@BaardKopperud Because Oliver is highly left leaning and is primarily trying to make comedy, not convey policy. It is not always in his interest to present facts in the most accurate way. That is not to say he is lying or wrong, but it is to say that he is not a reputable source for a serious answer.

@DavidGrinberg he's also a very intelligent investigative journalist. Who also makes things funny. His show is absolutely left-leaning, but absolutely reputable. That link isn't a stand-up routine. It's an actual piece of investigative reporting.

@blip sorry, no. He is not an investigative journalist. He goes no significant investigatory work. His comedy does not live up to journalistic standards. It's funny, but no one serious, not even him, pretends it's real journalism

@DavidGrinberg have you watched his show? They have researched topics that no one else has even touched. That their research is interspersed with jokes doesn't change the research and analysis they do. The likes of Stewart and Oliver will never claim they are journalists, as that lets them off the hook. But that doesn't mean their research isn't solid research.

Regardless, we can debate this...as many do (example: thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/… ) but we should be able to agree that what they do present is factually accurate--even if from a left leaning POV and made funny.

@blip I used to watch Colbert/Stewart/Oliver. It was funny, but it was always plainly obvious when they used tactics that could at best be described as misrepresentation of facts and explicit removal of critical details, and at worst be called blatant lying. These shows are for comedy, not for real news.

@davidgrinberg and yet there was research showing that shows like Colbert were more accurate with stories than many news outlets. A lot of people argue strongly that they are news and for them to claim otherwise is rather naive of them. Anyhow, that's really a whole other discussion anyways. I admit that there is disagreement on this issue.

@blip If you want to continue this discussion I recommend moving it to chat. Ill just say that I would be extremely skeptical (to put it nicely) of any study that claims to assert truth and correctness from political news reporting.

@DavidGrinberg can you cite an example of factual inaccuracy in the video that Baard Kopperud linked to?

@phoog Please reread my comment. I do not say it is always false, but I do say that they frequently use misrepresentation of facts and missing details to push their agenda. IE you notice how they only find stupid sounding people for the otherside? Makes for a great laugh, but a terrible political argument.

@DavidGrinberg you appear to be discrediting a report used in support of this answer by attacking the credibility of its source rather than the facts presented in the report: an ad hominem attack. That also makes for a poor argument.

@phoog This is my last comment here. If you want to continue please open a chat. Oliver's use of small clips purposefully designed to make the other side looks dumb is one example of how late night comedians are explicitly biased in their reporting. Its funny, but a clear misrepresentation of facts. Now I haven't seen this particular clip, so I don't know if there are any falsehoods in it, but if its anything like any of his other work it will have multiple clear signs that Oliver's "reporting" is significantly flawed.

"Now I haven't seen this particular clip"...sigh.

@blip I have to agree with DavidGrinberg here I'm afraid. I've watched and enjoined Oliver, but he really is not a good source to site as proof. His sections tend to present very one-sided arguments that utilize tricks like presenting individual experiences to draw in emotional investment instead of discussing more important quantitative evidence and presenting an overly simplified argument. Even when I agree with the larger point of his sections they often bother me because of how one-sided they can be. That is fine as a comedian, but not a good sole source to quote for facts.

@dsollen I don't disagree that he comes at things from a particular side. He's absolutely partisan. One can be partisan, and still present accurate information, even if it is framed in a particular point of view. I'm with Phoog on this, what, in said report, do you all feel was factually inaccurate (or coming from such a one-sided angle that it was misleading?)

@blip I haven't seen that one and can't watch it at work :) and to be honest I suspect that one is particularly acceptable as there really aren't any other interpretations beyond the one he would be arguing to this case as far as I'm concerned. But if I did not know the material already I would not use it as a useful resource because, while what he says is likely true, he is very prone to not mentioning information that could demonstrate limits of his facts or provide a very different view. One sided arguments should never be used as proof, your missing important counter data.

@blip I still agree in this case with your conclusion. My point was only that he is never a good source to prove things. He has used in his reports tricks that could very easily be used to try to convince people of anything, like focusing on one individual's worst case scenario over the likely/average outcome of a policy, quoting a single report that meets his desired goals without citing ones that state otherwise and/or admitting the low sample size limit the usefulness of the study, and picking only at flawed argument without addressing the more sound ones that are harder to counter

@blip If you tell me that Oliver doesn't use the same tactic to represent the other side as idiots as he always does, then I'll watch it. Otherwise Oliver's prose is just a waste of time if you try to treat it seriously.

@DavidGrinberg I don't know what these 'other side as idiots' argument is. Do you have examples? You are also completely dismissing what his staff and show actually does.

@David Grinberg Well, "the other side" in this case haven't tried to restrict certain groups of people from voting! In fact several other states (and no, I'm not implying these states are run by Democrats - I don't know and haven't checked), have made it easier to vote - by for example allowing voting electronically. Do you suggest JO also ought to present arguements about "the dangers of letting poor people (esp. blacks) to vote" - just to be "fair and ballanced"? Both "sides" of an argument, doesn't always have an equally strong and valid case!

@BaardKopperud (1) No state allows electronic voting (only registration). (2) Your comment is a great example of how Oliver explicitly selects facts that further his point and explicitly omits facts that don't (hey, its not funny). IE does he bring up any intelectual argument for the pro case (I'm sure he doesn't). Does he bring up how the EU has much stricter voter ID laws but somehow isn't some giant racist land (I bet he doesn't)? The point is not do tick for tack. The point is to paint the whole picture. That is why Oliver is 100% unreliable for this. I'm you're interested to learn (ctd..)

(...ctd) more about actual arguments for voter id (which is not to say its inherently the right choice) that don't involve obvious manipulation I encourage you to open a chat as this is the last comment I will post on this thread (and this time I really really mean it :) ).