On the Genius of John Oliver's Interview of Snowden

     I'm convinced that Oliver may well be a genius after seeing his interview of Edward Snowden.

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-oliver-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks


     I agree with Talking Points commentator Rheinhard

     "I am rapidly becoming convinced that John Oliver is going to be a bigger force for positive social change and public engagement on the issues than Jon Stewart ever was. This bit was pure unadulterated genius, and along with his Net Neutrality piece, may get more folks talking about this issue than ever."

    I disagree with commentator SonofAres:

    I cannot stand John Oliver, but I am resigned to having to suffer through seeing prominent recaps of his stupid show on TPM for the time being. But to answer his charge: I'm still waiting to hear how the constant flow of stolen information is pertinent to my Fourth Amendment rights. Because I don't care about spying on other countries at all. But none of Snowden's disciples can ever tell me how that affects my Constitutional rights, much less offering other countries help to avoid U.S. spying directly helps American citizens.

    "It's at this point, Snowden's disciples' palm fronds turn into swords, as they pillory and vilify anyone who dares to question their messiah and lecture the rest of us about "the bigger picture" or "you're a sheep! Wake up!" I'd like our stolen information back, because I didn't appoint this guy my spokesman for anything. Then we can talk outrage."

     See I don't see Oliver as a disciple of Snowden. Oliver's piece was actually really cleverly done which is why I agree that he may do more than Stewart for positive social change. Oliver certainly admitted that there are some diffiuclt questions about what Snowden did and acknolwedged that while some may see him as a hero some see him as a traitor-and not only for bad reasons. 

    Oliver seems to me to have real potential to push a liberal agenda because he gets something that usually only the Right understands: that the form ideas take is often just as important as the ideas themselves. You can't simply ignore form for content. Being right or having the facts on your side isn't enough. If it was the GOP would be routed. Yet if you look at the position of the Dems vs. the GOP today, you have to admit that it's basically a wash at this point-it's a 50-50 country and has been so since 1968 with the end of the FDR New Deal coalition. 

   I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh or Fox News of course, but they understand form better than liberals do usually which explains why the Right has totally dominated talk radio. Oliver understands not just the need for his viewers to process the information he wants to give them but how they process information. 

    Again, I disagree with Ares because Oliver in this piece is not a scold like, for example, Glenn Greenwald is on the issue of Snowden, Brady Manning, Wikileaks, etc. Oliver's delivery was so good that he cleared up a misunderstanding that I had: Snowden has nothing to do with Wikileaks-that's Julian Assange. I realize now that on some level the two names had kind of started to morph into one composite in my own mind-as Oliver showed has clearly been the case for many Americans. 

   I may be a liberal but I don't like preachiness or moral scolds any more than the next guy. There is nothing preachy about Oliver's segment-as opposed to how Jon Stewart himself often was in later years. That's why the segment works and I think it may well give many folks a pause-even those like myself who has been put off by the Greenwalds of the world into tuning the whole issue out. 

   Here was a comment by NCSteve:

   "I found myself reflexively rushing in to make a comment before the thread devolved into a shitstorm, then I remembered that's why TPM now has its own commenting system. And at this moment, I'm willing to acknowledge, as I am on any thread where the story invites us to make fun of Rand Paul, that maybe it was worth the additional risk of epistemic closure, after all."

    "But, yeah, I don't merely not give a shit about foreign intelligence gathering, I applaud it and support it. What I don't give a shit about is whether foreigners are invading my privacy by spying on us, because it's in their interest to keep what they know about me secret. And, no, he didn't read all the documents, he clearly didn't understand many of the ones he read and none of his or Glennzilla's supporters have any conception of the extent to which a simple reading of the fractions of the documents cited in Greenwald's reports revealed that they were being mercilessly spun."

    "I especially liked the way Greenwald phrases things in a way that invited the reader to draw inferences he didn't actually make himself because they are not actually inferences that can be drawn from the source document cited, which is a fucking Powerpoint presentation more often than not."

    I do agree about intelligence gathering. In the clip, Snowden seems to think that it's very grave to realize that the NSA spied on Unicef. It should be pointed out that it's very unlikely that we're the only country that spies on Unicef and that we even spy on our allies-and our allies spy on us. This is the world of spying. No doubt we spy on Netanyahu and he spies on us and we even spy on Britain while they spy on us. 

     Anyway, overall, it's good food for thought. I think that Oliver really might have a new formula to have important debates and discussions. Again, I don't see him as self-righteous in the way of Greenwald, etc. The main point of the bit was that yes it's a complex issue but that we should at least be thinking about it. It didn't really push you in any ham handed way to agree with Snowden on everything or even to agree with him on most things just to consider the point. 

    For more John Oliver see here:

    http://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver#/