Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (2014–…): Season 1, Episode 13 - Episode #1.13 - full transcript
John discusses native advertising and Argentine debt restructuring.
Welcome! Welcome!
Welcome, welcome, welcome to "Last Week Tonight."
I'm John Oliver.
Just time for a quick recap of the week.
In a nutshell: Gaza--horrific;
Ebola spreading;
and Syria, to be honest, it's barely
being reported on, but let's assume it's
still fucking awful.
Thankfully for all of our souls, though, in Uganda,
there was one genuinely good piece of news this week.
A controversial and much-protested anti-gay law
in Uganda was
invalidated today.
Yes!
That is fantastic!
Uganda's brutal anti-gay
law has been struck down.
Presumably, this was
a simple case of a country
finally coming to its
senses and understanding
the dignity and worth
of all individuals.
The country's
constitutional court
ruled that it was
"Null and void"
because the parliament
didn't have a quorum when
it was passed
earlier this year.
Well, that's even better!
It was overturned
on a technicality!
"Free at last, free at last.
"Thank God Almighty,
we are
accidentally free at last!"
It still counts.
It still counts.
Now, you may remember, we
actually covered Uganda's
anti-gay laws a while
ago, and we all met one
of its main proponents,
Pastor Martin Ssempa.
They begin to use
gadgets like bananas.
They use carrots.
They use bananas.
They use cucumbers and
other metallized ones,
and they put them inside
themselves.
Maybe tiny coconuts.
OK. Just to be clear,
what you're describing
isn't a sexual
orientation.
It's a juice cleanse, OK?
Which, by the way, is
an abomination before God.
It's wrong. It's wrong.
But surprisingly--perhaps
unsurprisingly, Ssempa
was not thrilled
with this law being
overturned, and he thinks
he knows who is to blame.
Barack Obama,
who has been putting
pressure in
the U.S.-Africa summit.
Wait. President Obama
was responsible?
That could actually be
the most ignorant thing
this man has said so far
because it is one thing
to believe that gay sex
involves a complete
edible arrangement,
but if you truly believe
President Obama
has the power to influence
legislation anywhere
on Earth, you are
a complete idiot.
And--moving on.
Speaking of
the president, he ended
this week having to deal
with the imminent release
of a major report on
the CIA and torture.
Leaks suggest that this
country is about to have
to confront the brutality
that has been committed
in its name,
and the president attempted to
prepare us all for that
in a bizarrely casual way.
We did some things
that were wrong.
We did a whole lot of
things that were right,
but we tortured
some folks.
What?
Folks?
When you're admitting
one of the darkest chapters
in recent American history,
it's maybe best
not to come off
like an old man
in a Country Time Lemonade
commercial.
"Well, that was the day
I met your grandmother.
"We spent the whole
afternoon at
"the county fair.
"Then that night,
we tortured some folks.
"We did it,
and we've been together.
That's our story."
Even the CIA's conduct
towards the Senate
committee that wrote
the report is proving to
be controversial.
Back in March,
Dianne Feinstein accused them
of hacking into the Senate
committee's computers,
which, CIA Director John Brennan
thought sounded crazy.
The allegations of,
you know, CIA hacking
into, you know, Senate
computers, nothing could
be further
from the truth.
We wouldn't do that.
I mean that's--that's
just beyond
the, you know,
the scope of reason.
Uh-huh, uh-huh, OK.
Beyond the scope of
reason, uh-huh, uh-huh.
I get it.
Guess what.
CIA Director John Brennan
apologized today after
an internal investigation
determined the agency had
spied on staff members of
the United States Senate.
OK. So it wasn't so much
beyond the scope of reason
as it was nestled extremely deep
within the scope of reason.
Just all up in that
scope of reason.
Right up in there.
This man has either
lied to senators or been
guilty of not knowing
what his own agency was doing.
At the very least, this has got to knock
the president's confidence
in John Brennan, right?
I have full confidence
in John Brennan.
How? How?
How is that possible?
The only way you can have
full, 100% confidence
in him is if you somehow
had 300% confidence
in him before all
of this happened.
In fact, Mr. President,
let me try and put this in terms
you might understand.
You really might want
to consider disciplining
some folks.
And finally, to some
lighter news right here
in New York.
Fishs Eddy is
a local independent
kitchenware store.
They make delightful
plates featuring
New York's skyline,
but this week they ran into some
unexpected trouble
with a government agency.
NEWSWOMAN: Last week,
a Port Authority attorney
fired off a letter
to Fishs Eddy.
According to the letter,
"Your use of
"the Port Authority's assets
on dinnerware and other
items is of great concern
to the Port Authority."
DIFFERENT NEWSWOMAN: The store
was also told the use
of the images interferes
with the Port Authority's
control of its
own reputation.
That's right, that's right.
The Port Authority
is anxious to protect
its reputation.
And here is something
the Port Authority clearly
does not understand--its
reputation is terrible.
Because the only thing
people think of when they
hear its name is the
Port Authority bus terminal,
also known as
the single worst place
on planet Earth.
It is--let me
explain how bad.
It is a place--it's
a place where cockroaches
run up to people
screaming,
"Please get me out of here.
This place is
disgusting."
The Port Authority is
so famously awful that
the sitcom "Everybody
Hates Chris" once had
an episode called "Everybody
Hates the Port Authority,"
which featured this scene.
ROCHELLE: OK. I want y'all to be real
careful in here.
This place is full of
pickpockets, pimps,
and murderers and child
molesters and thieves.
ADULT CHRIS: That's
the Port Authority slogan.
And the producers were
safe in the knowledge
that everyone would
understand that joke
because you do not need
to have been to
the Port Authority to
know that you never
want to go there.
And yet the Port Authority
is worried that
a whimsical plate
will destroy its reputation.
Well, look, if they
really want to take
ownership of their
hard-earned image,
maybe we can be of some help.
ANNOUNCER: New York,
home to such icons as
the Empire State Building,
the Statue of Liberty,
and, of course,
the Port Authority Bus Terminal,
the Big Apple's
magnificent worm.
If you really want to
know the Port Authority's
reputation,
just ask any New Yorker.
The Port Authority
is pretty gross.
I think it's
fucking disgusting.
It's kind of skuzzy.
It really creeps me out.
It's kind of like
a dumpy shithole
from the eighties.
ANNOUNCER: And in tribute to
this great building, we're
proud to introduce
the official
Port Authority dinner plate.
Handcrafted from
Port Authority bathroom tiles,
the plate features
all the most famous
Port Authority sights:
an old woman throwing
up in a garbage can;
an unattended child;
a rat orgy;
a man relieving himself
into a water fountain;
a used condom
and 3 loose teeth;
and two pregnant women
fist fighting.
The official Port Authority
dinner plate.
Eat shit!
Mmm! Oh, beautiful, beautiful.
Moving on.
There was an amazing
international story
this week that you
may have missed.
Argentina is in default
for the second time
in 13 years.
Last-minute talks
failed to produce a deal
with the country's
bondholders, demanding
payment overnight.
Now Argentina
has defaulted.
Now Argentina
defaulting is not,
in itself, startling.
They've done it
7 times before.
Defaulting is
an Argentine tradition every
bit as grand as the tango
and hiding Nazis, both
of which they are
flamboyantly good at.
And you may be thinking,
"Well, look, this is
"horrible for the people
of Argentina, who are
"clearly in for
a very difficult time,
but what does this story
have to do with me?"
Well...
NEWSMAN: There is
a deep-seated resentment
against the United States
in Argentina nowadays.
People there say
the world's most powerful
country is driving
their financially strapped
nation into the abyss.
That's an unpleasant
surprise because normally
if you see someone
burning an American flag,
you can at the very
least guess why.
Pakistan--well,
probably drone strikes.
Iran--let's say
crippling sanctions.
College campus--looks
like Tyler just learned
about the military-industrial
complex.
"Hey, this is
bullshit, man!"
"I ain't gonna take it"
"No, Tyler ain't
gonna take it"
But interestingly,
this time, the flag is not
burning due to the actions
of the U.S. government
as much as it is
some U.S. hedge funds.
NEWSWOMAN: The dispute
began when Argentina
financially collapsed
in 2001 and couldn't pay
its debts.
Most investors owed money
have agreed to accept
repayments of as little
as 25 cents for each
dollar spent, but a group
of U.S. hedge funds known
as hold-out investors
have refused and have
taken Argentina to court
to get their money.
Now, I know that you are
on the edge of your seats
at this point.
Hedge funds, foreign bonds,
and court-ordered
debt restructuring?
You don't often get
a single story with all 3 active
ingredients in a bottle
of NyQuil, but how is it
possible for a hedge
fund, which is, by
definition, run by
a small group
of extremely rich
assholes--That's a fact--
how is it possible for
them to bring Argentina
to the precipice
of default?
Well, luckily, there is
a hyperexcited financial
reporter from "Reuters"
who is anxious to explain
this to you.
FELIX SALMON: How
exciting is this, people?
I get to bring out my
Legos again and bring out
my toys and use it to
explain to you what
is going on.
Oh, no, no.
Why does he have
to be English?
Why?
And not just English.
His name is actually
Felix Salmon, which
sounds like what
the Queen would feed her cat.
But, look, I'm
sorry, Felix.
You were explaining.
So what happens is that
every so often there's
a coupon payment.
And the train goes
choo-choo-choo through
Clearstream
and various other bits
of financial intermediaries.
These people owe those
people money, and unless
those people have money,
you're not allowed to
do anything.
Felix, Felix, stop.
Stop, Felix.
How are you somehow
managing to make this
complicated story even
more confusing than it
already is?
Look, in its most
basic form, this is
what happened.
Argentina's economy
collapsed in 2001.
Their government wrote
a bunch of IOUs to
bondholders that it
later decided not to pay.
93% of those
bondholders eventually
accepted Argentina's
offer to pay the debt
back at around
30 cents on the dollar,
but the remaining investors--
led by a hedge fund
called Elliott Management--
listened to
Argentina's kind offer of
30 cents on the dollar
and counteroffered by
telling them to go
fuck themselves.
And then two years ago,
Elliott Management, who
at this point were acting
like an international
collection agency,
went full "Repo Man"
on Argentina.
A court in Ghana
today ruling that this
Argentine navy ship,
the "Libertad,"
cannot leave port.
Elliott Management, run
by secretive hedge fund
billionaire Paul Singer,
sued to take control
of the ship.
JOHN: Just--just
think about that.
A secretive billionaire's
hedge fund managed to
essentially boat-jack
a warship like a Somali
pirate in an Armani suit.
"I am the captain
of industry now.
I am the captain!"
And the hedge fund held
that ship for more than
two months, which is
crazy, almost as crazy as
how Argentina greeted
the ship upon its return.
NEWSMAN: She arrives to
a full-blown celebration.
The "ARA Libertad" is finally home after being
detained for two
months in Ghana.
The triumphant return
was watched by
the Argentinean president
Cristina Fernandez.
OK, OK.
First, Argentina,
what exactly do you think
you're doing?
If you're on the edge of
default, maybe cut
the fireworks budget a bit.
And also, it's a little
suspicious that you
suddenly care this much
about a warship which, no
offense, would look
more at home inside
a decorative
glass bottle.
Because, look, just to be
clear to you, Argentina
is by no means
blameless in this story.
They reneged
on their debts.
So throwing a party
for that boat is
the international equivalent
of a deadbeat dad
celebrating moving his car
before his ex-wife
could seize it
for child support.
"Yes! Fuck you, Carol.
"I need this Celica to
drive to the job I'm
"definitely gonna get.
"Yes!
Celica is mine!"
But the point is,
Is anyone else a little
uncomfortable that
a hedge fund with
300 employees has
the power to seize the ship
of a sovereign nation
of 41 million people?
Even the reporters
covering this whole story
seem a little flummoxed.
All sides continue
to negotiate through
a complex web of rulings
and conflicting
ideologies--what is
legal or illegal,
moral or immoral.
JOHN: OK. Well, there's one
thing I can definitely
clear up for you there.
Hedge funds are neither
moral nor immoral.
They are amoral.
They only exist
to make money.
Hedge funds look at
distressed countries
with assets the way
that vultures look
at dying zebras.
"Mmm!
"Sure it's suffering,
but this one's gonna
taste all stripy!"
Elliott Management
has been here before.
They reportedly made
a 400% profit
on Peruvian debt in
2000 and then,
in the Republic of Congo,
invested less than
$20 million and got
$90 million back.
Give them credit.
That is skilled
secondary-market investing.
And it also must
make great small talk
at parties.
"Hey, nice watch, Brian."
"Thanks! I paid for it by
shaking the Congo until
$90 million fell out."
"Oh, I thought
I liked it."
It is no wonder hedge funds
prefer not to have
their activities
scrutinized.
The head of Elliott Management,
Paul Singer,
has been called
publicity-shy,
and his firm's recent
letter to investors said,
"Obviously, our lives
would be easier if
"the press cared less
about this
particular position."
So is that clear
to everyone?
All Paul Singer wants--
this Paul Singer here--
is for people to respect
Paul Singer's demands
for Paul Singer's privacy
at this very difficult,
potentially profitable
time for Paul Singer, OK?
Respect his privacy.
Respect it.
You respect that man!
You respect him!
Perhaps the most alarming
aspect of this whole story
is that a brief moment
of notoriety could be
the worst consequence for
the hedge funds who are
involved in the current
situation in Argentina
because they've
not broken the law.
And the fact that that's true
makes this story so much
more concerning to me.
That a dispute with
a small group of powerful
investors can drive
a G-20 nation into
default is one of
those things that is
technically not illegal
but really feels like it
probably should be,
like being drunk
on a Segway
or watching porn
on an airplane
or naming your puppy
Cunty McGee.
You're technically
allowed to do all
of those things,
but isn't humanity supposed
to be a lot fucking
better than that?
And now this...
Stop what you're doing
and listen to this.
Your face wash
could kill you.
NEWSMAN: Too much sugar can actually kill you.
Binge watching TV
could kill you?
Your digital life
may be killing you.
Is your purse
killing you slowly?
Are your shoes
killing you?
Nagging spouses
can kill you.
Your desk job may
actually be killing you.
Your daytime snoozing
might be killing you.
Oh, boy!
MAN: How can my necktie
kill you?
And finally, finally
tonight, let's talk
about corporate influence
in the media.
And before I do,
I am very aware that we're
extremely lucky here on HBO.
We don't have advertisers,
so if I want to say
that, for instance,
Cadbury Cream Eggs
are filled
with dolphin sperm or that
Old Navy clothing makes you
look like a tacky murderer
or that Snickers
only satisfies you
for about 8 minutes,
then makes you hate
yourself for the rest
of the day, I can.
I can do all of those
things, and why?
Well, because of HBO's
business model, which
no one has been able
to adequately explain
to me yet.
But most other outlets
are locked in a constant
battle for editorial
independence, which is
especially
problematic when it comes
to the news.
America has a proud
tradition of a free
and independent press,
but it has always
been a fight.
Back in the fifties,
newscasters like NBC's
John Cameron Swayze were
introduced like this.
ANNOUNCER: Sit back,
light up a Camel,
and be an eyewitness to
the happenings that made
history in the last 24 hours.
The Camel News
Caravan presents...
Top story this evening--
Americans' life
expectancy, still 45.
That's Camel smooth.
Now, exceptions like that
aside, it's generally
agreed upon in journalism
that there should be
a wall separating
the editorial
and the business
side of news.
It's sometimes referred
to as the separation
of church and state,
although I like to think
of news and advertising
as the separation
of guacamole
and Twizzlers.
Separately they're good,
but if you mix them
together, somehow
you make both of them
really gross.
But recently,
the integrity of news has
become harder to protect,
particularly in print.
Print is still where most
original journalism is done,
but since papers
moved online, they have
struggled financially,
mainly because news is
like porn--people don't
want to pay for it
on the Internet,
even though somewhere
in a dimly lit room
Paul Krugman worked very hard
to make it.
Online--online...
Uh-uh. Online--
he worked hard.
He put his heart
and soul into that.
Online, print
publications have
struggled to attract
advertisers, partly
because traditional
banner ads are
so ineffective that one
study found we only
intentionally click on
them less than 2/10 of 1%
of the time, which
actually sounds about right
because did you know
that if you ever actually
click on a banner ad,
you literally get taken to
a page that reads,
"Hey, is everything OK?
"I'm presuming you passed
out and hit your head
"on the keyboard.
I'm calling
an ambulance right now!"
The publishing industry,
though, has responded to
this crisis by finding
a new way to appeal
to advertisers.
Native advertising is
basically saying to
corporations that want
to advertise,
"We will camouflage your
ads to make them look
like news stories."
That's essentially it.
"That's essentially it"?
Are you saying that
to sum up your point
on native advertising,
or are you describing
independent journalism?
"That's essentially it.
It's over.
We're done here."
Even if you've not
heard the term
"native advertising" before,
you have probably been
subjected to it by now.
It's when a piece of
ostensibly normal content
is stamped with tiny
disclaimers like this
and this and then contains
messages that
are often clear
endorsements,
and if you'll
excuse me,
I'll just take
a break from
making this point
by enjoying
the refreshing
taste of
Mountain Dew
Code Red.
Mmm.
And then it's at
this point that
you usually
realize,
"Oh, this isn't the thing that I
was looking for.
"You're just
advertising
the most disgusting fucking drink
ever manufactured."
Although--although,
I will say
it does undeniably
taste of red.
Native advertising,
though, has been
so lucrative for new
media organizations,
they've basically built
their entire business model
around it.
100% of our
revenue comes from
branded content.
So we have a lot
of partners who are
marketers
and major brands.
We work with 76 of
the top 100 brands now.
That's the CEO of
BuzzFeed Jonah Peretti,
and his face is like
BuzzFeed itself--
successful, appealing,
and yet somehow you want
to punch it.
BuzzFeed has created--
BuzzFeed has--
no, no, no.
BuzzFeed has created
masterpieces of
native advertising, such as
"10 Lifechanging Ways to Make
Your Day More Efficient,"
sponsored by GE,
and "9 Ways Cleaning
Has Become Smarter,"
sponsored by Swiffer,
and "11 Sea Creatures
Who Deserved to Die,"
sponsored by BP.
Now, that--
that--
that last one is a joke,
but it's not
significantly different
from the previous two.
Full disclosure--HBO did
pay for lists to promote
this show around the time
that we began, very cleverly
realizing, "We'd better
promote this show.
No one is going to give
a shit about it."
But the success of this
practice has clearly
impressed old media such
as Time Inc., whose CEO
recently created
a native advertising team,
and he also doesn't see why
that might be an issue.
JOE RIPP: As long as it's
clearly marked, as long
as the consumer knows
the difference between what's
editorial and what's
native, I don't see any
problem with it at all.
Yeah, but it is
a problem, though,
because the consumer
cannot tell
the difference.
A recent study showed
that less than half
of visitors to a news site
could distinguish
native advertising
from actual news.
And, of course, they can't
because it's supposed
to blend in.
You're like a camouflage
manufacturer saying,
"Only an idiot could
not tell the difference
"between that man
and foliage.
"I mean, look,
the camouflage clearly states
"not foliage
on the collar.
"It's clear, and besides,
I'm sure the deer knows
"the difference
between the two things.
"Deers are so smart.
You have to
respect deer."
And if you are wondering
how he reconciles this
with the line between
church and state,
well, funny story.
Quite frankly, I've
changed church and state,
as you know.
We took that away, and we
said the editors are gonna
now be working
for the business side
of the equation.
Quite frankly, I think
they're happier, they're
more excited about it because
no longer are we asking
ourselves the question,
"Are we violating
church and state?"
Whatever that was.
"Whatever that was"?
That's like a surgeon
saying, "Hey, I found
"this squishy thing
in there, all bloody
and gross, so I removed
it, whatever that was!"
That was the heart!
That was what made
the whole thing work!
You needed that!
And it's not just
Time Inc. that's doing this.
"The Atlantic" published
some native advertising
for the Church
of Scientology.
The ad is the kind
you've probably seen.
It's called sponsored
content, and it's
formatted to look like
an actual article on their
web site, and the article
lavishly praised
Scientology's leader,
David Miscavige.
JOHN: OK. Now for
"The Atlantic," that is
ethically compromising,
but for Scientology, that
is just plain stupid.
They clearly should've
gone with a magazine
with better access to
their key demographic,
such as "Depressed
Aspiring Actor Monthly."
But even--even
the "New York Times" is now
embracing this.
They had a recent
feature on their web site
about women in prison,
which looked like
a serious piece of
journalism but was
actually a paid post
promoting season two
of "Orange is the New Black."
And here's the thing--as
far as native advertising
goes, that's about
as good as it gets.
The reporting is real,
and the sponsored
branding was minimal,
but it is still an ad.
It's like hearing
the one Katy Perry song
that you like.
You think, "Sure, this
is the best possible
"iteration of Katy Perry,
but it still feels wrong
to be listening to this."
You're gonna
hear me roar
Louder, louder
than a lion
It's a good song.
It's a good song.
There's a 12-year-old
girl inside me who is
empowered by that song.
The problem is--
the problem is--the problem
is sponsors aren't always
going to be as benign as
"Orange is
the New Black."
Sometimes, it's going
to be a company like
Chevron, who recently
sponsored a piece
in the "Times" about
"How Our Energy Needs
Are Changing."
And, spoiler alert,
the notion that they're
changing because we
fucked up the Earth
thanks to companies
like Chevron is not
the conclusion of
the article.
You might think all of
this might seriously
damage trust
in a news organization,
but a "Times" advertising
executive would like to
vigorously refute that.
Let me start by
vigorously refuting
the notion that native
advertising has to erode
consumer trust or
compromise the wall that
exists between editorial
and advertising.
Good native advertising
is just not meant to
be trickery.
It's meant to be
a publisher sharing
its storytelling tools
with a marketer.
Exactly, exactly!
It's not trickery.
It's sharing
storytelling tools,
and that's not bullshit.
It's repurposed
bovine waste.
And, look, in news--
in news, that is
seemingly the model now.
Ads are baked into
content like chocolate chips
into a cookie,
except it's actually more
like raisins into
a cookie because no one
fucking wants them there.
And the point is, think
how much it would affect
your trust in me as
a source if you knew that
that last anti-raisin-cookie
joke was actually brought
to you by Chips Ahoy!
But before we demonize
these organizations
for selling out, it is
worth remembering this is
all at least
partially our fault.
A press cannot be free
and independent if nobody
is willing to pay for
it, and it seems nobody
is going to.
In which case, I'd like
to make a suggestion.
If our news is going to
be corrupted, we should
at least get
something in return.
Every time a corporation
sneaks advertising into
our news and ruins it, our news should be
allowed to sneak into
their advertising.
ANNOUNCER: When you get
hot, you get thirsty,
and when you get
thirsty, there's only
one choice...
Diet Coke.
The recent Ebola outbreak
has killed over 700
people in West Africa.
The World Health
Organization says they
don't yet have it under
control and the situation
threatens to
become catastrophic.
ANNOUNCER: Diet Coke.
It's only fair.
That's it for our
show this week.
See you next week!
Thanks for joining us.
Good night!
Welcome, welcome, welcome to "Last Week Tonight."
I'm John Oliver.
Just time for a quick recap of the week.
In a nutshell: Gaza--horrific;
Ebola spreading;
and Syria, to be honest, it's barely
being reported on, but let's assume it's
still fucking awful.
Thankfully for all of our souls, though, in Uganda,
there was one genuinely good piece of news this week.
A controversial and much-protested anti-gay law
in Uganda was
invalidated today.
Yes!
That is fantastic!
Uganda's brutal anti-gay
law has been struck down.
Presumably, this was
a simple case of a country
finally coming to its
senses and understanding
the dignity and worth
of all individuals.
The country's
constitutional court
ruled that it was
"Null and void"
because the parliament
didn't have a quorum when
it was passed
earlier this year.
Well, that's even better!
It was overturned
on a technicality!
"Free at last, free at last.
"Thank God Almighty,
we are
accidentally free at last!"
It still counts.
It still counts.
Now, you may remember, we
actually covered Uganda's
anti-gay laws a while
ago, and we all met one
of its main proponents,
Pastor Martin Ssempa.
They begin to use
gadgets like bananas.
They use carrots.
They use bananas.
They use cucumbers and
other metallized ones,
and they put them inside
themselves.
Maybe tiny coconuts.
OK. Just to be clear,
what you're describing
isn't a sexual
orientation.
It's a juice cleanse, OK?
Which, by the way, is
an abomination before God.
It's wrong. It's wrong.
But surprisingly--perhaps
unsurprisingly, Ssempa
was not thrilled
with this law being
overturned, and he thinks
he knows who is to blame.
Barack Obama,
who has been putting
pressure in
the U.S.-Africa summit.
Wait. President Obama
was responsible?
That could actually be
the most ignorant thing
this man has said so far
because it is one thing
to believe that gay sex
involves a complete
edible arrangement,
but if you truly believe
President Obama
has the power to influence
legislation anywhere
on Earth, you are
a complete idiot.
And--moving on.
Speaking of
the president, he ended
this week having to deal
with the imminent release
of a major report on
the CIA and torture.
Leaks suggest that this
country is about to have
to confront the brutality
that has been committed
in its name,
and the president attempted to
prepare us all for that
in a bizarrely casual way.
We did some things
that were wrong.
We did a whole lot of
things that were right,
but we tortured
some folks.
What?
Folks?
When you're admitting
one of the darkest chapters
in recent American history,
it's maybe best
not to come off
like an old man
in a Country Time Lemonade
commercial.
"Well, that was the day
I met your grandmother.
"We spent the whole
afternoon at
"the county fair.
"Then that night,
we tortured some folks.
"We did it,
and we've been together.
That's our story."
Even the CIA's conduct
towards the Senate
committee that wrote
the report is proving to
be controversial.
Back in March,
Dianne Feinstein accused them
of hacking into the Senate
committee's computers,
which, CIA Director John Brennan
thought sounded crazy.
The allegations of,
you know, CIA hacking
into, you know, Senate
computers, nothing could
be further
from the truth.
We wouldn't do that.
I mean that's--that's
just beyond
the, you know,
the scope of reason.
Uh-huh, uh-huh, OK.
Beyond the scope of
reason, uh-huh, uh-huh.
I get it.
Guess what.
CIA Director John Brennan
apologized today after
an internal investigation
determined the agency had
spied on staff members of
the United States Senate.
OK. So it wasn't so much
beyond the scope of reason
as it was nestled extremely deep
within the scope of reason.
Just all up in that
scope of reason.
Right up in there.
This man has either
lied to senators or been
guilty of not knowing
what his own agency was doing.
At the very least, this has got to knock
the president's confidence
in John Brennan, right?
I have full confidence
in John Brennan.
How? How?
How is that possible?
The only way you can have
full, 100% confidence
in him is if you somehow
had 300% confidence
in him before all
of this happened.
In fact, Mr. President,
let me try and put this in terms
you might understand.
You really might want
to consider disciplining
some folks.
And finally, to some
lighter news right here
in New York.
Fishs Eddy is
a local independent
kitchenware store.
They make delightful
plates featuring
New York's skyline,
but this week they ran into some
unexpected trouble
with a government agency.
NEWSWOMAN: Last week,
a Port Authority attorney
fired off a letter
to Fishs Eddy.
According to the letter,
"Your use of
"the Port Authority's assets
on dinnerware and other
items is of great concern
to the Port Authority."
DIFFERENT NEWSWOMAN: The store
was also told the use
of the images interferes
with the Port Authority's
control of its
own reputation.
That's right, that's right.
The Port Authority
is anxious to protect
its reputation.
And here is something
the Port Authority clearly
does not understand--its
reputation is terrible.
Because the only thing
people think of when they
hear its name is the
Port Authority bus terminal,
also known as
the single worst place
on planet Earth.
It is--let me
explain how bad.
It is a place--it's
a place where cockroaches
run up to people
screaming,
"Please get me out of here.
This place is
disgusting."
The Port Authority is
so famously awful that
the sitcom "Everybody
Hates Chris" once had
an episode called "Everybody
Hates the Port Authority,"
which featured this scene.
ROCHELLE: OK. I want y'all to be real
careful in here.
This place is full of
pickpockets, pimps,
and murderers and child
molesters and thieves.
ADULT CHRIS: That's
the Port Authority slogan.
And the producers were
safe in the knowledge
that everyone would
understand that joke
because you do not need
to have been to
the Port Authority to
know that you never
want to go there.
And yet the Port Authority
is worried that
a whimsical plate
will destroy its reputation.
Well, look, if they
really want to take
ownership of their
hard-earned image,
maybe we can be of some help.
ANNOUNCER: New York,
home to such icons as
the Empire State Building,
the Statue of Liberty,
and, of course,
the Port Authority Bus Terminal,
the Big Apple's
magnificent worm.
If you really want to
know the Port Authority's
reputation,
just ask any New Yorker.
The Port Authority
is pretty gross.
I think it's
fucking disgusting.
It's kind of skuzzy.
It really creeps me out.
It's kind of like
a dumpy shithole
from the eighties.
ANNOUNCER: And in tribute to
this great building, we're
proud to introduce
the official
Port Authority dinner plate.
Handcrafted from
Port Authority bathroom tiles,
the plate features
all the most famous
Port Authority sights:
an old woman throwing
up in a garbage can;
an unattended child;
a rat orgy;
a man relieving himself
into a water fountain;
a used condom
and 3 loose teeth;
and two pregnant women
fist fighting.
The official Port Authority
dinner plate.
Eat shit!
Mmm! Oh, beautiful, beautiful.
Moving on.
There was an amazing
international story
this week that you
may have missed.
Argentina is in default
for the second time
in 13 years.
Last-minute talks
failed to produce a deal
with the country's
bondholders, demanding
payment overnight.
Now Argentina
has defaulted.
Now Argentina
defaulting is not,
in itself, startling.
They've done it
7 times before.
Defaulting is
an Argentine tradition every
bit as grand as the tango
and hiding Nazis, both
of which they are
flamboyantly good at.
And you may be thinking,
"Well, look, this is
"horrible for the people
of Argentina, who are
"clearly in for
a very difficult time,
but what does this story
have to do with me?"
Well...
NEWSMAN: There is
a deep-seated resentment
against the United States
in Argentina nowadays.
People there say
the world's most powerful
country is driving
their financially strapped
nation into the abyss.
That's an unpleasant
surprise because normally
if you see someone
burning an American flag,
you can at the very
least guess why.
Pakistan--well,
probably drone strikes.
Iran--let's say
crippling sanctions.
College campus--looks
like Tyler just learned
about the military-industrial
complex.
"Hey, this is
bullshit, man!"
"I ain't gonna take it"
"No, Tyler ain't
gonna take it"
But interestingly,
this time, the flag is not
burning due to the actions
of the U.S. government
as much as it is
some U.S. hedge funds.
NEWSWOMAN: The dispute
began when Argentina
financially collapsed
in 2001 and couldn't pay
its debts.
Most investors owed money
have agreed to accept
repayments of as little
as 25 cents for each
dollar spent, but a group
of U.S. hedge funds known
as hold-out investors
have refused and have
taken Argentina to court
to get their money.
Now, I know that you are
on the edge of your seats
at this point.
Hedge funds, foreign bonds,
and court-ordered
debt restructuring?
You don't often get
a single story with all 3 active
ingredients in a bottle
of NyQuil, but how is it
possible for a hedge
fund, which is, by
definition, run by
a small group
of extremely rich
assholes--That's a fact--
how is it possible for
them to bring Argentina
to the precipice
of default?
Well, luckily, there is
a hyperexcited financial
reporter from "Reuters"
who is anxious to explain
this to you.
FELIX SALMON: How
exciting is this, people?
I get to bring out my
Legos again and bring out
my toys and use it to
explain to you what
is going on.
Oh, no, no.
Why does he have
to be English?
Why?
And not just English.
His name is actually
Felix Salmon, which
sounds like what
the Queen would feed her cat.
But, look, I'm
sorry, Felix.
You were explaining.
So what happens is that
every so often there's
a coupon payment.
And the train goes
choo-choo-choo through
Clearstream
and various other bits
of financial intermediaries.
These people owe those
people money, and unless
those people have money,
you're not allowed to
do anything.
Felix, Felix, stop.
Stop, Felix.
How are you somehow
managing to make this
complicated story even
more confusing than it
already is?
Look, in its most
basic form, this is
what happened.
Argentina's economy
collapsed in 2001.
Their government wrote
a bunch of IOUs to
bondholders that it
later decided not to pay.
93% of those
bondholders eventually
accepted Argentina's
offer to pay the debt
back at around
30 cents on the dollar,
but the remaining investors--
led by a hedge fund
called Elliott Management--
listened to
Argentina's kind offer of
30 cents on the dollar
and counteroffered by
telling them to go
fuck themselves.
And then two years ago,
Elliott Management, who
at this point were acting
like an international
collection agency,
went full "Repo Man"
on Argentina.
A court in Ghana
today ruling that this
Argentine navy ship,
the "Libertad,"
cannot leave port.
Elliott Management, run
by secretive hedge fund
billionaire Paul Singer,
sued to take control
of the ship.
JOHN: Just--just
think about that.
A secretive billionaire's
hedge fund managed to
essentially boat-jack
a warship like a Somali
pirate in an Armani suit.
"I am the captain
of industry now.
I am the captain!"
And the hedge fund held
that ship for more than
two months, which is
crazy, almost as crazy as
how Argentina greeted
the ship upon its return.
NEWSMAN: She arrives to
a full-blown celebration.
The "ARA Libertad" is finally home after being
detained for two
months in Ghana.
The triumphant return
was watched by
the Argentinean president
Cristina Fernandez.
OK, OK.
First, Argentina,
what exactly do you think
you're doing?
If you're on the edge of
default, maybe cut
the fireworks budget a bit.
And also, it's a little
suspicious that you
suddenly care this much
about a warship which, no
offense, would look
more at home inside
a decorative
glass bottle.
Because, look, just to be
clear to you, Argentina
is by no means
blameless in this story.
They reneged
on their debts.
So throwing a party
for that boat is
the international equivalent
of a deadbeat dad
celebrating moving his car
before his ex-wife
could seize it
for child support.
"Yes! Fuck you, Carol.
"I need this Celica to
drive to the job I'm
"definitely gonna get.
"Yes!
Celica is mine!"
But the point is,
Is anyone else a little
uncomfortable that
a hedge fund with
300 employees has
the power to seize the ship
of a sovereign nation
of 41 million people?
Even the reporters
covering this whole story
seem a little flummoxed.
All sides continue
to negotiate through
a complex web of rulings
and conflicting
ideologies--what is
legal or illegal,
moral or immoral.
JOHN: OK. Well, there's one
thing I can definitely
clear up for you there.
Hedge funds are neither
moral nor immoral.
They are amoral.
They only exist
to make money.
Hedge funds look at
distressed countries
with assets the way
that vultures look
at dying zebras.
"Mmm!
"Sure it's suffering,
but this one's gonna
taste all stripy!"
Elliott Management
has been here before.
They reportedly made
a 400% profit
on Peruvian debt in
2000 and then,
in the Republic of Congo,
invested less than
$20 million and got
$90 million back.
Give them credit.
That is skilled
secondary-market investing.
And it also must
make great small talk
at parties.
"Hey, nice watch, Brian."
"Thanks! I paid for it by
shaking the Congo until
$90 million fell out."
"Oh, I thought
I liked it."
It is no wonder hedge funds
prefer not to have
their activities
scrutinized.
The head of Elliott Management,
Paul Singer,
has been called
publicity-shy,
and his firm's recent
letter to investors said,
"Obviously, our lives
would be easier if
"the press cared less
about this
particular position."
So is that clear
to everyone?
All Paul Singer wants--
this Paul Singer here--
is for people to respect
Paul Singer's demands
for Paul Singer's privacy
at this very difficult,
potentially profitable
time for Paul Singer, OK?
Respect his privacy.
Respect it.
You respect that man!
You respect him!
Perhaps the most alarming
aspect of this whole story
is that a brief moment
of notoriety could be
the worst consequence for
the hedge funds who are
involved in the current
situation in Argentina
because they've
not broken the law.
And the fact that that's true
makes this story so much
more concerning to me.
That a dispute with
a small group of powerful
investors can drive
a G-20 nation into
default is one of
those things that is
technically not illegal
but really feels like it
probably should be,
like being drunk
on a Segway
or watching porn
on an airplane
or naming your puppy
Cunty McGee.
You're technically
allowed to do all
of those things,
but isn't humanity supposed
to be a lot fucking
better than that?
And now this...
Stop what you're doing
and listen to this.
Your face wash
could kill you.
NEWSMAN: Too much sugar can actually kill you.
Binge watching TV
could kill you?
Your digital life
may be killing you.
Is your purse
killing you slowly?
Are your shoes
killing you?
Nagging spouses
can kill you.
Your desk job may
actually be killing you.
Your daytime snoozing
might be killing you.
Oh, boy!
MAN: How can my necktie
kill you?
And finally, finally
tonight, let's talk
about corporate influence
in the media.
And before I do,
I am very aware that we're
extremely lucky here on HBO.
We don't have advertisers,
so if I want to say
that, for instance,
Cadbury Cream Eggs
are filled
with dolphin sperm or that
Old Navy clothing makes you
look like a tacky murderer
or that Snickers
only satisfies you
for about 8 minutes,
then makes you hate
yourself for the rest
of the day, I can.
I can do all of those
things, and why?
Well, because of HBO's
business model, which
no one has been able
to adequately explain
to me yet.
But most other outlets
are locked in a constant
battle for editorial
independence, which is
especially
problematic when it comes
to the news.
America has a proud
tradition of a free
and independent press,
but it has always
been a fight.
Back in the fifties,
newscasters like NBC's
John Cameron Swayze were
introduced like this.
ANNOUNCER: Sit back,
light up a Camel,
and be an eyewitness to
the happenings that made
history in the last 24 hours.
The Camel News
Caravan presents...
Top story this evening--
Americans' life
expectancy, still 45.
That's Camel smooth.
Now, exceptions like that
aside, it's generally
agreed upon in journalism
that there should be
a wall separating
the editorial
and the business
side of news.
It's sometimes referred
to as the separation
of church and state,
although I like to think
of news and advertising
as the separation
of guacamole
and Twizzlers.
Separately they're good,
but if you mix them
together, somehow
you make both of them
really gross.
But recently,
the integrity of news has
become harder to protect,
particularly in print.
Print is still where most
original journalism is done,
but since papers
moved online, they have
struggled financially,
mainly because news is
like porn--people don't
want to pay for it
on the Internet,
even though somewhere
in a dimly lit room
Paul Krugman worked very hard
to make it.
Online--online...
Uh-uh. Online--
he worked hard.
He put his heart
and soul into that.
Online, print
publications have
struggled to attract
advertisers, partly
because traditional
banner ads are
so ineffective that one
study found we only
intentionally click on
them less than 2/10 of 1%
of the time, which
actually sounds about right
because did you know
that if you ever actually
click on a banner ad,
you literally get taken to
a page that reads,
"Hey, is everything OK?
"I'm presuming you passed
out and hit your head
"on the keyboard.
I'm calling
an ambulance right now!"
The publishing industry,
though, has responded to
this crisis by finding
a new way to appeal
to advertisers.
Native advertising is
basically saying to
corporations that want
to advertise,
"We will camouflage your
ads to make them look
like news stories."
That's essentially it.
"That's essentially it"?
Are you saying that
to sum up your point
on native advertising,
or are you describing
independent journalism?
"That's essentially it.
It's over.
We're done here."
Even if you've not
heard the term
"native advertising" before,
you have probably been
subjected to it by now.
It's when a piece of
ostensibly normal content
is stamped with tiny
disclaimers like this
and this and then contains
messages that
are often clear
endorsements,
and if you'll
excuse me,
I'll just take
a break from
making this point
by enjoying
the refreshing
taste of
Mountain Dew
Code Red.
Mmm.
And then it's at
this point that
you usually
realize,
"Oh, this isn't the thing that I
was looking for.
"You're just
advertising
the most disgusting fucking drink
ever manufactured."
Although--although,
I will say
it does undeniably
taste of red.
Native advertising,
though, has been
so lucrative for new
media organizations,
they've basically built
their entire business model
around it.
100% of our
revenue comes from
branded content.
So we have a lot
of partners who are
marketers
and major brands.
We work with 76 of
the top 100 brands now.
That's the CEO of
BuzzFeed Jonah Peretti,
and his face is like
BuzzFeed itself--
successful, appealing,
and yet somehow you want
to punch it.
BuzzFeed has created--
BuzzFeed has--
no, no, no.
BuzzFeed has created
masterpieces of
native advertising, such as
"10 Lifechanging Ways to Make
Your Day More Efficient,"
sponsored by GE,
and "9 Ways Cleaning
Has Become Smarter,"
sponsored by Swiffer,
and "11 Sea Creatures
Who Deserved to Die,"
sponsored by BP.
Now, that--
that--
that last one is a joke,
but it's not
significantly different
from the previous two.
Full disclosure--HBO did
pay for lists to promote
this show around the time
that we began, very cleverly
realizing, "We'd better
promote this show.
No one is going to give
a shit about it."
But the success of this
practice has clearly
impressed old media such
as Time Inc., whose CEO
recently created
a native advertising team,
and he also doesn't see why
that might be an issue.
JOE RIPP: As long as it's
clearly marked, as long
as the consumer knows
the difference between what's
editorial and what's
native, I don't see any
problem with it at all.
Yeah, but it is
a problem, though,
because the consumer
cannot tell
the difference.
A recent study showed
that less than half
of visitors to a news site
could distinguish
native advertising
from actual news.
And, of course, they can't
because it's supposed
to blend in.
You're like a camouflage
manufacturer saying,
"Only an idiot could
not tell the difference
"between that man
and foliage.
"I mean, look,
the camouflage clearly states
"not foliage
on the collar.
"It's clear, and besides,
I'm sure the deer knows
"the difference
between the two things.
"Deers are so smart.
You have to
respect deer."
And if you are wondering
how he reconciles this
with the line between
church and state,
well, funny story.
Quite frankly, I've
changed church and state,
as you know.
We took that away, and we
said the editors are gonna
now be working
for the business side
of the equation.
Quite frankly, I think
they're happier, they're
more excited about it because
no longer are we asking
ourselves the question,
"Are we violating
church and state?"
Whatever that was.
"Whatever that was"?
That's like a surgeon
saying, "Hey, I found
"this squishy thing
in there, all bloody
and gross, so I removed
it, whatever that was!"
That was the heart!
That was what made
the whole thing work!
You needed that!
And it's not just
Time Inc. that's doing this.
"The Atlantic" published
some native advertising
for the Church
of Scientology.
The ad is the kind
you've probably seen.
It's called sponsored
content, and it's
formatted to look like
an actual article on their
web site, and the article
lavishly praised
Scientology's leader,
David Miscavige.
JOHN: OK. Now for
"The Atlantic," that is
ethically compromising,
but for Scientology, that
is just plain stupid.
They clearly should've
gone with a magazine
with better access to
their key demographic,
such as "Depressed
Aspiring Actor Monthly."
But even--even
the "New York Times" is now
embracing this.
They had a recent
feature on their web site
about women in prison,
which looked like
a serious piece of
journalism but was
actually a paid post
promoting season two
of "Orange is the New Black."
And here's the thing--as
far as native advertising
goes, that's about
as good as it gets.
The reporting is real,
and the sponsored
branding was minimal,
but it is still an ad.
It's like hearing
the one Katy Perry song
that you like.
You think, "Sure, this
is the best possible
"iteration of Katy Perry,
but it still feels wrong
to be listening to this."
You're gonna
hear me roar
Louder, louder
than a lion
It's a good song.
It's a good song.
There's a 12-year-old
girl inside me who is
empowered by that song.
The problem is--
the problem is--the problem
is sponsors aren't always
going to be as benign as
"Orange is
the New Black."
Sometimes, it's going
to be a company like
Chevron, who recently
sponsored a piece
in the "Times" about
"How Our Energy Needs
Are Changing."
And, spoiler alert,
the notion that they're
changing because we
fucked up the Earth
thanks to companies
like Chevron is not
the conclusion of
the article.
You might think all of
this might seriously
damage trust
in a news organization,
but a "Times" advertising
executive would like to
vigorously refute that.
Let me start by
vigorously refuting
the notion that native
advertising has to erode
consumer trust or
compromise the wall that
exists between editorial
and advertising.
Good native advertising
is just not meant to
be trickery.
It's meant to be
a publisher sharing
its storytelling tools
with a marketer.
Exactly, exactly!
It's not trickery.
It's sharing
storytelling tools,
and that's not bullshit.
It's repurposed
bovine waste.
And, look, in news--
in news, that is
seemingly the model now.
Ads are baked into
content like chocolate chips
into a cookie,
except it's actually more
like raisins into
a cookie because no one
fucking wants them there.
And the point is, think
how much it would affect
your trust in me as
a source if you knew that
that last anti-raisin-cookie
joke was actually brought
to you by Chips Ahoy!
But before we demonize
these organizations
for selling out, it is
worth remembering this is
all at least
partially our fault.
A press cannot be free
and independent if nobody
is willing to pay for
it, and it seems nobody
is going to.
In which case, I'd like
to make a suggestion.
If our news is going to
be corrupted, we should
at least get
something in return.
Every time a corporation
sneaks advertising into
our news and ruins it, our news should be
allowed to sneak into
their advertising.
ANNOUNCER: When you get
hot, you get thirsty,
and when you get
thirsty, there's only
one choice...
Diet Coke.
The recent Ebola outbreak
has killed over 700
people in West Africa.
The World Health
Organization says they
don't yet have it under
control and the situation
threatens to
become catastrophic.
ANNOUNCER: Diet Coke.
It's only fair.
That's it for our
show this week.
See you next week!
Thanks for joining us.
Good night!