“Forget immigration, gas prices, Iraq or Iran. The blogosphere is aflame over one of the most shocking and jaw-dropping public appearances of the modern era. We’re talking about Stephen Colbert,” Howard Kurtz wrote today in his Media Notes column for The Washington Post. As we’ve seen in some comments on this blog, there is a great divide about Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday. Some think Colbert was dead-on in mocking President Bush and the press corps, and see the limited reporting on his routine as another indictment of the MSM. Others think Colbert bombed.
Kurtz noted the take of Huffington Post’s Chris Durang: “Colbert’s was a brave and shocking performance. And for the media to pretend it isn’t newsworthy is a total bafflement. And a symbol of how shoddy and suspect the media is.”
But here is the take of The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber: “I’m a big Stephen Colbert fan, a huge Bush detractor, and I think the White House press corps has been out to lunch for much of the last five years. . . . That should have made me the ideal audience-member for Colbert’s performance at this weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. As it happens, though, I laughed out loud maybe twice during Colbert’s entire 20-odd minute routine. Colbert’s problem, blogosphere conspiracy theories notwithstanding, is that he just wasn’t very entertaining.”
What did Colbert actually say? Here is an excerpt from his routine (click here for complete text): “I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
29 Comments
The true value of Colbert’s appearance was in making a dishonest president uncomfortable. That’s more than the Nancy Boys on the White House press corps can muster.
Unfunny or not, it was most definately newsworthy. Especially given the coverage of the Imus keynote speech when Clinton was president.
It hit a little too close to home though.
the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”
SO TRUE!
Everyone is forgetting something here. Colbert did not come to the dinner to “entertain” the insulated Beltway crowd. He came to say what I don’t have the access to say myself to the people I feel are frittering away my country’s reputation and honor. He came to give voice to those of us who feel gagged by a media and administration that ignores us…all 68% of us. I wasn’t expecting guffaws, and I think it says a lot about the people who were. The crimes of the power elite are grievious; people are dying because of their fecklessness. Thanks Stephen.
Check out Danielle Crittendon’s really funny, made up IM chat between Kickass43 (Bush) and Snoblowr (Tony Snow). This is from Huffington Post by way of Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060502/cm_huffpost/020193
For example:
Snoblowr: well sir I think we can do better than thatSnoblowr: beat them at their own game
Kickass43: ?Kickass43: wwf??Kickass43: : – )
Snoblowr: you’re not too far off sirSnoblowr: look we’re redoing the whole briefing room…Snoblowr: & press offices anywaySnoblowr: (I can report sir that the people at fox were very happy with the new plans)Snoblowr: (they especially liked their wet bar & gym…Snoblowr: & glass offices overlooking the rose garden)Snoblowr: (FYI david gregory was heard muttering about his low ceilings…Snoblowr: & the fact he’ll not be able to push out from his desk…Snoblowr: without hitting a wall!)
Kickass43: heh hehKickass43: u c wer I put..Kickass43: * boltass * put…Kickass43: helen thomas?
Snoblowr: no sir
Kickass43: tol her she wuz gna b bside tha cabnet roomKickass43: shes like THRILLDKickass43: 4got 2 menshun tha wrd “filin”Kickass43: as in “filin cabnet”Kickass43: :-D
Snoblowr: hilarious mr. president!Snoblowr: but lets not digress…Snoblowr: as we’re about to go into a hard break…
Kickass43: chow time!
Etc. :)
Wow, I never knew that shrub spoke ebonics.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
He spoke truth to power without breaking a sweat. The best thing I’ve seen in years. The people there didn’t laugh? I wonder why, truthiness hurts!
It was amazing. A tour de force, to rip an entire room full of the most powerful people on the planet, among them the President of the United States, by showing them that he knows them better than they know themselves. It takes a hell of a lot of courage to do what Steven Colbert did, and a lot of talent to stay in character while doing it.
I, for one, thought it was hella funny. The deliberate non-reaction of the press is indicative of their complete and utter uselessness.
I watched both the “Double Bush” act and Stephen Colbert’s speech and I have to say, Colbert was far and away the more newsworthy. The fact that our so-called “Liberal Media” has either panned Colberts performance or ignored it outright speaks volumes. Colbert demonstrated the meaning of satire in it’s purest form. Which is to say that he was wickedly sharp, biting, and witty. Standing eight feet from the President, in front of 2700 (mostly unreceptive) audience members, Colbert showed more guts and backbone than anyone in the room. The President and the First Lady were clearly uncomfortable, as was the majority of the audience. Why? Because “truthiness” hurts. The mainstream media has gone a long way over the past couple of days to prove Colbert right and as for Colbert, he has proven himself to be on the same level of such greats as Mark Twain and H.L. Menken. Bravo, Stephen Colbert!
I watched the Colbert shtick on the website provided in another blog. I, too, am a big Colbert fan, but I got few laughs out of his routine. I suppose I expected a full blown dry humor routine, as he is so good at on his show. But what I got out of it was not that funny.
I had the feeling he was trying to do what Jon Daily did on crossfire, but he failed to pull it off. There were some hard hitting snippets, but for the most part, it was a comedian coming off as not funny. Not one of his better performances.
I personally thought it was funny due to the biting and witty satire. At no point was it direct attacks, technically speaking. He stayed in his deluded-neocon character throughout the entire bit and did a rock solid performance. Caricaturizing the mentality of the people who are hopelessly loyal to Bush, in front of some of these same people.
It was the context of the event, not necessarily the content. If this content was delivered in some other form besides this event, it’s easy to say it not being anywhere near as funny. It was the nerve, flawless delivery, and truth that made it funny. People forget the audience at the event wasn’t the audience he was trying to entertain. He saw his chance and cashed in this opportunity to get across a real message. And that is this: the incredible irony of comedians who portray fake news actually have the backbone and method to reveal the truth than these so called professionals of the MSM by far.
The media knows this and he rubbed their faces in it. This is why it is being purposefully omitted and marginalized.
If it’s newsworthy enough to mention the other entertainer, Stephen should have the same amount of attention if not more so due to the controversial nature of his performance.
This is a no-brainer. Funny acts get surpassed by controversial acts…they always have been. Why is there a change for that now?
Because this time the target of the controversy is on the shoulders who would bring you the report about it.
EXCERPT–
“The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.
“As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president’s side, and the vice president’s side.
“But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished.
“Over the last five years you people were so good — over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
“But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ‘em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know – fiction!”
*****
Digby hit the nail on the head. People in the audience weren’t laughing because Colbert broke the unwritten rule–make fun of politics and politicians all you want, but treat the media with fawning deference.
When Imus ridiculed Clinton in front of Hillary the press lit it up in fireworks.
When Colbert says “you people are a disgrace to your profession,” he gets stony silence . . .
They are, and they deserved every word of it and much, much more.
For example, does anyone know what depleted uranium is? If you do, it’s not because you read the Washington Post or Time magazine . . .
Nevertheless, tens of thousands of our troops are getting poisoned with this stuff and the media can’t summon the will to say a single word about it.
The one thing that made it seem not funny is that the truth to which he so elegantly pointed is so ugly. Thousands on Americans and hundreds of thousands of others have died so Bush could have his photo ops.
It’s very simple: If Colbert bombed, wouldn’t his bombing with the sorts of things he said be newsworthy? If so, why was there almost no coverage of his performance, indeed his appearance, on TV or the major national print media?
Another aspect to consider in this situation is if Colbert’s performance had been in any other venue (i.e., not a media-centric lovefest), would it be newsworthy, whatever the perceived reception?
Personally, I think the answers to these questions are clear. It’s a telling indictment of our media, upon whom we rely for so much of our understanding of national and world events.
The press and others commenting on how “funny” Colbert was, is akin to commenting about the architecture of a burning house.
And is an obvious attempt to deflect and bury the story by making it about humor and etiquette, when the real story should be about what was said.
Colbert wasn’t trying to be funny any more than Stewart was on Crossfire. Stewart just came off as funny because of how much he ripped into Carlson.
There was some funny stuff he said. But most was a bit lame.
Judge for yourself.
Here are the videos:
http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org/
Just go down until you see the video.
Amen. I loved it. It was exhilerating to watch him. I was scared, shocked, and elated. I have watched it again and again. It was his commentary on the media that moved me the most. It doesn’t take balls to critizie Bush, it takes real courage to criticize the corp. media. The media now has the power to destroy an individual’s reputation or prop someone without regard to the truth. It doesn’t have the intrest of the American people at “heart”, only corporate profits, as far as I am concerned.It wasn’t just what he said but it was what his character illustrates to all of us about the media.
Media blackout aside, the word is out. I am optimistic and look forward to watching how things unfold with the future of the (colglamorate) corporate media.
Maybe it wasn’t ha-ha “funny,” but it was biting satire that was clever and dead-on-target. It was IMHO, worthy of Carlin or Pryor. And it took some serious nerve.
The cliche is true: in his own sardonic way, Colbert spoke truth to power.
i thought it was the best thing i’ve seen this year… but the act in and of itself wasn’t why it was funny. it’s that he was up there saying what needed to be said to the people who needed to hear it, and there wasn’t anything any one of them could do about it. Steven Colbert, you’re my hero!!!
Check out this photo that includes Bush:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/arts/03colb.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He’s not laughing.
I didn’t think that Colbert was particularly funny but shrub deserved to be mocked just on principle.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
DD
Good picture.
Bush doesn’t look just irritated. He looks damned uncomfortable. Truthiness hurts. I bet he went back to the oval office and threw his toys around.
Colbert is not just a brave guy who said some things that needed to be said. He is also a pretty decent guy.
He was on 60 minutes last Sunday as well. He has young kids that he DOES NOT let watch the Colbert Report because he doesn’t want them to get any ideas that he is ANYTHING like the charicature he portrays.
I think by trying to squash his uncomfortable routine, the media may just make him a star. Be interesting to watch the ratings for the Colbert Report.
Here’s a little more–
“Now I know there’s some polls out there saying this man has a 32-percent approval rating,” Mr. Colbert said a few moments later. “But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking ‘in reality.’ And reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
If you’re liberal, that’s funny. If you’re conservative, it’s not. If you still support Bush, well, then may God have mercy on your soul, man.
Check out the libertarian, not liberal, Cato Institute’s take on the Constitutional record of G.W. Bush:
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330
As an aside, the guy who is running Koch Industries propaganda arm (Flint Hills Institute for Public Policy) was the former leader of the Cato Institute.
So, GW Bush has the liberals (who want too much government) and the libertarians (who want no government) pissed off. Doesn’t this mean that he is on the right track???
No, I didn’t think so, either.
You got it DD.
The Democraps and the Republicunts are both filled with cowardly liars who are ever-willing to sacrifice the welfare of the common good in order to further their political careers.
Nope, nothings changed. Everything’s running smoothly.
Saw Colbert’s audition tape to be White House press sec. Funny stuff. Helen Thomas as a “stalker”.
Two favorites came out of the routine for me. The first bears repeating. Reality is a liberal bent? (I’m sure I didn’t get it quite right, but that’s the gist I take away)The next one… Fox News tells two sides of the story. President Bush’s side of the story and VP Cheney’s side of the story.