The Nightly Show: Season One Talk

[peeayebee]

I think after watching tonight's show I'll take this off my DVR recording schedule. I don't find this show entertaining or informative enough for my time. 

[attica]

When Webb spouted his line about states going red by electing conservative state legislatures, he said it as if we're all just waiting for the Great Conservative Age to dawn. Rather than the cynical result of election district gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts that keeps wide swaths of liberal voters from having their votes count, which is what it is. And all funded by Kochs and Koch-lites.

 

Zephyr got screwed by the Democratic party apparatchiks, so she didn't really have a chance to properly primary Cuomo. She ended up on the ballot for the general on a fringe party line. She got crushed, sure, but she did way better than fringe-party candidates ever do, and scared Andy way more than he'd admit.

[Milburn Stone]

I think after watching tonight's show I'll take this off my DVR recording schedule. I don't find this show entertaining or informative enough for my time. 

 

That's how I felt after the first two episodes, yet I've continued to check in on this thread, in the hope that things would get better.

 

You gotta feel for Wilmore. The show is no Colbert Report--because nothing on earth could be! Stephen Colbert is an effin' genius. Those don't come along very often. Unfortunately, putting something "pretty good" on in the same time slot was bound to feel like--you should pardon the expression--weak tea.

[peeayebee]

Yeah, I want to be supportive, but there's so much good TV these days, and this one isn't different enough for me to stick with.

[ganesh]

I'm glad Teachout got in the last line. Everything that the other guy was saying was a false equivalency. Yes, I can vote however I want, but the choices are rigged. "Democrats do it too." Yes, and that's a problem. 

 

Again, they are asking the wrong questions. Is it time for the rise of an actual, credible third party? Yes. 

 

That guy is also so full of shit that he'd quit his job than read an ad for Obamacare. Give me a break. 

 

When Webb spouted his line about states going red by electing conservative state legislatures, he said it as if we're all just waiting for the Great Conservative Age to dawn.

 

 

And the correct follow up question is: Then, why did all the liberal ballot measures in many states pass quite easily? *Despite* having a largely conservative, low voting body in 2014?

 

I mean, not for nothing, they need to ask what show this is going to be? I get if they put too many people in the hot seat, then no one will come on the show. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about stuff like this, you have to ask these questions. 

[Qoass]

This is off my beloved/TiVo season pass list and on to my "On Demand in the background while I get ready for work" list.  I didn't watch the Colbert Report so I can't compare the two but it's just okay.  One positive thing I can say is that Wilmore and his producers have introduced me to some whip-smart women in the roundtable segments.

 

By the way, I believe LW introduced Judy Gold as saying she had a new podcast series.  A visit to iTunes came up dry for me.  Does anybody know where I can find it?

[possibilities]

I'm hanging on by a thread. The show is boring. And I really thought it was a great idea to put Wilmore at the helm, when they first announced it. I know Colbert is a tough act to follow, but that's not the problem here. I watch a lot of TV, but when I start thinking I'd rather go to bed early, or channel surf, the problem is not a lack of Colbert, it's just that the show lacks any substance. It's bland. Really, it seems like one of the morning shows, where no one is taking it very seriously, and it's on in the background while you're supposedly doing other things, just to have the buzz in the background.

 

Get it together, people! You are squandering a rare opportunity by trying to be nothing to everyone instead of defining your show with a committed point of view.

 

The 100 thing is not meaningful. All they want is to ask you a stupid question and see if you will say the thing that's the most obviously what they want you to say to make you seem like you got caught out. But it's such an obvious set up, it doesn't even feel like a real "gotcha." It's not funny and it's not revealing. It's just transparently self-congratulatory by rote.

 

This show is the weakest tea on Comedy Central, and competing for the weakest tea in late night. They even take someone like Kondabolo, who knows how to write and deliver biting commentary and used to do it regularly on Totally Biased, sit him on the panel, and in effect take away his mic. When this show makes even funny, insightful people seem bland, it's a structural problem, not growing pains.

Edited January 29, 2015 by possibilities

[Sharpie66]

No idea on podcasts, sorry.

 

I have to agree that I might be putting this show into the "I might watch it if I'm not watching/doing anything else" category. I loved Larry on TDS, and I appreciate some of what he's trying to do, but it is just not successful enough to have me tuning in. It's not funny enough to have me laugh out loud, more like chuckle every once in a while, and I learn more from watching MSNBC panel shows on the weekend mornings than I do with Larry.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

I enjoyed the first couple of episodes but I'm quickly growing tired of the formula. I think it would work better as a weekly show.

[Qoass]

 

I think it would work better as a weekly show.

 

The Nightly (Except Weekly) Show?

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Or only every second week so it could be "The Fortnightly Show".

[Milburn Stone]

possibilities, I think your whole post is a great analysis.

 

On the "squandering a rare opportunity" point, the same thing occurred to me. When the show premiered, I thought, "Wow--here is a unique chance to examine the problem of race, every night, night after night, unceasingly and unflaggingly, from a daily news perspective"--because there is no doubt in my mind the problem of race in America has enough facets to support such an effort, and no lack of daily events and hot-button issues, sadly, to work with. But the show has detoured from that path, so it's clearly not what Wilmore had in mind. And that's great. I get that. He's more than just "a black man." But it's still a lost opportunity. And a lost reason to watch.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[alias1]

I like Larry's commentary at the beginning of show where he sets up the topic.  He has a nice mix of serious and funny lines.  It's the panel part of the show I really don't like.  I'm always a show behind so I just watched the anti-vaccination topic and there was so much talking over people.  And the argument of the one guest who believed she was protecting her children by not vaccinating them was ridiculous.  I don't know if Larry is strong enough to carry the entire show by himself and have maybe one guest at a time (like Colbert), but I think I'd rather see that than what this show is right now.  Forget the Keeping It 100.  That has become meaningless.

[carrps]

I want this show to do well, and to be good, but the fact that no one can finish a thought without everyone talking over them is really annoying. And it seems like Keep it 100 is really "answer how we think you should." Taking a moment to give a thoughtful, honest answer does not equal lying. Amy Holmes always bugs.

Kathleen Madigan was treated the worst for this. I know I would have to think a minute to answer honestly. I'm just really hating the KeepIt100 bit. And it just seems like a bit. The kid gloves they used to handle that awful antivaxxer mom infuriated me. Ugh.

[trow125]

Tonightly: The #NightlyShow welcomes @katienolan, @seatonsmith, @Sherrod_Small, and @jaketapper.

(Katie Nolan is the host of Fox Sports' "No Filter"; Seaton Smith and Sherrod Small are comedians; and as most folks probably already know, Jake Tapper is a CNN anchor.)

 

Haven't watched last night's ep yet but I think I'll FF through the panel, at the very least. So many of the commenters here are spot-on about the problems of this show, and it's constructive criticism, IMO. According to Variety, TNS "retained about 75% of the Daily Show’s lead-in, peaking at 974,000 viewers his third night (618,000 adults 18-49)"; will be interesting to see what the numbers are like after they've been on for a few weeks.

[kassygreene]

I always watch act one of TDS, sometimes act two, the interview if it's interesting but not if it's enraging, and always the Moment of Zen.  With Colbert I watched the first two or three and bailed, before, as I found out much later, his interview with Bradley Whitford which I think would have enlightened me about the level of satire in play.  Came back to Colbert very gradually for The Word, which always always always killed, and eventually stopped fast forwarding the first act.  Usually skipped the second, and watched the interview if it was interesting but not if it was enraging.  (Always watched Eleanor Holmes Norton - she had his number!)

 

TNS is hitting the same pattern for me.  I'll watch act one, stick with act two if the topic is interesting (the Cosby panel, which was the second episode, was pretty good and somewhat daring), and meh through 100 (as I watch now online instead of dvr, fast forwarding isn't terribly informative...).  I can't bail on a sample size of only seven, and the handoff Jan 26 from TDS to TNS ("I miss earthquakes!") was totes adorbs.  

 

This is Comedy Central, not one of the "Big 4" broadcast networks, so it will run for awhile looking for its audience and finding its rhythm. 

Edited January 30, 2015 by kassygreene

[DXD526]

You gotta feel for Wilmore. The show is no Colbert Report--because nothing on earth could be!

 

And it doesn't help to have the show start with a "Larry" chant from the crowd. I wasn't a fan of the name-chant for Stephen, but at least he earned that particular sign of affection from the audience. Larry hasn't earned anything yet, and for his part, looks a little uncomfortable with the chanting. But he could stop it easily if he wanted to, he could just ask the audience not to do it. But apparently he hasn't done that.

[Wax Lion]

 

So last night when the conservative panelist started on his thing I just turned it off. I just can't with that and I didn't want to listen to that late at night.

 

Yeah, same here. I think my problem is that this is the kind of panel you might see on a cable news channel and CC should be doing something a little more. If I want a good panel discussion, I can get four hours of it watching Melissa Harris-Perry. I'm not sure Larry can be CC's MHP and since I rarely have time to watch MHP anymore, TNS isn't really good enough to justify pushing her off my TV schedule.

 

Back when Stephen resigned I said that if they want to do the next Colbert Report they need to do a panel show since panel shows are the current trend on cable news the way pundit shows were when TCR debuted... but this is an old school Politically Incorrect panel show, not something that makes fun of shows like The Five and Outnumbered (or even The View). But, again, that would be  a show with several hosts, I don't know if CC will pay for that.

[Kaoteek]

I wish I could give more than one "thumbs up" to possibilities' comment above, since it perfectly sums up everything I feel about this show, every single day. Really, it ends up being a pointless show, in that no point is really made, and the Keeping it 100 bit ends up just being "answer what you think the crowd will most like to hear in order to get cheers". Also, I really like Larry, but I wish he would just stop chuckling at his own jokes, especially those that aren't that funny, or that aren't that well delivered.

 

The more times passes, the more this show ends up in the background, sandwiched between my DVR'd "Late Late Shows not with Craig Ferguson" & Conans, while I'm doing something else.

[Latverian Diplomat]

I'm glad Teachout got in the last line. Everything that the other guy was saying was a false equivalency. Yes, I can vote however I want, but the choices are rigged. "Democrats do it too." Yes, and that's a problem. 

 

Again, they are asking the wrong questions. Is it time for the rise of an actual, credible third party? Yes. 

Wilmore did some false equivalency stuff too. He was the one who introduced the "Soros party" vs "Koch party". Soros doesn't have anywhere near as much money as they do, he donates much less, and his donations are (in my opinion) much less cynical and quid pro quo. 

 

I think Teachout tried to address that with the "Sun and moon" remark, but naturally, she didn't get to finish that metaphor, because ideologically "balanced" panels suck.

 

There's never been a successful third party in the US, because we have first past the post plurality voting. A third party is never exactly between the two existing ones, it will always draw  more votes from the party it's closer to, and thereby strengthen the party it is farther away from. Voters understand that, and vote accordingly. To effect change, you either have to work within one of the parties, or terrify all politicians equally, like the Prohibition movement did, or the NRA does today (both of those in the terrible but regrettably effective category for me).

 

The "orgy" question to Larry was particularly stupid and shallow. If Larry wants to be taken seriously, he has to get his staff to select questions that will actually challenge him.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Latverian Diplomat

[dohe]

A very smart show which ultimately may bother those who need 100% affirmation.  Wilmore opens the 1/2 hour with a piece which dismantles the opponent's pov.  This part, often the funniest segment of the show, than leads to a panel.  Panels are typically problematic as it either will devolve into a lecture by the host, an argument with raised voices and eye rolling, or it will be people on one side piggybacking on the opinions of the people they agree with.

 

Instead Wilmore lets the panel say their parts while subtly undermining the more egregious comments and allowing people to dig their own holes.  Take for instance the anti-vax episode.  Wilmore opens with a segment which examines Wakefield and his followers such as McCarthy.  Misinformation, the idiots who buy into that misinformation, and the sheer ludicrousness of that agenda is shown in such an easy to follow method that the anti-vaxxer on the show never has a chance.  Then Wilmore allows her to demonstrate her ineptitude by letting her show how baseless her beliefs are.  By the point she talks of a whistleblower, even those not familiar with that hoax know that her word is not credible in any way. 

 

The problem with such panels is demonstrated with Judy Gold.  Gold takes a personal shot at the anti-vaxxer.  It isn't that Gold's comment doesn't have truth in it.  It is that her comment is filled with an animosity that excites the passionate persons bothered by the anti-vaxxer but is likely to bother those who are less passionate.  Berating an idiot can create empathy for an idiot.  The much sharper Wilmore quickly cuts off this hostile attack knowing that the anti-vaxxer's only way out of digging herself out of the hole is by the creation of empathy. By treating the anti-vaxxer cordially, a sense of bias is not reflected overtly. 

 

Wilmore than comes back with the making it 100 segment which further dismantles the anti-vaxxer's credibility by allowing her to state a nutty decision.  This was the same as he did with a GOP supporter in a prior episode who was left implying she did not stand for women's rights and similar to how he allowed a rightwing supporter of the Koch Brothers to pontificate rightly knowing that the supporter comes across as biased and deceitful before showing how transparent their game is in the make it 100 sketch.  By trusting the audience and not playing to those who are so passionate they demand blood, he comprehends that the audience that is watching is intelligent. 

 

Unsurprisingly there has been criticism of Wilmore on the sharp way he undermines the argument.  Some viewers have even supported Gold's scolding not comprehending how people on the fence, without an opinion, or opposed to their beliefs respond.  It is Wilmore's more subtle but more pointed commentary that change minds.  It is responses such as Gold's that simply preach to the choir while alienating others.  The reality is that almost everyone watching that episode sees how ludicrous the anti-vaxxer is and how baseless that agenda is.  So why the anger towards Wilmore.  Seemingly it comes from a lack of trust by some in others to be as smart as they are.  As if every point made by an opponent needs to be refuted when often, as Wilmore understands, letting the other person show who they really are and where their agenda stems from is a far sharper tactic to take.  It may not excite those that are extreme with their passion but it works far better than lectures and scoldings.   

Edited January 30, 2015 by dohe

[Latverian Diplomat]

A very smart show which ultimately may bother those who need 100% affirmation.  

Dohe, I found this first remark a bit patronizing, but an otherwise thorough and thoughtful post.

 

I would make three counter arguments:

 

1) Thinking that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots is not an extreme position. There are not two balanced points of view here. Vaccines are objectively one of the great medical successes of human history. And everybody has to participate in order for them to be effective (aside from a small number of valid medical exemptions). 

 

2) The purpose of this show is also (primarily) entertainment. Listening to tired BS about how vaccines are dangerous or "both side do it" on money in politics is tedious. The kinder, gentler approach may be appealing to people who are truly on the fence, but most people are not in that position and don't want to sit through yet another panel where "both sides" get just enough time to repeat the same things said on every other panel show.

 

3) There is psychological research that people supporting one position tend to dig in under criticism of that position, even calmly presented fact-based argument. But it doesn't seem to matter how that criticism is delivered. 40 years of respectful, equal time public debates on Creationism vs. Evolution have not moved the needle on public opinion. Many people initially treated the anti-vaxxer parents with sympathy, because having a child develop autism is a hell of a blow, and it's natural to want a simple cause to point to. Even though the initial vaccine/autism link was dubious (and ultimately shown to be fraudulent) serious scientific studies were commissioned that exonerated the MMR vaccine and should have put the problem to bed. Didn't matter. Didn't help. The problem gets worse every year, with the same lies repeated endlessly.

 

Denialists like anti-vaxxers have a whole toolkit that gives them tremendous benefit from respectful equal time treatment. Some examples are 1) The Gish Gallup -- introduce a lot of simple-to-state but complex-to-refute claims rapidly -- there won't be time to refute them all, leaving the impression that there are valid, unanswered questions. 2) Never give in -- even if bested in one forum on one particular point -- forget that ever happened and go back to asserting that point in the next "discussion". 3) Move the goal posts (e.g., climate change is not real; even if climate change is real, it's not human caused; even if it's human caused; we can't do anything about it; even if we can do something about it, it's too expensive to do it). And applying example 2) start back at "climate change is not real" in the next discussion.

 

What denialists crave and benefit from is legitimacy. And endless, repetitive debate gives the impression that a) the issue is complicated and b) there is no clear reason to support one side over the other. This actually leaves people on the fence with the mistaken impression that staying on the fence is a reasonable choice.

 

As for the best way to win over people on the fence, there is some evidence to suggest that ridicule is very effective. The most effective anti-smoking ads were not "smoking gives you cancer" or even "smoking gives you bad breath" (both perfectly true downsides to smoking), they were the ones that mocked cigarette companies as greedy liars preying on their customers (also true, but not "nice").

 

If you really want to drive a stupid, dangerous idea from the public discourse, making people embarrassed to publicly espouse it may be a useful strategy. To some extent this has worked with racist language in politics, although the Lee Atwater style "dog whistle" and pseudoscience like The Bell Curve have both been attempts to reintroduce and re-legitimize it. 

Edited January 30, 2015 by Latverian Diplomat

[attica]

Larry's urging for his own 100 question to be better/harder was music to my ears. Make it so, show!

 

FSM help me and my inner 8 year old, I enjoyed the ball-joke minute. If you're gonna be juvenile, embrace it.

 

A topic as unimportant as deflate-gate seemed to make the panel discussion run better, I thought. Less entrenchment, more fun byplay. I don't know if that signifies anything, it's just struck me.

[Skyfall]

I wonder if 2 pages a week is enough for weekly threads?

[ganesh]

I'm fully aware of the history of 3rd parties, but I still think it's time for someone to try again. Even if it just affects the public discourse. 

[carrps]

Excellent post, Latverian Diplomat (always wanted to ask you: where is Latveria?)!

 

I also agree with you, attica. Last night's show was the funniest one they've done so far. The Patriot's fan lady was annoying me a bit in the beginning, but she was able to roll with the punches and had some good lines subsequently. Maybe they really do need to keep their topics less serious?

[ganesh]

If Larry thought Richard Sherman was "keeping it 100" and not playing a role to further his own brand (and I have no problem with that) then he's delusional. 

 

I like football. I've grown a little sour on it because of all the off the field action. All of these cheating stuff is complete bs. Not that the Pats didn't do it. What other players/teams are pissed about is that the Pats were just so egregious about it that it's going to make it hard for everyone else to cheat.

 

The NFL makes billions of dollars and wants to keep making billions of dollars. They don't actually care. 

Edited January 30, 2015 by ganesh

[dohe]

Latverian Diplomat,

 

You posted the following. 

 

Thinking that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots is not an extreme position. There are not two balanced points of view here. Vaccines are objectively one of the great medical successes of human history. And everybody has to participate in order for them to be effective (aside from a small number of valid medical exemptions).

 

However I never said that.  I said that Wilmore does the right thing by shredding the credibility of the movement from the get go for those who may be misinformed and uneducated on the subject matter as the following passage shows. 

 

Misinformation, the idiots who buy into that misinformation, and the sheer ludicrousness of that agenda is shown in such an easy to follow method that the anti-vaxxer on the show never has a chance.

 

I also did not anywhere state that thinking anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots is extreme.  I myself think they are dangerous idiots - something that is quite clear in my post.  Heck I even use the word idiots to describe them.  Here is my usage of the word "extreme". 

 

It may not excite those that are extreme with their passion but it works far better than lectures and scoldings

 

That is a bigtime difference.  Yelling at people and taking personal digs creates empathy among many viewers for the person being ridiculed.  It is the easiest way to lose the viewer outside those who are extremely passionate.  It is preaching to the choir and while it excites those who are extremely passionate, it makes the feelings of the person being ripped to shreds the focus instead of that person's idiocy.  I doubt there is one person who watched that episode and goes hey this woman is really smart.  She comes across as a massive idiot.   We are not far from each other in what we think of anti-vaxxers.  I just happen to believe the best way to show how idiotic the movement is to show how idiotic the persons are behind it.   

 

As far as balance, Wilmore does not present both sides as legitimate.  He opens the show ridiculing the one side and ultimately, through savvy comments, shows how paranoia is entrenched in her thought process.  And he does so without allowing an opening for empathy to be created for the "dangerous idiots". 

Edited January 30, 2015 by dohe

[ChelseaNH]

Here's a thought:  Instead of having a panel of 4 guests, have a panel of regulars and assign each one a position on the topic.  That way you get the diversity of viewpoints, but also the entertainment value.

[Mindymoo]

I enjoyed the show last night, which surprised me. I'm really not a football fan at all, so this controversy is just sort of there to me. I like the Chiefs, but that's only because my wife likes the Chiefs, and she only likes them because they are (or were for a very long time) the worst team in the NFL. We like cheering for losers, I guess. I hardly understand football at all. I'd rather be watching hockey or rugby. But the show managed to keep my interest and make me laugh, which it really hasn't done much of this week. I still think the best episode so far was the one about Bill Cosby, but this was pretty good too. I will give the show some time to find its footing. I mean, it is only week two, and we are coming off a near decade run of the always amazing Stephen Colbert. I'm willing to give Larry more of a chance to find his ground.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Mindy McIndy

[peeayebee]

As for the best way to win over people on the fence, there is some evidence to suggest that ridicule is very effective. The most effective anti-smoking ads were not "smoking gives you cancer" or even "smoking gives you bad breath" (both perfectly true downsides to smoking), they were the ones that mocked cigarette companies as greedy liars preying on their customers (also true, but not "nice").

And didn't the tobacco companies object to that one the most?

 

I basically enjoyed last night's show too. I loved the one-minute ball joke segment.

 

I did get really tired of all the keeping it 70 or 100 business. Enough already. I know that's kind of the hook for the show, but it just sounds dumb to me. Also, I'm glad Jake Tapper found his question to be ambiguous.

 

And I think Larry misunderstood his question at the end of the show. The person who tweeted it wasn't saying that Kobi and Magic had really bribed referees; the "what if" was implied.

[trow125]

Oh, look, Comedy Central's weekly "Best Bets" press release actually lists several guests for next week!

Panelists include Morgan Spurlock, Shannon DeVido and Lavell Crawford (Monday, February 2); Justin Simien, Spike Lee (Tuesday, February 3); Common (Wednesday, February 4); and Gabrielle Union and Penn Jillette (February 5). Panelists are subject to change. Additional panelists are TBA.

[gesundheit]

I agree with those above who found the Cosby episode and the NFL episode to be the best ones so far. And frankly, I like that Wilmore gives us 3 people on his side and 1 dissenting opinion on each panel. Typically 4 against 1. I know, I know, it's not fair, but it's not like "the other side" is tuning in, and at least it's not ALL people he agrees with.

 

That said, it drives me nuts that we spend so much time every night getting another explanation of what the Keep It 100 segment is, and then another explanation of what his personal Keep It 100 segment is. I mean by the time we got to the segment last night, we'd heard the phrase 40 times already. They should either stop explaining it (what "100" refers to AND how you win/lose and what you get for it), or just cut the segment. I'm not entertained by watching four people get a sticker or a tea bag. 

 

I hope Wilmore gets a little more self-assured. He still seems very nervous and excited. Hopefully he'll settle down soon.

Edited January 30, 2015 by gesundheit

[formerlyfreedom]

I wonder if 2 pages a week is enough for weekly threads?

 

@Skyfall, we're waiting for the first few weeks to see how conversation settles, so no decision has been made yet, but we will keep you posted!

[dohe]

Oh, look, Comedy Central's weekly "Best Bets" press release actually lists several guests for next week!

Simien and Lee on the same show.  Well that could be interesting.  Lee's takes on the LGBT community and interracial romance have been simplistic and ignorant.  Meanwhile Simien's Dear White People is thoughtful and smart when it comes to the LGBT community and interracial romance.     

[trow125]

That said, it drives me nuts that we spend so much time every night getting another explanation of what the Keep It 100 segment is, and then another explanation of what his personal Keep It 100 segment is. 

 

Maybe it'll be like "The Amazing Race," where host Phil Keoghan ultimately stopped describing what Detour and Roadblock meant (though I can still recite, "A Detour is a choice between two tasks - each with its own pros and cons..."). There's probably still a lot of newcomers tuning in to "TNS" who may not know. After a month, I hope Larry has it down to an explanation of six words or less.

[Skyfall]

Oh, look, Comedy Central's weekly "Best Bets" press release actually lists several guests for next week!

Common will be interesting no doubt!

[Kromm]

Common will be interesting no doubt!

I'd say "they better have Common there to discuss the Suge Knight situation", except since the show is trying to be timely, I imagine they're going to cover that tonight.

[alexvillage]

 

1) Thinking that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots is not an extreme position. There are not two balanced points of view here. Vaccines are objectively one of the great medical successes of human history. And everybody has to participate in order for them to be effective (aside from a small number of valid medical exemptions).

Just to add

There are many reasons why people don't vaccinate their children. The only valid reason is when there is a serious risk for the child, some cannot receive vaccines.

 

But the extremist movement really took off because of Andrew Wakefield, disgraced British doctor who falsified documentation (he confessed to that) to link vaccines and autism. Even though he lost his license, he found refuge in Texas where he is being sponsored by the extremists and making movies with this logic:

mother vaccinates child - child "gets THE AUTISM" - child needs services (and gets the services, which mother refuses) - mother and godmother murder the child with several stabs to the chest and almost sever the wrist - mother defense is that the child "had THE AUTISM"because of vaccines.

 

Wakefield used images of of the teen in very vulnerable moments, including semi naked and strapped to a bed, to make his movie as he, again, blame vaccines for "THE AUTISM".

 

So, yeah. It is not possible to make some people see facts

And add to that people like Robert Kennedy, who is a douche, but who has a platform.

[Milburn Stone]

I got around to watching the vax episode on Hulu last night, and I think the show suffers for being neither fish nor fowl. It's neither funny enough as comedy, nor probing enough as serious exploration of issues. The show could probably be good if it had some genuine anger behind it, some genuine rage driving its comedy. But I'm not feeling that passion. If Wilmore feels that passion, he's hiding it. I'm not sure why.

[ganesh]

That's what in saying. They're nor asking the questions that should be asked.

[ZoqFotPik]

Probably because it wasn't such a serious topic, I thought Thursdays show was one of the best so far. Overall though I'm not completely sold on the show. I think that there are some good ideas, but it has yet to come together. I'll give it a month maybe 2 before giving up.

[The Crazed Spruce]

I'm liking the show so far. I don't get a lot of American news channels on my cable (just CNN), so I haven't been inundated with panel shows, and I'm liking the format so far.

Kinda wish they'd used my "Keep It 100" question from earlier this week ("Which celebrity anti-vaxxer do you most want to smack upside the head?"), but he pretty much answered it in the story, and one of the show's writers started following me on Twitter, so I can't really complain.

[trow125]

Tonightly: The #NightlyShow welcomes @MorganSpurlock, @shannondevido, @lavellthacomic, Marianne Kirby (@TheRotund).

Shannon DeVido is (from her web site) "an actress, writer, comedian, and singer who uses a wheelchair." Lavell Crawford is a comedian. Marianne Kirby is a writer and editor. Since the topic is obesity, maybe Spurlock is there because of "Super Size Me"?

[The Crazed Spruce]

Since the topic is obesity, maybe Spurlock is there because of "Super Size Me"?

That would be my guess. (That, and promoting Inside Man.)

[peeayebee]

Lavell Crawford's name didn't register me until I saw him. Huell!

 

I liked the running joke of Larry issuing apologies, esp the last one. His joke about Jesus being "cross-fit" was great. Oh, and I liked him "deflating" the bowl of chowder.

 

I found the panel segment kind of uncomfortable. I'm not sure where I stand on obesity being a disability -- I tend to think it is not, for the most part -- but it seemed like people were walking on eggshells. 

[Kaoteek]

Yeah. But then again, with Lavell interrupting everyone to constantly crack jokes, eating up camera time (no pun intended), and Larry praising SuperSize Me as "one of the best documentaries ever" (I think I've never rolled my eyes harder), this panel wasn't gonna go anywhere interesting. Esp. since it's already one of the main issues with that format...

Edited February 3, 2015 by Kaoteek

[ganesh]

As funny as Lavell was, he kind of derailed the discussion. Spurlock barely got in a word. 

[giovannif7]

A big steaming cup of weak tea from me to Larry and the show for wanting to have it both ways last night. You don't get to call out others for their demeaning/belittling attitude about obesity in the midst of your ongoing barrage of fat jokes. And no, half-hearted apologies and justifications (that are immediately negated by your next quip) don't earn you any kind of a pass. If you're gonna keep going back to the fat-shaming material, keep it 100. Don't give us your version of the "It may not be right, but it's so damn funny!" excuse that bigots always trot out when they get called out for denigrating someone or some group.

[ChelseaNH]

since it's already one of the main issues with that format

 

Yeah, this episode it really stood out that there's just not enough time for a panel.  I'm not sure what it is that they're trying to accomplish.  The show is supposed to be all about "keeping it 100" -- how does that translate to the show's purpose or intention, and how does a panel help them achieve that?