The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore - General Discussion

[wknt3]

Another great show last night. The tragedy of gun violence really seems to inspire Larry. He's been sharp, funny, and insightful and his pieces on the issue really seem to express something distinct and personal. Add a good second segment and a good panel and you really have something. Even the Keep it 100 was entertaining. Well done.

[Skyfall]

Quiznos, the new Arby's.

[ganesh]

I can get that people were voting exit as some sort of protest. Even people who said 'I didn't think my vote would count.' Eh, but ok. I don't get at all how people didn't know at all what they were voting for. I mean, in CA, when Prop 8 was up, it was all over the news, there were ads at bus stops, etc., people canvassing on the street. Unless you were a shut in, and even then, didn't turn on a tv/radio/internet *at all*, there was no way to not know. 

And I get that maybe you might not know the nuances of what exiting means, but hearing the actual people talking and literally not knowing anything. It's astounding.

I totally agree with Larry about 'turning back the clock.' 

[shok]

7 hours ago, ganesh said:

I can get that people were voting exit as some sort of protest. Even people who said 'I didn't think my vote would count.' Eh, but ok. I don't get at all how people didn't know at all what they were voting for. I mean, in CA, when Prop 8 was up, it was all over the news, there were ads at bus stops, etc., people canvassing on the street. Unless you were a shut in, and even then, didn't turn on a tv/radio/internet *at all*, there was no way to not know. 

And I get that maybe you might not know the nuances of what exiting means, but hearing the actual people talking and literally not knowing anything. It's astounding.

I totally agree with Larry about 'turning back the clock.' 

Meh, I don't know. When half the people in the United States have no idea who Joe Biden is (or the answers to countless other very simple and ordinary questions), it's hard to knock the people of another country for not being up on current events. This show and others have shown often enough that people are very uninformed. I mean, Trump IS a presumptive nominee for president.

[attica]

But the actual ballot they had to fill out could not have been simpler or clearer! Literally: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union? Check one: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. That's it! There was nothing else on the paper. No butterfly chads or convoluted phrasing.

I mean, I know many people are downright dedicated to being uninformed, but that was a simple ballot. I work as an election inspector, and our referenda are nowhere near as clear to read.

[LJonEarth]

9 hours ago, ganesh said:

I can get that people were voting exit as some sort of protest. Even people who said 'I didn't think my vote would count.' Eh, but ok. I don't get at all how people didn't know at all what they were voting for. I mean, in CA, when Prop 8 was up, it was all over the news, there were ads at bus stops, etc., people canvassing on the street. Unless you were a shut in, and even then, didn't turn on a tv/radio/internet *at all*, there was no way to not know. 

And I get that maybe you might not know the nuances of what exiting means, but hearing the actual people talking and literally not knowing anything. It's astounding.

Like others have said, I think we tend to forget how average or below average a large percentage of the population is when it comes to knowledge. And to add to that, there's a large population that has no sense of wonder or the drive to information-seek. They just have tunnel vision for their jobs, their families, pop culture, whatever. They don't know what they don't know and they don't care.

I was listening to the radio and caller took the time to call in and say "I heard the Dems are sitting-in for something. I don't really know what it's about but whatever it is iswrong." And I see this kind of sentiment all day long.

If I didn't know something before voting, I wouldn't vote or I would educate myself first. I can only hope that the one's who voted and then sought out information, voted based on what someone told them or least blindly voted assuming their vote wouldn't really matter.

[topanga]

The bit on the American Red Cross poster cracked me up. I was half-asleep on my couch when Larry started talking about the poster and brought in the "French artist" who says he doesn't know anything about Raw-cism. And then he titled his last painting, "I do not like black people." I laughed in my sleep.

Yes, Larry is funny and smart and topical. I need to watch his show more.  But he doesn't have dimples like Trevor. (Sorry. I'm shallow). 

[Hooper]

Quote

I think we tend to forget how average or below average a large percentage of the population is when it comes to knowledge.

I know!  I swear, sometimes it seems like half the population is below average.  It's depressing.

But on a better than average note, I enjoyed Robin and Holly's bit on Hillary being upstaged by Elizabeth Warren.  I enjoyed it partly because it was funny, but mostly because it was the second appearance Robin has done this week that wasn't the execrable  "Nightly! Nightly!" bit.   I'm guardedly optimistic that this means that concept has been discarded to the dustbin of Nightly history.

[formerlyfreedom]

44 minutes ago, Hooper said:

mostly because it was the second appearance Robin has done this week that wasn't the execrable  "Nightly! Nightly!" bit.   I'm guardedly optimistic that this means that concept has been discarded to the dustbin of Nightly history.

Isn't it Grace Parra that does the "Nightly! Nightly!" bits? Maybe I missed some with Robin, though.

[trow125]

1 hour ago, saoirse said:

Isn't it Grace Parra that does the "Nightly! Nightly!" bits? Maybe I missed some with Robin, though.

Grace is "Nightly! Nightly!" (the only TNS bit I regularly fast-forward through).

Robin was on "@Midnight" on Monday. I thought she did a good job, but she came in third. Boo!

[Hooper]

Quote

Isn't it Grace Parra that does the "Nightly! Nightly!" bits? Maybe I missed some with Robin, though.

Oh, shoot.  You're right.  Now I'm sad that my ability to keep track of which correspondent does what is apparently below average.

[ganesh]

Nightly is fairly improved imo.

[ganesh]

I'm glad they made fun of the pope, or pointed out the kind of hypocrisy imo. He's the monarchial head of state. If he thinks they should do something, they can do it. Everyone's humping his robes over what he's been saying. Where's the papal bulls? Where's the official doctrine? Until then it's just words. 

Stuff like speaking out against greed, etc., I get. That's kind of what he should be doing as a pope in 2016. But when it comes to human rights, what? I'm not seeing anything. 

I concede that he might be playing a long game and 'softening up' the base as it were in order to effect real change. How long of a game can you play when you're 80 though?

[marceline]

I know a lot of people don't like "Nightly! Nightly!" neither do I but the skit I really need to not see again is "Soul Daddy." I don't know why it doesn't work for me. I usually like 70s based humor but SD is always a miss for me.

[ganesh]

Ricky brought his stupid to the panel. Glad the others shut him down. 

[wknt3]

16 hours ago, ganesh said:

Ricky brought his stupid to the panel. Glad the others shut him down. 

I thought he was OK although there was a bit of the slacker nihilist stoner vibe that we thought he's outgrown . And the bit about being heckled by the Trump supporter was the highlight of the panel.

[attica]

Ricky's insistence that he's 'never seen Hillary fight' is male-privilege blindness. Women in public/political life don't get to get down the same way men can. She'd be run out of town on a rail if she ever pulled any of the tantrum shit that men pols often do (including, it bears noting, her husband, who was/is known for what were nicknamed 'purple rages'.)

Does anybody know if Guerrero's family has ever come back to the US?

[ganesh]

The joke he had was good. It's when he was saying Clinton's not a fighter etc., that was dumb. Clinton was already ripped for 'yelling.'

[trow125]

3 hours ago, attica said:

Does anybody know if Guerrero's family has ever come back to the US?

I don't think so. Good article about it here.

[LunchBreak]

Mr. LunchBreak and I have been watching and enjoying Nightly since it began.  Lately though, we've had more than the usual number of episodes piling up on the DVR.  I was thinking about it, and I kind of wish they'd utilize the talent (as it is not lacking) in some more off-site interview or expose type segments.  The last one I can really think of is Jordan and the food deserts.  The usual skits have their moments, but there are a lot of repeats a la SNL, and don't totally (in my opinion) show some of the contributors' true range.  I guess it could be a budget thing, but it wouldn't hurt.  Also, and forgive me if this has been discussed, but the half hour (well, 18 or so minutes) fly by.  By about the time the panel is warmed up.. OOP, time to go!

[wknt3]

I hope that Ricky and Grace were paying attention last night because Michael Ian Black was showing them how it's done. You want to point out the vapidness of political discourse and the media? You want to do the disaffected stoner vibe? One liners? You can do that and make intelligent points too! He was brilliant and salvaged the show after another Nightly Nightly and an opening that was pretty well written, but just as bad as the mainstream media in obsessing over "optics" and ignoring the substance.

[attica]

I found myself frustrated that nobody suggested Bill Clinton's motive for waylaying Lynch was that he is an unrepentant gadfly with a pathological need for everybody to like him. Occam's razor, panel! (TBF, Grace got closest with 'politicians gonna politician' but even that suggests political motive rather than 'Hey, I know her! Lemme say hey!') Stupid nearly always trumps Sinister when dealing in human behavior. Not always, but yeah, mostly. But we nearly never see that discussed on tv, on account a'cuz' 'What does it all meeeeeeeeean?' is irresistible and fills cable hours.

[ganesh]

Clinton pulled a dumb dumb move, but it is entirely based on the fact that he's an 'unrepentant gadfly' without question. But Comey's investigation was independent, and the AG wasn't privy to it, so I don't get why they're implying some connection. Dumb Ricky was back again it seems. 

I know it's not the fault of the show, but it falls flat when both this and TDS cover the exact same details for the exact same topic. 

This just wasn't a good panel. Kind of a waste of MIB. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by ganesh

[BabyVegas]

I agree with you all that it seems fairly likely that Clinton went to go talk to Lynch because he likes to be liked. I wish someone had pointed out that Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch to her post as a USA and probably has at least a cordial relationship with her, so stopping to say hi was probably nothing in his mind.

Also I was really irritated with Ricky's parroting of the Clintons as liars and such. From one Millenial to another, stop talking, Ricky. Much of what people my age "know" about Hillary Clinton is influenced by Republican attacks that started way back in the 90s. Hell, Ricky is only 24 - for the entire time he has been on this earth, people have been trying to make this scandal or that scandal stick to the Clintons and by and large nothing has ever come of them. I'm not generally a fan of telling twenty-somethings to shut up on the premise that they don't know anything because they're young, but in this case my frustration with Ricky is that he's ill-informed, lazy, and hacky. Grace, to me, is just sort of a non-entity, so I really disliked last night's panel portion. Michael Ian Black was pretty good, but he couldn't save it from the twin disappointment that is Grace and Ricky.

[maraleia]

Here's the thing Bill Clinton is highly intelligent but lacks common sense which is what the panel failed to point out. He craves attention and doesn't think before he acts hence what he did with Monica in the White House and visiting Lynch on her plane. There's a reason why Hillary keeps him at arms length unless they are visiting their daughter/grandchildren.

Ricky has no frame of reference as you mentioned Baby Vegas unlike the other twenty-somethings on the show. It would behoove him to do some research before he spouts off on the show.

I'm with some of you here that I can't stand the Nightly Nightly segments.

Edited July 7, 2016 by maraleia

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, BabyVegas said:

I'm not generally a fan of telling twenty-somethings to shut up on the premise that they don't know anything because they're young, but in this case my frustration with Ricky is that he's ill-informed, lazy, and hacky.

It's his job to be more informed. A millennial pov is important to have on a show like this. It's a good observation: the Clintons have been subjects of investigations *since he's been alive*. Since nearly I've been alive. It's literally his job to see past that and ask why and ask why nearly nothing has stuck. 

He doesn't have to like her, nor does he have to vote for her. But his commentary on the panel was less than superficial. On the other hand, it's kind of Larry's fault. Whenever they talk about Clinton, they largely miss the point, like on this panel.

I think the show is far stronger when they don't focus on the big headlines and cover issues we don't normally talk about. 

[wknt3]

I'm not sure what to make of last night's episode. The last segment was powerful and heartfelt and made it's point effectively. I'd be inclined to give the rest of the show a pass based on that, if they weren't making the same damn mistakes and peddling the same lazy narrative that they were before. There are so many opportunities for something smart and funny with the emails. For instance how both sides seem to have learned nothing after 30 years (the GOP launching endless investigations and wild accusations and then wondering why voters mostly shrug when they find something with a bit of substance, the Clintons with the lawerly evasions being too cute by half.) Or the hypocrisy of wanting to make incompetence and bad judgement in foreign policy a criminal matter NOW (and tie it in to Chilcot). Or you could point out that yet again Obama has done something incredible and gotten no credit for it by going two terms without a real scandal on the level of Lewinksy or Iran-Contra. Anything other than what they've done. And they wasted a great guest with the second panel in a row on this. I would have been fascinated to see a discussion on Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein since they had Bassem Youssef. Maybe they could get into how the real Hobson's choice here is in foreign policy between someone who has no real foreign policy and would do whatever fires up the base short term and someone who embodies the bipartisan establishment consensus that has gotten us into this mess.Another horribly wasted opportunity. At least tonight's show should be all substance since we have yet another police shooting in the headlines today...

[possibilities]

I was glad they are taking the email situation seriously. "Less security than gmail" is pretty inexcusable and I'm tired of seeing the left make excuses for the failings of its nominees. If we want to mock right wingers who vote on impressionistic emotional gut-based guesses, instead of looking at reality and weighing the facts, we have to avoid doing the same.

I don't agree with Rory's implication that Trump is a viable alternative, but I still think we need to be honest about Clinton and not sugar-coat it. Am I the only person who remembers how Obama wanted to use his Blackberry and there was a whole big deal made about how he might not be able to do it if they couldn't figure out a way to make it secure? Hillary can't claim ignorance. She was also repeatedly asked to switch to a secure government server and she told her staff to stop bringing it up. If her own people knew it was wrong, and Obama knew he couldn't just do whatever the hell he wanted, Hillary has no excuse.

I appreciated the non-comedic no-bullshit response to the Alton Sterling murder. Have they ever done a post-panel format break before? I think it was a good time to do so, and I was glad Larry didn't hold back on calling out the horror not only of the event itself but also of the way a lot of people are/are not responding.

[ganesh]

Both TDS and TNS were just not good for me. "Possible breach" or whatever Comey said about the server being hacked is speculation at the least and slander at the worst. You can't just speculate and throw out maybes as fact. 

6 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I'd be inclined to give the rest of the show a pass based on that, if they weren't making the same damn mistakes and peddling the same lazy narrative that they were before. There are so many opportunities for something smart and funny with the emails.

That's the thing. It was lazy. They played the same clip TDS show said and concluded, 'well, she's lying.' Because of good editing? Another opportunity they missed is that practically everything is classified now, so you're inevitably going to screw up. That's a good discussion to have. Or how the law is 99 years old and wasn't conceived for emails, and why wasn't it updated? Or, why have other SOSs also used a private server? Is there a known problem with security that isn't being addressed? 

Did anyone on the show actually listen to the press conference? 

6 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I would have been fascinated to see a discussion on Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein since they had Bassem Youssef.

Another waste of a good guest. One would think he might have some insight. 

Rory is a moron. "I was going to vote for Clinton, but now I don't know?" Really. Why exactly? 

Good save on the commentary about the shooting. How hard is it to understand why "all lives matter" is problematic? 

Edited July 7, 2016 by ganesh

[Muffyn]

I appreciated the serious commentary about the murder of Alton Sterling. However, they still slipped in a crack about the Clinton emails.  Really?  A man is dead and you still have to take a cheap shot at Clinton?  If they don't feel this case is being sent to the right agency to investigate it, where would they like it sent?  That is worth stating.  Acting like the investigation of Clinton's emails was done wrong is sloppy and detracts from a very serious and important subject. 

[ganesh]

I liked the # segment, but otherwise I didn't think the show was that good. The panel should have been much better. They didn't really say much. I still don't get what that 16 y/o does either. He was on Real Time and I had the same confusion.

[marceline]

I really like Franchesca Ramsey's piece but I feel the need to say that I watched "Off the Map" and liked it.

Edited July 11, 2016 by marceline

[possibilities]

My theory about Melania's speech is that she plagiarized it deliberately to sabotage her husband's campaign.

[topanga]

On 7/8/2016 at 11:06 AM, ganesh said:

I liked the # segment, but otherwise I didn't think the show was that good. The panel should have been much better. They didn't really say much. I still don't get what that 16 y/o does either. He was on Real Time and I had the same confusion.

My problem with the segments is that they don't really add anything to the show. They're usually silly and comedic, but they don't really address the topic at hand. Like last night's segment on the RNC, when the correspondents realized they couldn't afford to go to Cleveland, so they tried to get into conventions being held in NYC. It was funny, but IMO, it was a meaningless segment. It told me nothing about the convention or the delegates. It seemed like a waste of time. 

 

7 minutes ago, possibilities said:

My theory about Melania's speech is that she plagiarized it deliberately to sabotage her husband's campaign.

Interesting theory. But I'm sure Trump knew what she was going say. Maybe he didn't know it was plagiarized. 

[ganesh]

News programs typically have op-ed segements in them. The # is like that, so it doesn't need to be fit into the show for me. 

For "first lady" speeches, they're going to be similar for sure. The most likely answer was that a staffer or Trump herself just looked up Obama's speech and paraphrased it. The problem is you can't have a single sentence that is exactly the same without crediting it. That's taking someone else's idea as your own.

What's funny to me is that the gop is so bereft of any ideas they needed to rip off the First Lady. I'm surprised no one caught this.

Rory's joke about "how hot girls get through HS" was funny.

[Hanahope]

1 hour ago, topanga said:

But I'm sure Trump knew what she was going say. Maybe he didn't know it was plagiarized.

I have no doubt that Trump had no idea that was Michelle's speech.  I seriously doubt he listened to or read Michelle's speech.

[ganesh]

That's What She Said kills me. 

Of *course* Pokemon is a government plot!

Edited July 21, 2016 by ganesh

[attica]

Mike's line during the panel "How're we supposed to believe in you [the po-po] when we don't believe you?" is, to my view, exactly right. I've been harrumphing even the Dallas police chief's statements about the shooter there, because there hasn't been any independent corroboration of what he's said the gunman said, and the history of self-serving untruths from PDs all over the country have made me unwilling to take him at his word. Which is depressing on top of everything else, you know?

On the other hand, I think "Black Olives Matter" is genuinely funny. Yes, it's having fun with BLM, but I don't think it's mocking it. Because to get the joke, you have to accept the premise that other olives get better treatment than black ones do. But I'm white, so maybe I don't know.

[Arcadiasw]

Damn you, Larry. Now I'll never look at Race Bannon the same again. 

[Arcadiasw]

4 hours ago, attica said:

 

On the other hand, I think "Black Olives Matter" is genuinely funny. Yes, it's having fun with BLM, but I don't think it's mocking it. Because to get the joke, you have to accept the premise that other olives get better treatment than black ones do. But I'm white, so maybe I don't know.

I'm guilty of picking black olives off my pizza but I will eat green olives. So yeah. 

[Victor the Crab]

1 hour ago, Arcadiasw said:

Damn you, Larry. Now I'll never look at Race Bannon the same again. 

I haven't looked at Race the same way since Harvey Birdman, Attorney At Law.

[kassygreene]

2 hours ago, Arcadiasw said:

Damn you, Larry. Now I'll never look at Race Bannon the same again. 

I think Race Bannon was my first crush.  Hey, he even looked good purple!

I never liked Jade.

I iz old.

[Arcadiasw]

23 minutes ago, Victor the Crab said:

I haven't looked at Race the same way since Harvey Birdman, Attorney At Law.

I had actually forgot his and Dr. Quest appearance on that show. Lol. 

[Arcadiasw]

I like the new Unblackening graphics. Makes you wonder what Larry and his team will create after the election. 

[possibilities]

I get why there was consternation over "Black Olives Matter" but I admit that as a certified member of the LGBT tribe, I found "God Hates Figs" to be quite funny. The difference, I think, is that the Westboro Baptist Church is considered to be made up of unhinged buffoons, and as horrible as their behavior is, they have not actually committed multiple murders in cold blood.

By contrast, the police are on a murder bender and a large percentage of the world is still mostly or wholly on their side, no one so far has been held accountable for any of it, and BLM is still considered to be "a terrorist organization" by many powerful people and organizations. It's just harder to laugh about it when the violent establishment is winning, vs when your own issues are showing momentum for credibility while your opponents are increasingly marginalized.

Larry to Rushdie: "The problem is that you are using your brain." Indeed.

[ChelseaNH]

Every time I hear "blue lives matter," I wait for the "oh, you're so divisive, saying it's okay to kill civilians" response but it never comes...

[attica]

Quote

I like the new Unblackening graphics. Makes you wonder what Larry and his team will create after the election. 

The tiny flailing t-rex arms on Trump slay me every time.

[ganesh]

Yeah, the olives was just being dumb and funny. I don't think there was anything else to it. I know it's very important, but you need to take a minute to laugh now and then. 

[pivot]

On July 20, 2016 at 10:15 AM, possibilities said:

My theory about Melania's speech is that she plagiarized it deliberately to sabotage her husband's campaign.

I thought I was the only one who thought that. They planned to Melania a couple of times during Trump's speech on Thursday and she looked seriously not impressed. I think she is not at all interested in being a politicans' wife.

[attica]

I fully suspect that "Slave House!" is going into permanent rotation in my head, just like "incognegro". So, so good.