in the past, not even close. He brought up the Whitewater scandal, the Benghazi scandal, and a fictionalized Swiss File Transfer scandal that he made up just for a joke on the show. It’s funny he should fictionalize money/file transfers from a corporate entity, considering that’s pretty much what the entire film Clinton Cash covers.

Not to mention, just because the Clintons weren’t prosecuted on those scandals doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing, anymore than the idea that the justice system is fair.

By the way, a documentary also covers at least one bad thing Trump did in great detail, which I’m surprised Oliver hasn’t brought up yet, but it’s worth noting so that I can make it clear that I believe both candidates have major faults.

John Oliver then brings up the e-mail scandal which is still ongoing. He goes into it to some extent, but not enough. He failed to mention how she lied about the emails, how she released all the emails, but then more are found, how it demonstrated her lies about the Benghazi incident (“It was because of a youtube video! What difference does it make!”, said before an email showed that she knew it was a premeditated terrorist attack). And of course he mentions that, “She wasn’t charged with any criminal wrongdoing,” failing to mention the controversy with the head of the Department of Justice meeting with Bill Clinton and the potential conflict of interest that brought about, the silence from those who worked with/around her on her emails, the hindrance from other politicians, and how at the very least, even if there wasn’t any intentional criminal intent, that such negligence, lack of knowledge, and faulty memory would make her a poor choice for president. Besides, I’d like to see just how excusable of their innocence he becomes if Trump doesn’t get prosecuted for something he should be prosecuted for. I doubt he would be as lenient.

“It’s bad, but it’s not as bad as it looks.”

Blow it out your ass. Oliver didn’t cover a single goddamn thing from Clinton Cash. Plus, when he does bring up the Clinton Foundation, he fails to bring up a point brought up in the Hillary: The Movie documentary which mentions that the Clinton Library, located in Little Rock, has only released 0.5% of the documents contained with it, which goes against the Freedom of Information Act (much like the email scandal).

And Trump lies more than Hillary? Don’t make me laugh.

Don’t get me wrong, Trump has many faults, a lot of which are highlighted justifiably in past episodes of The Tonight Show with John Oliver, but it’s hypocritical to just cherry-pick the lighter wrongdoings of the side you favor. If you’re still going to favor Hillary over Trump, be aware of the ugliest things both sides have done, not just the worst of one side and a few fluffy things from the other.

Just because it’s independent doesn’t mean it isn’t biased: A response to Democracy Now’s report: “Florida State Attorney Behind Trayvon Martin Case Defeated”

First I should mention my history with Democracy Now, a 1 hour independent news program that airs Monday through Friday on the Link Channel and on Los Angeles KCET 28 (my local channel). I was introduced to this program many many years ago by a friend of mine, but my viewings of the program have been mostly sporadic. I tune into them the same reason I tune into any independent news network or website, to get news that mainstream media won’t cover because they’re biased. Problem is, as I’ve learned over the years, independent media can be biased too, just in different ways because they are run by different people who may or may not have different views.

In the case of Democracy Now, their bias is that they always take the side of the lower class, or if they’re not in the story, the middle class, and in all other cases unless the independents suit their views, the Democrats (in the case of the current upcoming election Jill Stein has become their role model for president instead of Hillary Clinton). That seems respectable and all, reporting on and taking the side of protesters and such who rally against big corporate, corporations who (“who” rather than “that”, because corporations are apparently considered to be considered cocksucking people) run projects that threaten natural resources, and anybody who is or claims to be a victim of police racism/brutality (there is a difference between “is” and “claims”). That seems nice of them to always take their side, but the problem is that they always take their side. Whether they are right or wrong. Don’t get me wrong, much of the time, corporations who threaten natural resources are assholes who deserve to be rallied against, but every once in a while there is a project that is unjustly rallied against. There are police who are racist, or who are unjustly brutal in their actions/reactions to individuals, but that doesn’t apply to all police (or arguably even the majority of police) who make news headlines. But when you make a report that falsely vilify someone who should not be vilified, that’s going too far.

So on today’s (August 31, 2016’s) episode of Democracy Now, Amy BitchTits Goodman made this statement:

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey was also defeated. Corey had faced widespread criticism for her handling of several prominent cases, including the killing of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin by white neighborhood watch vigilante George Zimmerman and the case of Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing what she maintains was a warning shot at her abusive husband. [emphasis added]

First of all, stating that Zimmerman’s race is ‘white’ is not accurate and is obviously fueling the whole racism issue that mainstream media is fueling, which has started have severe side-effects, in case no one has noticed lately. Zimmerman is just as much Hispanic as he is White, if not more-so, so playing the race card on him is biased and stupid, though there have been backlash against claiming him to be otherwise.

Second of all, ‘vigilante’? As if he was going around intended to gun down black criminals any chance he could get? Just leave the description to the facts you cunt, that he was part of the neighborhood watch.

“But he was a vigilante, who did gun down Trayvon Martin in cold blood!” one may respond. To which I will reply, “You haven’t taken a close look at the details of the case, have you?” Well I have, and here’s what I’ve found.

It is argued that Zimmerman basically came up, argued at Martin, and then shot him, possibly getting in a small scuffle prior to it. Problem with that is that it’s easier to believe Zimmerman’s side of the story, where he says Martin attacked him first (though after Zimmerman ill-advisedly, and using poor-judgement, chased Martin after Martin ran from him while he was in his car, and eventually Zimmerman gave up the chase, went back to his car, and Martin came and confronted him there). After tackling Zimmerman to the ground, severely beating his head into the ground, and supposedly reaching for his ground, Zimmerman got his gun and shot Martin, in a case that when you look at the details and the evidence, clearly seems to be in self-defense. Evidence for that side of it? The markings on Zimmerman’s head, and other notes made about the bruises around various parts of his body.


For in-depth details into the whole George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case, see this site:

As much as I hate bringing up past events like this, I kinda find it necessary when news organizations continue to use the racist angle story of an unjust racially motivated killing of white on black, and when fucking movements like Black Lives Matter continue to use such a story as motivation, when the story does not support their movement at all. It is bullshit, and all the assholes in that organization are dumb as shit for not looking into the details of something they use as motivation for such a cause. Fuck the biased news.

Oh, and in case the foul language above didn’t make things obvious, Democracy Now has gotten on my bad side, and so has Amy Goodman. The reporters/writers on that program should have known better. And Amy should have known better too. I expect better from independent news organizations.