Culture Annon makes observations about John Oliver's Show and mass conditioning

DarthOne

☦️
6UGleRSi.jpeg



For those who can't make out the blurry picture (sorry about that) or just don't want to strain your eyes, here's a transcription.

The subject of John Oliver came up when a colleague (fellow psychologist) and I were discussing politics a few months ago. Although we were both in agreement regarding the general shitlib inanity of the HBO show, my friend was surprised when I explained that the real insidiousness of it is its unmistakable hypnotic structure and pacing.

I ended up pulling up an episode or two off of youtube to show her what I meant. all the segments I've ever seen from its show follow the same repetitive format:

Present some "argumentation" and "facts" for about 10 seconds, then quickly follow these up with a snarky quip (which themselves overwhelmingly take the form of complete non-sequitur or otherwise absurd metaphor) before any rational processing to the preceding argument can take place in the mind of the view. Further telling is that the only "beats" or metal pauses in the show's pacing exist solely to highlight the approving laughter or applause of the studio audience. Repeat this basic formula with variation 20-40 times in a row and you have one of the 12-20 minute "segments" that form the backbone of the show.

The end effect is (obviously) not to deliver information, but rather to teach the viewer-on a subconscious level- to mentally associate derisive laughter with any person or opinion that is at odds with the narrative's take on the chosen issue. And it accomplishes this by maintaining a strict adherence to a roughly 20-second cycle in which a stimulus is presented, and a response is cued. This is the sense in which the show is fundamentally hypnotic in effect- even moreso than its precursors in the genre (Daily Show, Colbert, etc)

To my mind, Oliver's show is representative of the media's increasing mastery of the methodologies of mass conditioning; in fact, it is almost such a perfect technical accomplishment that I would almost have to admire it on technical grounds, which moreover is in the hands of the entirely wrong people.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
6UGleRSi.jpeg



For those who can't make out the blurry picture (sorry about that) or just don't want to strain your eyes, here's a transcription.

The subject of John Oliver came up when a colleague (fellow psychologist) and I were discussing politics a few months ago. Although we were both in agreement regarding the general shitlib inanity of the HBO show, my friend was surprised when I explained that the real insidiousness of it is its unmistakable hypnotic structure and pacing.

I ended up pulling up an episode or two off of youtube to show her what I meant. all the segments I've ever seen from its show follow the same repetitive format:

Present some "argumentation" and "facts" for about 10 seconds, then quickly follow these up with a snarky quip (which themselves overwhelmingly take the form of complete non-sequitur or otherwise absurd metaphor) before any rational processing to the preceding argument can take place in the mind of the view. Further telling is that the only "beats" or metal pauses in the show's pacing exist solely to highlight the approving laughter or applause of the studio audience. Repeat this basic formula with variation 20-40 times in a row and you have one of the 12-20 minute "segments" that form the backbone of the show.

The end effect is (obviously) not to deliver information, but rather to teach the viewer-on a subconscious level- to mentally associate derisive laughter with any person or opinion that is at odds with the narrative's take on the chosen issue. And it accomplishes this by maintaining a strict adherence to a roughly 20-second cycle in which a stimulus is presented, and a response is cued. This is the sense in which the show is fundamentally hypnotic in effect- even moreso than its precursors in the genre (Daily Show, Colbert, etc)

To my mind, Oliver's show is representative of the media's increasing mastery of the methodologies of mass conditioning; in fact, it is almost such a perfect technical accomplishment that I would almost have to admire it on technical grounds, which moreover is in the hands of the entirely wrong people.

It's a little too late to really parse that now. The damage has already been done. The good news is that these shows are not doing as well as they once had. In some cases it's probably just a lack of interest or simple demographic adjustment, but in other cases, such as Noah taking over the Daily Show, it's a considerable downslide.


John Steward left in 2014 or Season 20, with an average rating of 7.6. Noah took over in S21 and ratings fell to 6.9 (-.7). One might excuse that as the audience adjusting to a new host. And in S22m we see a return to 7.1 (+.2). But then in S23 it drops to 6.6 (-.5), something the show hadn't seen since S12. S24 was 6.0 (-.6). And in Season 25 and 26, during a pandemic...when people should be watching MORE Trevor Noah, not less--his ratings are among the lowest in the history of the show. S1 and S2 of the Daily Show were the lowest of the entire franchise. 5.1 and 5.4 respectively. And we get S25 (5.3, which is -.7 from S24) and S26 (5.1, -.2 from S25).

Despite having over two decades of name recognition, Trevor Noah is consistently getting lower numbers. I know they're trying to say it's because "everything is online now", but that doesn't explain it.

The year after Noah took over for Stewart, we saw a .7 point drop. And even with the political season heating up in 2016, he only managed a 7.1, a rating that the show hadn't seen since S16, about half a decade before Noah took over. After the election was over, we saw the ratings drop to 6.6. That's .5 lower than S22 and 1.0 lower than John Stewart. And from there, the damage keeps coming. Even in 2020, we saw 5.3. During an election year.

Keep that in mind. During 2016, the show got a .2 boost from the election and dropped .5 points the year after. For 2019, the show had 6.0 and in 2020, it lost .7, then lost another .2 this year.

They were absolutely getting destroyed in the ratings.

Next we can look at Steven Colbert. The Colbert Report was a very high rated show. While John Stewart left with a respectable 7.1, Colbert's S10 & 11 had 7.9 and 8.0 respectively. Very highly rated. People enjoyed both their shows and at the time, both shows were talked about all the time.

Aaaand then we arrive at Late Show with Colbert. Season 1? 6.0 Ouch. Well, alright--we can't expect all of his fans from Colbert Report to shift over. Well, let's look at the Late Show with Letterman. He had 7.5 in S22, which was his last season. That's a point and a half drop from Letterman.

That's not to say that Colbert was dying in the ratings. S22 for Letterman was the best he'd had since...well, since they hired his shriveled ass in 93. And in all fairness, his average rating for his entire run is 6.3, where as Colbert's is 6.4.

In addition, Colbert's ratings for the past few years has been pretty good. While Trevor Noah has consistently tanked over the past 6 years, Colbert has kept solid ratings. S2 (6.0), S3 (6.5), S4 (6.9), S5 (6.5), S6 (6.3), and S7 (6.7). Compare that to Noah's S22 (7.1), S23 (6.6), S24 (6.0), S25 (5.3), and S26 (5.1).

Consequently, both are being beat by John Oliver. Whose average rating is an 8.1, which strikes me as odd. Colbert dropped in the ratings after changing show and format. Noah tanked despite having the same show and format as John Stewart. Meanwhile, John Oliver has more or less the same format as Noah and has more or less maintained his ratings. He's dropped off in S8, with 7.7, about a .4 drop from his current average...in fact, that probably brought down his average, but that's still higher than either Colbert or Noah. It's also rather odd, since his consistent ratings took a pretty hard hit. Still, Oliver won't have to worry about his career.

And neither will Colbert. He isn't bringing up the numbers of the show much, but it's not like that got Letterman fired. The only person whose suspending their show is...Noah. Gee, I wonder WHY. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that his show has gotten the worst ratings it's seen in 25 years.

There are two conclusions to my mind.

1) Trevor Noah is a racist, elitist, and unfunny piece of shit who has cratered a successful show...
2) Liberals, who are most entertained by these shows, are in fact racist, anti-intellectual monsters.

The Colbert show ended, with nothing to replace it. The Daily Show actively turns people off. All that leaves is John Oliver's show. And I don't know how well he can maintain his high ratings with an increasingly isolationist American population.
 

f1onagher

Well-known member
I was literally looking for a place to drop off that exact same piece. :LOL:

I'd be interested to see a proper psychological investigation of what he does. I suspect that it would be interesting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top