John Oliver Slams Disney For Censoring His Show in India (techcrunch.com) 71
John Oliver slammed Disney-owned Hotstar on Sunday for censoring his show, "Last Week Tonight With John Oliver," in India saying the local streaming service had edited at least three of his episodes in recent months. From a report: A recent episode of "Last Week Tonight," in which Oliver criticised the Indian government's recent policies and its leader, Narendra Modi, never aired on Hotstar, which is the exclusive syndicating partner for most of HBO's content in India. [The same episode is available unedited on YouTube.]
Oliver also referenced an episode of the show from late last year where he had mocked Disney, a segment he said was cleverly edited before streaming in India. And then, another instance in a segment focused on China's one-child policy in which he joked about Donald Duck's penis. That was also edited before going up for streaming in India, Oliver said. "They cut out a joke about Mickey Mouse being a cocaine addict. Why would they do that? It's hard to say. But it might be because Hotstar is owned by Disney and they seem extra sensitive to Disney references," said Oliver.
Oliver also referenced an episode of the show from late last year where he had mocked Disney, a segment he said was cleverly edited before streaming in India. And then, another instance in a segment focused on China's one-child policy in which he joked about Donald Duck's penis. That was also edited before going up for streaming in India, Oliver said. "They cut out a joke about Mickey Mouse being a cocaine addict. Why would they do that? It's hard to say. But it might be because Hotstar is owned by Disney and they seem extra sensitive to Disney references," said Oliver.
Re:More info (Score:4, Funny)
If John Oliver doesn't like it he should make his own HBO
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
My overall take is that the John Oliver episode was intended to damage the reputation of a world leader by using unfair and biased journalism.
So his stock-in-trade. Except that it involved something other than establishment permitted targets.
Re: (Score:1)
My overall take is that the John Oliver episode was intended to damage the reputation of a world leader by using unfair and biased journalism.
That's redundant these days (and, really, for most of history). You can just say "journalism".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1a) Modi was appearing as a guest on the Bear Grylls episode, but the aforementioned scene came from an unrelated episode, where Modi was *not* a guest. An unrelated scene with a strong visceral message was inserted to associate Modi with drinking the juice from elephant dung.
BS. (Or, I guess ES in this case) They clearly show on the screen that the clip was from a different episode, and Oliver makes a reference to how it's not the same episode. I didn't see it as they were trying to imply it was the same episode, or that Modi was involved.
The episode contains a lot of *indirect* criticism of Modi - never showing what Modi does or says, only what his associates say or do.
Also BS. From what I recall about the episode the "third party" they were talking about being a shithead was referred to as "Modi's right hand man". And it is (and has been for as long as I can recall) to link the actions of someone's subo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I don't really see how a "REAL FUCKING WAR" is realistic against Disney shills, corporate sympathizers, or fascists. How do you plan to raise an army to do this, and how do you plan to identify them when they're posting semi-anonymously on the
Re:More info (Score:4, Informative)
1a) Modi was appearing as a guest on the Bear Grylls episode, but the aforementioned scene came from an unrelated episode, where Modi was *not* a guest. An unrelated scene
Yes an unrelated scene, so unrelated that Bear Grylls directly discussed this "unrelated" scene with Modi. How dishonest of John Oliver https://youtu.be/qVIXUhZ2AWs?t... [youtu.be]
p.s. You're a lying sack of shit.
2) The episode contains a lot of *indirect* criticism of Modi - never showing what Modi does or says
Indeed because it is an episode about the criticism of Modi containing cited examples of criticism and the result it has had on the people.
How much are you being paid by the Indian government for your post? I hope it wasn't much.
Re: (Score:1)
How much are you being paid by the American government for yours?
This guy is nothing but a propaganda bullhorn. If I was Indian I wouldn't even want this garbage broadcast in my country at all
Re: (Score:2)
1a) Actually, the flashback scene was as broadcast in the Bear Grylls episode - Last Week Tonight did not modify anything. Grylls picks up dung, mentions drinking from dung, flashback. It was the Bear Grylls episode that used that for shock value first.
I'm sure the shock value was part of the decision to show that clip on Last Week Tonight, but they didn't change anything to achieve it.
Still Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not censorship if Disney does it.
No, it is still censorship it is just not government censorship. It used to be fine to only worry about governments censoring content because companies used to be smaller and incapable of the same reach as governments. However, in today's world with a small number of large, global corporations controlling large sectors of the economy, including the media, it is a concern because these corporations do have a similar reach and power to governments and should be held to the same standards.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is not a concern. Never had been.
Censorship just is and will remain because no matter who you talk too everyone wants censorship. They just do not want censorship when it's their voice being silenced. Everything from broadcast laws, decency standards, certifications, licensing... all of these things are for the express purposes of censorship.
The problem only comes down to where the line is drawn. wouldn't you want someone without a law degree talking about the law or someone with a medical license t
Re:Still Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
wouldn't you want someone without a law degree talking about the law or someone with a medical license talking about medicine?
What are you talking about? It is absolutely vital that people without law and medical degrees can talk about either the law or medicine. If not then how can people point out where the law fails to protect them or where it acts unjustly? How can you point out that medical care is insufficient or that there seem to be bad side-effects to some new medication you are taking? What should not be allowed is for someone to say "I am a lawyer" or "I am a doctor" without them having the relevant qualifications.
We all want people we considered "unqualified" to STFU & GTFO...
That has always been true but it is only more recently that we are seeing increasing steps to make that happen e.g. by no-platforming people because of their views which is, in my opinion, quite a dangerous route to start taking. If certain political views slightly outside the mainstream can never be discussed then how are we ever going to change people's minds on these issues or at least keep their believes somewhat grounded in reality? Preventing public discussion does not prevent private discussion so instead of a lively debate with both sides presented you get private discussions with people deemed to be "safe" i.e. like-minded and you end up just reinforcing more and more extreme beliefs. How else do you explain Trump and Brexit?
Re: (Score:2)
> corporations do have a similar reach and power to governments and should be held to the same standards
> It is not a concern. Never had been.
Luckily, I'm still able to reply to this nonsense.
Youtube was recently sued over select "curation" [dailysignal.com] wherein Google wants to be able to say it's basically an open platform but also controls what content is available QED. It is a concern. It always has been, but there is an increasingly small number of people who are slower to understand the landscape.
Different Cultures different sensibilities (Score:2)
Humor is subjective and often based on cultural context. For some a Joke is just a joke, for others it is taken seriously.
Disney Characters are like it or not are ambassadors of American Culture. For people with limited access to full American culture these cartoons may be the best that they are offered. Using them in adult terms may not seem funny to other cultures, as well put them in a negative light.
But I think the fact it wasn't so funny in the culture it probably was cut out just to keep the show c
Re: (Score:2)
Disney Characters are like it or not are ambassadors of American Culture. For people with limited access to full American culture these cartoons may be the best that they are offered.
That might make more sense if it was not in the context of blocking wider exposures to American Culture, including the fact that Disney characters are not necessarily treated with reverence in our culture.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Come now, John Oliver is left-wing. Censoring the right is the absolute moral right of our corporate overlords. Censoring the left is a moral outrage, as evil corporations trample our sacred rights, and proof that Citizens United was the worst ruling ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Personal attacks would make it a Troll comment. Flamebait is if you post something provocative purely for initiating a flame war.
Moderating on /. and in general is highly subjective. Given that mods are semi-randomly selected it's hard to be overly critical of moderation when it's posters who are moderating each other, rather than someone in an ivory tower.
Taking a non-political topic, and making it a left-wing versus right-wing flamewar is how we end up with moderation like this. Even if you disagree with
Re: (Score:2)
You are right... John Oliver does primarily only attack in one direction, but his show is more informative than most other places.
Full disclosure I am independent, so I personally like it when each sides dirty stinking rotten laundry gets aired out to dry.
I just wish we had a similar platform on the other side to show the stank nasty attacking the other direction.
But either way... they all need to remain online and shared because it is important!
Re: (Score:2)
You are right... John Oliver does primarily only attack in one direction, but his show is more informative than most other places.
When the Martin Zimmerman verdict was released, instead of criticizing the court or any actual evidence (or lack thereof), John Oliver decided to reinforce the narrative that Zimmerman was a racist murderer that escaped actual justice, in order to play into the bias of his audience.
This was after media had already been called out on selectively editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist, and he had been dubbed a "white hispanic" in order to maximize the racial element of the story in order to driv
Re: (Score:2)
The gun is a historical artifact. I don't care that it was auctioned off, especially considering that Zimmerman was made unemployable. I hope it finds its way into a museum themed on the harm and irresponsibility of untrustworthy mass media.
The people I think are shitty human beings are those who are so eager and willing to burn a witch at the stake, based on the hearsay of those with their own agenda. John Oliver is partly responsible for the innocent people who were targeted with revenge attacks [google.com] as a resu
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree. If he wants creative freedom there are plenty of platforms - he could easily start a youtube channel with his current fanbase.
Running to YouTube to escape censorship would be the funniest joke of all. But, obviously, you can already watch him on YouTube [youtube.com]. He's probably contractually barred from starting his own YouTube comedy channel right now.
Re: (Score:3)
He has no problem with HBO and HBO has no problem with him. This is about Hotstar in India that is licensed to broadcast HBO content and THEY are censoring the show.
Re: (Score:1)
Narendra Modi is a super star in India. Hotstar will select programs that will improve its viewership and improve its advertisement rates. If it thinks this would controversial and better not to select it, it will not. It is not censorship. It is business decision. Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy will not include any controversial content. John Oliver's politics about America is not controversial in India. But his commentary on Indian politics will be avoided by private media co
Re: Fuck you 140Mandak262Jamuna (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If he wants to be snotty to the people who are paying him, they can cut him loose.
Indeed they can. But they won't. I mean they don't when he directly criticises them on his very show. They don't when he criticises his parent company. And they won't now.
I hope you have a better approach to parenting: "Baby jcr spoke back to me today so kicked him out on the street, disowned him, and placed an order with Miss jcr for a new one, the 9 month lead time is a bitch tough".
Re: (Score:2)
New lyrics (Score:1)
"It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much we won't share
'Cuz it's time we're not aware
It's a censored world after all
It's a censored world after all
It's a censored world after all
It's a censored world after all
It's a censored , censored world."
is freedom of speech universal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"last i checked, as an American, i'm guaranteed the right to say pretty much whatever i want about our government."
No you can't and it has never been this way. Sure you can say a lot, but you cannot say whatever and you are crazy if you think that is guaranteed.
There are people in jail & dead for nothing other than trying to exercise their rights... they were not even so much as convicted of anything... they just became suspect and then dead, missing, or jailed.
Anyone in authority can come and do anyth
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's why John Oliver is fighting them with additional speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't support free speech without sometimes defending whining.
If you think that's bad, wow, considering all the awful stuff that people defend, just wow.
Re: (Score:1)
Say, yes, but what venue? Let me suggest that you make yourself a big (but not solid) banner and try waving it on the steps of the Supreme Court building and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
John Oliver should quit. After all, if he doesn't like the hand that feeds him he should find another hand.
Why? When you get away with criticising the hand that feeds you while it continues to feed you why would you quit? Are you saying that no one should ever complain about anything? What a stupid view on life you have.
Slams? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out which corporation he's shilling for. He's skewered dozens, including the one he works for. Maybe you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?
Re: (Score:1)
Disney is a private company. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Try showing a picture of Mohammad or Allah as a "in your face" journalism extolling your freedom of expressions.
All these Western journalists pull their punches and become extra sensitive to "not wounding the sentiments of common Muslim who are also victims of the jihadis and making their life miserable does not achieve anything". But when it comes to religions that have not traditionally issued fatwas or forced non practitioners to subscribe to their world view these guys are all full of fir
Re: (Score:3)
"All these Western journalists pull their punches and become extra sensitive to "not wounding the sentiments of common Muslim who are also victims of the jihadis and making their life miserable does not achieve anything". But when it comes to religions that have not traditionally issued fatwas or forced non practitioners to subscribe to their world view these guys are all full of fire and bluster."
Everyone gets brave when they think they have nothing to fear... hence the reason most people on the internet s
Re: (Score:3)
Its even possible these journalists think they are paying a great compliment to th
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is a private company.
Are ya sure?
My daughter was given one share of stock... which seems to indicate they're a publicly-traded company.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not MY mob! (Score:2, Interesting)
A different country's cancel culture hits, and you are shocked, shocked!
Work for hire. (Score:1)
Want to control your own productive work?
Become your own broadcaster into India.
Set up your own studio and use the internet to broadcast globally.
The USA protects that right.
People in India are then free to find that new service.
'Slammed'? (Score:2)
John Oliver couldn't slam a wet noodle.