Have McKinsey and its consulting rivals got too big?

Obligatory John Oliver video on the topic: https://youtu.be/AiOUojVd6xQ?si=anI1_FKkDM4oDI1M

Nothing about John Oliver is obligatory

Less than nothing. It has flipped to the other side in the bullshit of it all. Pundit hot takes have ruined quality dialogue. Frankly I’d rather have discussions with people who do their own research and form their own opinions, no matter how faulty those opinions may be (there is always room for improvement precisely because there is room for discussion), than to hear them regurgitate party-speak drivel shilled by actors.

Talking heads are a cancer upon society.

edit: to the folks responding saying something to the effect of “you don’t know what you’re talking about!” - I could have saved you the trouble and written your responses down ahead of time. They’re trite and reflexive. Oliver is a shill, down to the so-called data. He’s an approved mouthpiece on behalf of the state. He discusses and he frames only what is allowed to be said in a context it’s allowed in, and his edgy woke takes are the complete opposite of. They’re edgy because of how milquetoast the Overton window has become.

Put another way, if you’re in unison cheering for someone who is allowed to have their own TV show, it’s time to ask yourself if you’re being played with bread and circuses. You won’t hear the opposition because, well, in older times and other places they’d be disappeared/imprisoned, but today it’s mostly people like this twat (and yourselves) drowning out the contrarian voices.

Job well done lads.

I get the feeling you haven't watched Jon Oliver. He does deep dives on relevant issues and does a ton of research. I was recently interviewed about his process and it's pretty enlightening. He complains about how activists often twists perfectly good data to make a point but under scrutiny it falls apart, even if the original data would have been good enough.

He's about as far from a hot takes engine as you could get

??? John Oliver has always does a great job of understanding and communicating an issue in depth. He is exactly the opposite of everything you are accusing him of.

I disagree.

The phrase "doing one's own research" has been co-opted by people doing conspiracy-windowshopping. It's designed to get lazy people stuck in the muck while sending them on a Shawshank-Redemption-style crawl through the sewers of the Internet... Only those who can cut through the bull — pun slightly intended — make it to the other side.

You have to start trusting people at some point. Researchers and scientists have proven to be trustworthy, if (IFF!) the right incentives system is in place. (Edit: and talking heads, of course; my claim is that John Oliver and his team of researchers and writers is more trustworthy due to the effort that they put into making things as accurate as possible, while funny as well... All while elevating the quality of newscasters by showing attribution to what they are saying and connecting the dots on why it is relevant to the viewers).

But we are living at an awkward stage of civilization: the very rich are backing political leaders who make a religion out of economic systems and don't view them as useful tools to balance development and inequality.

If only you did your own research on how John Oliver does his research.

Even on topics where I agree with him directionally, I find he misrepresents the truth or omits significant caveats.

Source: trust me bro?

Agreed. I watched an a show on something I knew a lot about and was appalled out how much he missed the mark and/or had an agenda. I always liked his show and tended to agree with his take until then. Great rehtoric, Im just concerned that people might be eating his shit and forming "informed" opinions on things because Oliver's team "already did all the research."

Keep some salt handy.

I agree with majority of what you’ve said. I think we are, predominantly, in agreement. Or at the very least we would overlap from time to time. I’ll skip on the John Oliver details because so much of what these programs focus on with research is telling you what to think by framing facts, omitting details and derailing discussions. I’ll focus on the other bits.

Both the nutty conspiracists and the people nodding along and cheering with TV shows fall to the same kind of self inflicted ignorance: their biases get the best of them and they won’t look for counter arguments or entertain alternative viewpoints or possibilities. Now, I don’t care about what biases those are in particular, but it’s worthwhile to ask both sets of people, upon listening to them make their case/statement, a somewhat simplistic and mildly derogatory question: “where did you hear that?” because both sets are looking elsewhere for authority on what to think or believe.

Many a time I’ve had to reel peoples fantastical takes in by plainly stating back to them their sources and walking them through the narrative they’ve constructed in their head and listening to people who - in many cases - are even in a lesser position to obtain accurate enough facts to make a solid case. Not the most welcoming party trick but it does work to help wake people up from a self-inflicted trance.

I’m reminded in all of this by the usefulness of something like an LSAT, where it’s asking you to recite back minute details of what has been said or happened, or what has not been said and therefore is presumptuous, without necessarily forming an opinion along the way.

You raise a good point on having to soften a hardline stance and trust people putting in the work.

Please, do your own research. That's the whole point.

He's high quality research by comparison to the absolute garbage that exists today--not by say classical Frontline or 60 Minutes standards

Could you elaborate a bit more? I'm interested to know on which topic did Last Week Tonight miss the mark (and, why do you consider they had a hidden agenda?).

I think you may be referring to the Lulu Garcia-Navarro interview [0]. It's so good! I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they have 12 researchers (fact-checkers) and a bunch of lawyers (in addition to the writers) that are working on ensuring the accuracy of the episodes.

[0]: https://youtu.be/Q9kNMJ8SguQ

I one hundred percent agree with you - he's dangerously wrong on some things, sometimes seemingly intentionally.

At the core they avoid consideration of an entire side of the story except to cherry pick certain individuals from that side and then lob a string of personal attacks on them; making fun of how they look or how they talk.

It's entertainment. Don't let it cloud your decisions aside from considering the raw facts. Thoroughly research everything on your own. The laughs are not free.

not OP but I had a similar experience with both his episodes on Rent/Housing. He made the problem seem like the problem is caused by institutional investors snapping up single family homes and speculating on rent, when they are a small fraction (< 8% iirc) of the homes being rented. He railed against the lack of affordable new housing when new housing by definition is not affordable. You don't buy an affordable new car fresh off the lot, you buy a used one - same with housing. Any new housing increases supply and decreases overall rent.

Vast majority of political pressure to restrict the housing supply comes from your average homeowner. They have been taught, and incentivized, to treat their home as an investment vehicle. Building more housing generally lowers their home's value due to supply vs demand.

Rent can be affordable, or housing can be a 'good' investment. We can't really have both, but it's a lot more palatable to blame the problem on Blackrock or rich condo owners than your audience.

> [...] lack of affordable new housing when new housing by definition is not affordable [...]

I'm sorry, but affordable (and newly built) housing, at least in Central Europe, where I live, is most certainly a thing. It's a question of building type, unit size, density, local infrastructure, government subsidies and the location overall. I can recommend taking a look at the housing market in cities such as Vienna. Newly built housing can be affordable and of a high quality.

Why that is a seeming impossibility in the US, I cannot say, though I have seen some, albeit more than likely somewhat biased, evidence that at least some forms of higher density, low-rise mixed-use building styles common in Central Europe are not possible in certain areas of the US due to zoning laws. Unless I am mistaken, I seem to remember that zoning legislation was something the LWT piece on the topic specifically pointed out as one of many parts of what is a multifaceted problem that needs to be approached as such.

Another area that is, according to reporting, very good on the front of providing newly built, affordable housing is Singapore, though I know no first-hand experiences (I have no friends currently residing in Singapore public housing) to truly contextualize whether the system there works as well as it appears to. In either case, though, new housing can be affordable if done right.

> They have been taught, and incentivized [...]

Ok, but if that is the case, then both new and old housing cannot be affordable. You are saying, new housing by definition is not affordable, then point out that, for historic reasons, owners expect their property to increase in value, making old/existing housing even less affordable.

He's one of the most obvious ragebait puppets I've ever seen. Physiognomy doesn't lie.