John Oliver and “Real” Journalism
With each passing primary, Donald Trump moves closer to the Republican nomination, and thus to the presidency. While polls seem to indicate that a general election against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would be a bloodbath for the GOP with Trump as its nominee, many Republican voters continue to voice fullthroated support for Trump. The Republican establishment has tried in vain to turn the base against Trump, but their efforts have failed so far. Substantive attacks on Trump’s lack of policy knowledge and conservative credentials, as well as on his questionable business dealings, have given way to Trump-like attacks on his person— ranging from his hair to his hand size.
The media is beginning to change its tune as well. They have mostly gone easy on Trump so far, giving him wildly disproportionate amounts of airtime. But some parts of the media have started to go negative on Trump. The liberal media have been pleased to do whatever they can to make him the Republican nominee—since he makes Republicans look dumb and is likely to lose a general election— and they will put in a similar effort to ensure he is not elected president.
At the center of the media’s efforts to stop Trump is John Oliver. A segment on Trump from Oliver’s HBO program Last Week Tonight has been viewed over 20 million times on YouTube in under a month. The segment has led to a wave of people referring to Trump by his family’s ancestral last name – Drumpf. The movement to “Make Trump Drumpf Again” has gained much support from online media. Immediately after the segment aired, multiple outlets ran articles about how Oliver had “destroyed” Trump. In the eyes of the media, the Drumpf joke was a winner; it simultaneously hurt Trump and showcased the brilliance of John Oliver. But in reality, the segment had the opposite effect. It utterly failed to have any impact on the race, and perhaps more importantly, it highlighted serious issues with John Oliver and journalism as a whole.
The idea that the segment had any effect on the electorate’s thoughts on the election is preposterous. Nor was the piece particularly great at showcasing Trump’s flaws. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate and an easy target. Just about anyone can put together a solid Trump hit piece. Oliver was mildly amusing, but it failed to stand out from the pack. The real difference between Oliver’s anti-Trump rant and those of other media figures was simply the degree to which the media hyped it.
However, the real issue with the segment was not that it was ineffective, but rather that it was offensive. The humor behind the Drumpf “joke” is that Trump’s ancestral name is foreign and funny-sounding. The humor of this joke, ironically, is derived from the exact same xenophobia that Trump espouses. Oliver justifies the joke on the basis that it’s fair game. Trump criticized Jon Stewart for changing his name from Jon Leibowitz and thus hiding his heritage. But there is a fundamental difference between what Stewart did and what Trump did. Stewart made an active choice to change his name – he chose to hide his heritage. Donald Trump did no such thing. Drumpf was never his name. It was the name of his family many generations ago, and it was changed long before Trump was ever born. So how on Earth is this a valid criticism? The joke is nothing short of offensive, but Oliver gets a pass because he’s liberal and because he’s a comedian.
It should be noted that John Oliver isn’t really a comedian – or at least, he doesn’t want to be treated as one. I don’t say this because his show isn’t funny, although it really isn’t– ridiculous similes and consistently repeating “It’s 2016!” should not qualify as humor. Oliver, like Stewart before him, is a political pundit. He may be a particularly funny pundit, but he is a pundit nonetheless. Oliver wants to have it both ways: he wants his opinions to be taken seriously, as if he were a pundit, but he doesn’t want his actual opinions and reasoning to be held to the same standard. While arguing for his preferred politics, he wants to mock those on the other side. But when someone points out weaknesses in his argument, he wants to fall back on the “I’m just a comedian” defense. Oliver answered “no” when NPR asked if his show was journalism. Stewart did the same thing. He claimed he was a comedian who also tried to engage in serious policy debate. This is not to say that comedians can’t engage in policy debates; they simply can’t do so purely as comedians. They must be held to the same standard as everyone else.
It won’t be long before the Drumpf meme dies. Trump supporters love to quote the catchphrase “Can’t Stump the Trump.” It seems that saying applies here, as Donald Trump will continue to be unstumpable. John Oliver will make more segments, and his fans will keep convincing themselves that watching a twenty-minute clip is the equivalent of reading a serious discussion of policy.