On a less political front, Last Week Tonight is just kind of purely formulaic, and after a while gets to the "punchlines" being "you're supposed to laugh now" signs. I think it's gotten a bit better since the horrid low point of mid-second season, but I also stopped watching it, so maybe not.
Easy there chief, I'm not your RedKing to RedKing's maniac. All I'm saying is that Last Week Tonight's writing tightbeam is focused exclusively on 18-25 year old American leftists. Wrong? I don't know. Annoyingly transparent? Oh yeah.
I mean...it's the exact same formula as the Daily Show, just with more swearing. It's what made TDS a success with that exact demographic. I take no stance on whether you should or should not dislike that. But it's not new.
What else can the public really do in such an absence of clear information but follow the typical divisions?
Find the middle ground instead of just feeding the machine on either side? That two ideas are not mutually exclusive: Europe has a moral obligation to help, and doing so comes with additional costs, risk and challenges? That some refugees are "good elements" that will ultimately help the European economy, and some are "bad elements" that will commit crime.
Basically admitting real life is real and getting on with legislation to address real life instead of arguing for or supporting binary interpretations of complex situations involving actual people. The same could be said for both sides. And back to my original question, I feel like JO does the token sober admission to both sides of the argument, just like TDS did. It's still a lead up to his actual opinion and the punchline but I don't think he's, like, a maximum shill or anything.
...the thread, she does move fast.