Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

I've listened to the Bugle - the "satirical podcast" which Oliver co-hosts - for a few years now, so am quite familiar with him and would probably consider myself a fan of his. I enjoy LWT and admire its ambition but I think it's limited.

Does this format sound familiar?: the topic is introduced with a news clip or interview extract; the audience gasps and Oliver says something like, "Yeah, that's right"; he spends the next thirty seconds or more giving detail, perhaps without any joke; with the preamble over, what follows is a series of attempts to portray some aspect of the topic as being ludicrous, after each of which he draws an analogy - "That's like me saying to my dog..." Obviously there is more variety than that, but I think it's a worryingly accurate summary.

The humour excessively relies on the analogy gag and, as a result, is often separate from the story - "Let me explain this terrible thing; now let me tell you a joke that uses it for scaffolding." The satirical comedy of Chris Morris, on the other hand, is woven with the subject.

It portrays itself as an investigative show, but it largely relies on existing investigations and/or campaigners.

I'm conscious that satire doesn't really do nuance; it would be entirely neutered were it expected to. But considering the show presents itself as taking a certain topic and then comprehensively explaining it to the viewer, it ought to be more factually dependable, and I get the impression that some examples are set up to seem preposterous when in reality there may be an understandable reason why something dysfunctional is the way it is.

All that said, I enjoy it and would probably be disappointed were it cancelled.

Just watched the clip from the most recent episode on Youtube. Over half an hour long and with an interview with Edward Snowden.

Echoing some of the criticisms above, I thought the switching between jokes and serious content felt contrived and uncomfortable. The jokes were pretty lame too.

Up until the "junk pics" section, I thought the Snowden interview was really weak. The style of LWT interviews is similar to that of Oliver's interviews on the Daily Show and to Stephen Colbert's. But whereas it worked when Oliver was a "correspondent", I don't think it does when he switches from being the straight-man host to being the brash interviewer. It works for Colbert because he retains that brash persona in both roles.

I'm not a supporter of Snowden's, but it seems patently obvious to me that a whistleblower (especially one handling such complex data as Snowden did) is not obliged to ensure that everything they share is absolutely and entirely handled properly; merely that they make a genuine effort. Oliver chided Snowden for the mistake of the New York Times, possibly the most well-resourced newspaper in the world.

Maybe he'd requested that the topic not be discussed, but I'd have liked to have known how Snowden felt about him having (to at least some extent) aligned with a country whose relations with America and the West are fast deteriorating.

The "junk pics" section was more impressive. And Oliver landed the line of the century when he said, "No, you should absolutely not [share the document he was holding with the camera]. And it's unbelievable that you would do that. Actually, it's entirely believable." (Simultaneously mocking the NSA and Snowden). But I felt the playing of ignorant vox pops was not as revealing as the show implied. And the overall implication, in essence, was that Snowden and his media partners should have spun a compelling narrative in order to engage the public. Journalistically, entirely unethical.

It should be noted that the interview was not linear - i.e. footage was, for whatever reason, edited (sometimes mid-answer).

And last, when will Oliver admit that his show sees itself as being more than comedy? He always becomes incredulous when it is put to him that his show is news-based. But he seems blind to the fact that anything that presents itself as interpreting news events is a "news show". It's either satire or really weak comedy that uses current events as a skeleton. Take your pick! He says in this interview that the only responsibility he feels is to make people laugh. They gives rise to some worrying implications, IMO: would he be willing to greatly misrepresent for the sake of comedy.