PeterDavid.net

I was stunned when I heard Colbert's routine. The chutzpah that man has is mind-blowing. He was absolutely brilliant. I laughed my ass off. The Press Corps, and anyone else who says he "wasn't funny," are nothin' but cowards.

I am liberal and I do think BUsh has been the worst president in my lifetime (I was born just after Nixon left office.) And I love the Daily Show on Comedy Central. So....I really did not think that he was that funny.

Although I agree with Dave, gotta respect the guts he showed.

I watched Colbert's routine Saturday night while at work, and I was HOWLING. I don't think that it's that the press corps didn't think it was funny, I think it's that they take themselves and their image as sacrosanct and pure and how DARE anyone poke fun?

Or it could be that, having worked in TV for as long as I have, I just apply the patterns of the people I work around to everyone.

PAD, you've hit the nail on the head once again.

Lance Armstrong has more balls than the whole of the Washington Press Corp.

It's really tragic, when you think about it.

These guys are the front line in free speech and freedom of the press, but what did they show?

That they have no smegging spine whatsoever.

"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!" - Stephen Colbert

The real interesting thing for me is the fact that not only was Stephen Colbert's tribute not mentioned in the mainstream "liberal" media at all, but that in the stories that covered the Correspondents Dinner, the fact that Stephen Colbert -- the featured speaker of the night -- was there wasn't reported, even in passing. (The story everyone glommed onto was the Bush impersonator playing Doublemint Twins with W.)

Heck, even now, when I check Google News, the only news reports that discuss Colbert's performance firsthand are blogs and other non-traditional outlets. Pretty much all mainstream articles on the affair are reaction pieces to all the heat the satire has been generating online and in the blogosphere.

I don't think this a vast conspiracy or anything, but the press has really gotten into this groupthink idea that Colbert's appearance is a taboo topic.

Perhaps if Don Imus had been there instead and said the same things, it would have gotten more play.

Stephen Colbert was *amazing*. Absolutely *wicked* and right on the money with his jabs. And for those who thought he wasn't funny - denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

I *heart*ed Colbert before this. Now I basically worship the ground he walks on. Balls-alicious? Yeah, the man has the muchos huevos grandias mentioned in the adverts for the show!

Where did you guys watch it? All I've found is the transcript and video of the "audition".

OK, I found a video of the speech at this site:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/04/stephen_colbert_2.html

Aaaaannnd... I heard lots of laughter. It wasn't as loud as the laughter on a TV show, but audiences at shows like this aren't wired for sound like TV audiences are, so that's normal. Even the joke that Colbert showed on the Colbert Report got a laugh.

Never was much of a Colbert fan; though funny, I felt him too much of a Johnny One-Note; sort of the anti-Yakov Smirnoff. Still, as nigh-on-Andy-Kaufman-level performance art, it was entertaining.

But this was sheer genius.

As an european I found a link in a blog and klicked it out of sheer curiosity, I didn´t knew who this man was.

O my god!

The sheer courage of this man. And the stone-faced reaction of the audience. Wow. When I grow up I want to be like him :-)

Your country need more guys like that. (And mine too, for what it´s worth).

And yes, that there were no reaction on the news - at least I couldn´t find something on the net - is really a sign of the state of the media. Maybe he should have shown a nipple :-)

Granted, the audience wasn't wired for sound, but there were more than 2000 of them. And the volume of the glacier joke response indicated that, oh yes, you sure as heck could hear them when enough of them laughed. The glacier gag was mild compared to the earlier ones, but as I noted, THAT got a huge laugh. Which made the relative polite chuckles that greeted the earlier parts of the routine that much more obvious.

And although I don't have first hand verification of this, supposedly when CNN rebroadcast the dinner, they cut Colbert's ENTIRE PERFORMANCE. Can anyone confirm this?

PAD

2000 of them *spread out*. The reason that the audience always laughs at Saturday Night Live is because people in a small packed crowd feed off each other. Putting people around tables spreads out the energy, and people never laugh as hard under those circumstances.

Plus, here's one other thing I'm surprised I have to point out. There aren't 2000 people in the press corp. Not even close. The Washington Press Corp was actually a small percentage of that audience. If every one of them was laughing at every joke, they'd barely make a dent in that crowd. So it's a little unfair to use that crowd's overall response as any kind of gauge of the press corp.

I'm surprised you'd say the glacier joke "wasn't political", given that the clear unspoken end to that sentence was, "because Bush refuses to take climate change and global warming seriously, and the environment will be far different for your grand-children as a result." Seems pretty political to me.

Nah. Colbert never hesitated to spell out the political jibes at Bush. "Unspoken?" Nothing was left unspoken.

PAD

True, it wasn't unspoken. It was a very clear poke at Bush.

I dunno if they cut Colbert from the rebroadcast, but they certainly never mentioned him on the major news sources I saw (CBS, CNN mainly), just focusing on the Dueling Banjos bit with the impersonator.

Sasha, I have to disagree. The mainstream media not mentioning Colbert (or, when they did, calling his appearance "poorly received" or "mean spirited") was most certainly a conspiracy. They're treating him even worse than they did Jon Stewart when he had the balls to cut loose on Crossfire. The MSM is just like Bush in that they can't stand it when someone points out their faults, and now they're doing everything they can to sweep it under the rug in the belief that the quicker they do, the quicker it'll go away.

Sasha, I have to disagree. The mainstream media not mentioning Colbert (or, when they did, calling his appearance "poorly received" or "mean spirited") was most certainly a conspiracy. They're treating him even worse than they did Jon Stewart when he had the balls to cut loose on Crossfire. The MSM is just like Bush in that they can't stand it when someone points out their faults, and now they're doing everything they can to sweep it under the rug in the belief that the quicker they do, the quicker it'll go away.

Jester's Tears--c'mon now. One day after it happened I was able to read about the story, see it on the web, read various comentary...some cover up.

As Wagner James Au pointed out:

2004: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a US ambassador whose visit to Niger exposed Bush!"

2005: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a UK official whose memo to 10 Downing exposed Bush!"

2006: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a comedian whose performance at a press roast exposed Bush!"

Remeber when it was mostly conservatives who acted this way?

My take on Colbert's schtick at the Press Corps dinner is similar to the way I've felt a few other times I've watched his show since it spun off of "The Daily Show": While his material was clever, as always, his delivery and comedic timing were forced and uneven -- so much so that at times he seemed almost desperate for a laugh.

I believe that if Jon Stewart or some other polished, respected comedian had read the exact same material, the reaction of the crowd might have been far different.

Unfortunately, Colbert came off as crass and boorish -- like the guy at the party who starts spouting off after having one too many mixed drinks.

I honestly turned on C-Span expecting some good laughs from Colbert. But his schtick -- more like a tirade than a comedic bit -- wasn't funny, in my opinion, just embarrassing and sad. It reminded me of some of the flat, unfunny bits I saw not too long ago on the Chevy Chase roast.

"Unfortunately, Colbert came off as crass and boorish -- like the guy at the party who starts spouting off after having one too many mixed drinks."

Well, when you're basically doing a Bill O'Reilly impression, that's what's going to happen.

PAD

Has anyone heard from Helen Thomas? She had a hilarious turn as a 'stalker'.

"I give you a toast --
Hail West Coast!
Hail East Coast!
Whose skin in thinnest the most?"
-- inspired by '1776'

For anyone who's interested, Kos has a full transcript on his site. I don't have the link here, so I can't supply it.

PAD wrote: "Well, when you're basically doing a Bill O'Reilly impression, that's what's going to happen."

You won't get any argument from me. As it is, I can only take O'Reilly in small doses.

I watched Colbert's routine. It wasn't funny. That's probably why most of the people weren't laughing. Generally, people don't laugh at things that aren't funny.

He wasn't particularly courageous, either. He knows that this is a free (as in freedom) country, where people are able to speak how they wish to, even if it means insulting a sitting administration. He's just expressing *his* opinions without fear of retaliation. Much like many of you do here.

I hate it when those who have celebrity feel the need to "educate" the rest of us poor, uneducated masses about what is "right" and what is not.

Screw Colbert. He's a smarmy, self-righteous prick. There. Was that angry enough?

He wasn't particularly courageous, either.

In light of how the media has responded to the Bush Administration over the last five years, yeah, he was pretty damn courageous.

As I said before, not one of them has shown the balls Colbert did, especially with Bush only a few feet away.

Admittedly, Colbert looks a little nervous during his speech. But wouldn't you be if you were bashing the most powerful man in the world, and he was sitting about 5 feet from you? Especially when that many is G Dub, who frankly, scares the !@%@# out of me. Freedom of speech or not, that still takes "muchos huevos grandias."

Now everyone is entitled to their opinion on what is funny and what is not. Personally, I find his show to be hysterical.

I took the Glacier Joke as being political. Our grandchildren won't know about galciers since the government doesn't spend enough on education. Domestic spending going toward Fatherland defense and the like.

I found Colbert's comments both hilarious and well-timed. He paused from time to time, but made no bones about not being hurried or caring whether or not his audience -- or the main target of his commentary--was laughing. Talk about sticking your head in the lion's mouth...

The lesson of the Dixie Chicks hasn't been lost on entertainers. It's nice to see Colbert bucking that tendency.

From the other side, I have to say that I was surprised that the President participated in the preceeding routine with the GWB impersonator. The humor there was a lot more self-deprecating than I would have given him credit for, and he was a good sport about the whole thing.

He also stood up and shook Colbert's hand at the end of that routine, and if his smile was a little forced, I can't say that I blame him. For someone who's made a point of not admitting many of the errors he's made, he took his lumps really well. I actually like him a little better now.

Stephen Colbert has balls of chrome-plated steel, and may the gods love him for it.
Shame that our comedians have more spine than our journalists, ne?

And here I thought the glacier joke was because of global warming...

He wasn't particularly courageous, either. He knows that this is a free (as in freedom) country, where people are able to speak how they wish to, even if it means insulting a sitting administration

Yes he was, especially considering the number of people over the last 5 years who were arerested for much less.

* Cindy Sheehan & the Senators wife at the State Of The Union, who did nothing more than wear t-shirts.

* The thousands swept up in mass arrests at the Republican Convention.

* The many times people have been arrested for protesting along bush's travel route, who were doing no more that expressing dissatisfaction at bush.

And the list goes on.

There was exactly zero chance of Colbert being arrested. The folks who claim otherwise or who hold him up as some paragon of courage are doing him no credit. Even among liberals there is a backlash against this overstatement. Witness Richard Cohen, who, unless you are so far gone down the black helicopter path that there is no hope for you, is hardly a Bush apologist says:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert? I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the Blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and for his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

I wouldn't be that harsh. Like Imus a few years back he simply misjudged the audience. Like a very funny ventriloquist at an open casket funeral, sometimes you have to know when to hold back a bit.

Now if he goes to Saudi Arabia and tells a few funny Mohammed jokes, THAT'S when we can call him brave.

PAD -

The crowd wasn't filled with "2000-plus reporters", many of the attendees were not members of the Washington Press Corps. (Was that Laurence Fishburne they showed in the audience?)

I always thought Colbert the best part of The Daily Show but I've never seen the Colbert Report or him playing his "Colbert Report host" persona which I understand he was doing at the dinner. He lost some of his laughs due to his delivery; there were some looong pauses where he lost some momentum. And some of the bits in his "audition tape" went on and milked the joke. So I disagree that "Colbert's delivery was impeccable." (I actually found him most personally appealing (and therefore someone I'd like to share a laugh with) when he flubbed a joke and broke character for a moment to grin and tell Bush "you have to set your jokes up right.")

I disagree that the glacier joke was non-political. His comment that Jesse Jackson talks as slowly as a glacier could be considered non-political but he followed it up with a reference to global warming.

I really don't think anyone who wasn't there could really comment on how the laughter went. The shots of the audience showed some laughing, some not. Scalia seemed to be grinning when he was shown. For several reasons already mentioned by others (microphone placement, density of seating) I wouldn't expect to hear anything like what you hear on The Daily Show, yet I did hear laughter in response to most of the jokes.

I was watching in the security of my own home and, as much as I enjoy Colbert, I wasn't laughing my ass off. I laughed, but as often I winced. When your remarks are that biting and on target you have to expect that some of the reaction will be more on the "Ow, I can't believe you said that" side of the fence, so that would also limit the laughter.

And Bush wasn't the only target. The press was the target of some of the best shots. Would you laugh uproariously if someone is making jokes of all your short comings? Even in the security of your own home, I think you'd find your amusement limited if you were the one being ridiculed. "Hey, I'm making fun of you and you're not laughing hard enough. You're a schmuck." Huh?

He was dead on target with a lot of his stuff, I laughed and I greatly admire his courage. Free country or not, it takes a lot of strength to make cutting remarks in that situation. Despite how much I may want to "put it to" a target, I'd have been nervous as all get out in that setting and would lack the nerve to speak my mind. (I spent much of the time wondering what Colbert was thinking as he delivered his performance. Did he think it was going well or poorly as it went? Was he nervous? It didn't show.)

The Washington Press Corp has not been doing their job and definitely deserves to be publicly ridiculed and scorned.

But not because they didn't laugh hard enough to satisfy you.

- Sean

I think Peter meant that there were more than 2000 PEOPLE in the audience, not members of the press corp. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of his statement.

Peace

I hate to say it, Bill, but I very much disagree with Cohen's definition of political courage.

His definition may have worked years past because those were years past.

But today, when the media has as much spine as jellyfish, the defintion has changed.

The fact that Colbert was given the platform, and he grabbed hold of it, tells me that there was plenty of courage involved.

Does it really take needing to disappear from society to show what can happen to you if you do what Colbert did?

Are we already forgetting about Joseph Wilson & Valerie Plame?

Yeah, anybody can insult the President in this country. But few actually take an opportunity like Colbert did.

It's funny but I don't recall anyone praising Imus for his "courage" in using the opportunity to needle Clinton about his legal and ethical troubles. They just reported that his jokes met with a less than enthusiastic response.

The biggest problem Colbert had was that he had to folow Bush doing a self depreciating routine--it made for an unfortunate contrast. But by that point it was too late to change the routine, if he had any desire to do so. I wondered watching it if some of the delivery problems Mr Maheras mentioned were due to him dropping material to soften the routine.

I think the context thing that Bill points out might be relevant.

Also, an unreceptive audience (who may have been expecting a more collegial approach) will make even the best material appear unfunny (and I can can speak from experience--audiences culturally trained not to express themselves is an occupational hazard for my group).

It's funny but I don't recall anyone praising Imus for his "courage" in using the opportunity to needle Clinton about his legal and ethical troubles.

I haven't seen that routine, so I can't comment on it. But if you can find it online for viewing, I'd love to check it out.

Granted, it would be dampened by time, but it would probably still be worth the viewing.

One of my favorite things about Colbert's speech is actually Jon Stewart's reaction. He's so openly envious about getting to do something like that. I really don't think anyone enjoyed the speech more than Stewart.

Reverend Snow: I think Peter meant that there were more than 2000 PEOPLE in the audience, not members of the press corp. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of his statement.

PAD: "...to the 2000-plus reporters who sat there stone faced..." (emphasis added)

It's funny but I don't recall anyone praising Imus for his "courage" in using the opportunity to needle Clinton about his legal and ethical troubles. They just reported that his jokes met with a less than enthusiastic response.

Well, during Pax Clintonia the press was a lot less genteel towards the administration so no big news about poking fun at the president. In today's "you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us" Pax Bushania, the press is deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness, so someone being critical of it is a bit more newsworthy.

Also, if memory serves me, most of Imus' jokes were somewhat ad hominum. Colbert's routine (from what I've seen) was skewering Bush's policies more than the man himself.

One of my favorite things about Colbert's speech is actually Jon Stewart's reaction. He's so openly envious about getting to do something like that. I really don't think anyone enjoyed the speech more than Stewart.

Y'know, I wouldn't be surprised if Colbert's decision to unload both barrels was in part a friendly bit of one-upmanship vs. Jon Stewart and his appearance on Crossfire.

The accounts described the audience as 2700 journalists, guests and celebs. It didn't seem unreasonable to think that over 2000 of them were actual journalists. But hey, if you want to nitpick the comment to death, go right ahead...especially when it does nothing to undercut the fact that the Washington Press Corp is gutless. The lack of laughter (as I said, more than audible over the glacier joke, and for GOD'S sake, of COURSE it was about global warming, not education or Bush, geez Louise) was only the first step. After that has come the excoriation from the very same press who had no trouble two years ago with Bush commenting, at a similar function, with great humor about not being able to find WMDs. Because an array of lies and poor intelligence that has results in thousands of American deaths is just EVER so much the appropriate subject for hiliarity.

PAD

In today's "you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us" Pax Bushania, the press is deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness, so someone being critical of it is a bit more newsworthy.

Sasha, both Letterman and Leno devote a huge chunk of their average monologue to funny jabs at Bush. There's Air America, Saturday Night Live, Garrison Keilor...the suggestion that Bush has been off limits to mockery flies in the face of reality. The only newsworthy part of Colbert's routine was the venue.

Hey, I found the Imus speech-- http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm

After reading it--boy did Clinton get off easy! There were justy a few rude cracks about him, the really nasty stuff had to do with Peter Jennings and other media types. There are some looooong gaps between laughter--no wonder the guy was sweating more than Nixon.

Sasha, both Letterman and Leno devote a huge chunk of their average monologue to funny jabs at Bush. There's Air America, Saturday Night Live, Garrison Keilor...the suggestion that Bush has been off limits to mockery flies in the face of reality. The only newsworthy part of Colbert's routine was the venue.

Didn't say comedians. Said press.

Part of what I'd consider newsworthy wasn't just the venue, but rather that Colbert's bit was pretty biting satire that cut into Bush's policies and the press, rather than easy laughtrap potshots. It was funny, but it was clearly intended also to be taken seriously.

Because an array of lies and poor intelligence that has results in thousands of American deaths is just EVER so much the appropriate subject for hiliarity.

Well, last year, the funniest speaker suggested that Bush was a sexually unsatisfing husband who once masturbated a male horse to climax.

Humor is bizarrely subjective.

Sasha, since I was comparing the response that Imus recieved to the one Colbert did and you replied that In today's "you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us" Pax Bushania, the press is deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness, so someone being critical of it is a bit more newsworthy. it seemed to me that you were saying that when someone (even a comedian) is critical of Bush it is big news.

As for news people being critical of Bush--I could name a dozen columnists right off the top of my head who have had pretty harsh things to say about him from day one. Or do they not qualify as press?

Maybe I just perceive things differently, but while I liked Colbert's routine, I don't see anything particularly "courageous" about it, since that's what comedians like him do. Him, Jon Stewart, Leno, O'Brien, and every other comic regularly takes jabs at whoever is currently occupying the Oval Office, and political figures in general.

As for the press corps, well, I don't know one way or the other. If Bush was there, doesn't that indicate that he knew he'd be skewered? Wouldn't he expect everyone to laugh. For that matter, does anyone know if he himself laughed? If so, why would he get pissed at the press in the audience doing so too?

Sasha, since I was comparing the response that Imus recieved to the one Colbert did and you replied that In today's "you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us" Pax Bushania, the press is deferential almost to the point of obsequiousness, so someone being critical of it is a bit more newsworthy. it seemed to me that you were saying that when someone (even a comedian) is critical of Bush it is big news.

Ah, didn't type what I ought've. My bad.

As for news people being critical of Bush--I could name a dozen columnists right off the top of my head who have had pretty harsh things to say about him from day one. Or do they not qualify as press?

True, but in the current political climate, such people have been demonized as "America haters" and "traitors" and the mainstream press has not been nearly as critical (in the sense of careful, exact analysis and judgement) of this administration as would or should be expected.

Maybe I just perceive things differently, but while I liked Colbert's routine, I don't see anything particularly "courageous" about it, since that's what comedians like him do. Him, Jon Stewart, Leno, O'Brien, and every other comic regularly takes jabs at whoever is currently occupying the Oval Office, and political figures in general.

Well, he wasn't just jabbing Bush and the press corps, he was delivering a brutal satire. And he was essentially doing it to his face. Definitely ballsy. Also, considering the savaging he will probably receive from the right, courageous in its own right.

For that matter, does anyone know if he himself laughed? If so, why would he get pissed at the press in the audience doing so too?

From what I've seen, Bush pretty much kept a terse un-smile throughout the entire thing.

PAD -

Didn't mean to nit pick. I wouldn't have been the first since I've certainly seen others here, including yourself, point out such minor items such as spelling errors and typos of someone they've been disagreeing with. But it wasn't a path I meant to lead us down and I've got no more interest in ascertaining the exact number of reporters present than you. Put that aside.

You certainly seem to be making the point that the press corps are schmucks and idiots because they didn't laugh hard enough. And they didn't laugh hard enough because they didn't want Bush to see them laughing.

I agree that they the Washington Press Corp has not been doing their job and definitely deserves to be publicly ridiculed and scorned. But I don't think you can take the volume or frequency of their laughter as indicative of their deference of Bush. Colbert's material (as Sasha just noted) was pretty biting satire and not just easy laughtrap potshots. Despite being a big fan of Colbert, a big non-fan of Bush and sitting in the security of my own home I didn't laugh out loud at a lot of his stuff. And I would have been less inclined to laugh out loud (as I imagine you would be) if the satire were pointed directly at me.

The press corps are schmucks and idiots because they have given Bush a free ride. OK. They're schmucks and idiots because they haven't asked hard questions. OK. They're schmucks and idiots because they didn't laugh loud enough and the reason they didn't laugh was because they didn't Bush to see them do it? I disagree. I think there were plenty of reasons the laughter may not have risen to your standard and wouldn't attribute it to fear of Bush.

Him, Jon Stewart, Leno, O'Brien, and every other comic regularly takes jabs at whoever is currently occupying the Oval Office, and political figures in general.

But do you imagine any of them doing what Colbert did? The same biting routine while the President is sitting 10 feet away?

I doubt many would.

For that matter, does anyone know if (Bush) himself laughed?

I think he might've laughed right at the beginning, before he realized how badly it was going to rip him apart.

Hell, even Scalia laughed at the joke about him, but that was still pretty early on too.

Ahem...my bad on the reporters thing. Sorry...(Backs away slowly, looking for an exit...)

I watched the dinner live on MSNBC. The portions I saw were the two Bushes, Colbert and then the Colbert video. I found the two Bushes hilarious, Colbert so-so (to the point I don't remember his material), and the video with Helen Thomas pointless after the first 10 seconds.

Humor is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I watched the dinner live on MSNBC. The portions I saw were the two Bushes, Colbert and then the Colbert video. I found the two Bushes hilarious, Colbert so-so (to the point I don't remember his material), and the video with Helen Thomas pointless after the first 10 seconds.

Humor is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I watched the dinner live on MSNBC. The portions I saw were the two Bushes, Colbert and then the Colbert video. I found the two Bushes hilarious, Colbert so-so (to the point I don't remember his material), and the video with Helen Thomas pointless after the first 10 seconds. Maybe if he hadn't followed the twin Bushes his routine would have gone over better, but it just didn't seem to hold up well after that.

Humor is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I have to agree with Sean. Colbert ripped the press just as much if not more than he ripped Bush.

Sorry about the dupes, there. The server was acting very flaky at the time. Nothing seemed to be submitting.

"But I don't think you can take the volume or frequency of their laughter as indicative of their deference of Bush."

Perhaps, but combine that with the initial reportage that made no mention of Colbert at all while extolling the ostensible hilarity of the Bush duplicate sketch, the deletion of Colbert entirely from the rebroadcast, and the subsequent idiot editorials in the Washington Post calling Colbert a bully (!), and I think it paints a pretty thorough picture of where the press corp's lips are planted.

PAD

Craig J. Ries: But do you imagine any of them doing what Colbert did? The same biting routine while the President is sitting 10 feet away?
Luigi Novi: If that's what they were hired to do? Well, yeah. What else would they do? Knock-knock jokes?

Luigi Novi: If that's what they were hired to do? Well, yeah. What else would they do? Knock-knock jokes?

Well, that's basically what Bush's routine was.

But you honestly think Bush wanted a guy like Colbert up there?

I don't know Colbert's politics, but I think you could take a pretty good guess as to what they are based on this and his usual work on The Daily Show.

So, no, I'm not sure that's what he was hired to do. More so when the audience was not laughing, and nobody (ie, the media) is talking about Colbert afterward. Hell, they're avoiding him like the Plague.

As it is, the guy who introduced Colbert (and presumably was the one to 'hire' him as well) seemed to be saying he really had no idea what Colbert was about in the first place, so I wouldn't be surprised if his head ends up rolling for this.

Peter, you might check out this cartoon by Bill Day; the caption is "Nailed It".

Posted by Mark Patterson at May 4, 2006 03:33 PM

The lesson of the Dixie Chicks hasn't been lost on entertainers.

What "lesson of the Dixie Chicks"?

The lesson that their next US tour included multiple sold out shows?

When they appeared here in Atlanta, some people booed.

Natalie said "Go ahead and boo. You paid $60 for the privilege."

Certain aspects of these comments remind me of the generally-held belief in the myth that Dylan was booed for going electric at Newport, which is contradicted by a transcript of the master tape of the show.

Pete Seeger himself has recently surfaced with a comment on that in a 17 April New Yorker profile (which doesn't seem to be online, but here's a paraphrase from a blog post:

"He famously declared, during Dylan's rock debut at the Newport Folk Festival, that he wished he had an axe so he could cut the cables running onto the stage. That moment's lived on as an encapsulation of the schism between rock and folk, though you learn in the story Seeger said he didn't mean he hated the music, just that the sound people hadn't done a good job wiring the stage."

Craig J. Ries: But do you imagine any of them doing what Colbert did? The same biting routine while the President is sitting 10 feet away?

If that's what they were hired to do? Well, yeah. What else would they do? Knock-knock jokes?

For the record, I don’t think the featured speaker is actually compensated beyond transportation, lodging, and a per diem. It’s a feather for one’s professional cap.

But anyway, a comedian would be retained (?) specifically to be entertaining, not to poke fun at Bush. (Although it’s easy to do and it’s traditional at these things, so of course it tends to be the meat of their routine.) If said comedian could get surefire laughter from knock-knock jokes, of course he would use them.

But Colbert went beyond merely poking fun at the President and the press. His performance dissected and starkly laid bare the failings of both Bush’s policies and the press’s inability to move beyond being undiscriminating stenographers to critical (again, in the sense of offering careful, exact analysis and judgement) reporters. Although this isn’t really new material, Colbert’s method of delivery (satire) obligated Bush and the press corps to listen to the routine as not just comedy but also as a serious and devastating critique. Taking Bush and the press to task to their face is damn ballsy. (Ditto Jon Stewart appearance on Crossfire where he calls the hosts on being partisan hacks.)

I think part of the disconnect is because Americans (generally speaking) have little appreciation of irony. I suspect Colbert would have gone over much better in Parliament. :)

As it is, the guy who introduced Colbert (and presumably was the one to 'hire' him as well) seemed to be saying he really had no idea what Colbert was about in the first place

The truth of this is made clear when he introduces Colbert as the host of "The Colbert Report" and pronounces the "t" in "Report."

:)

Colbert is a registered voter with the Democratic Party. If I can find this out, no reason why our government shouldn't have been able to.

Colbert is a registered voter with the Democratic Party.

And this is relevant, why? He was hired as a comedian to speak at forum where traditionally, people poke fun at politicians and the Washington establishment. He did that. Maybe his wit was a little bit more biting than Jay Leno's would have been, but anyone who had watched even one episode of The Colbert Report should have been able to to tell that.

Um....WOW!!!!!!

Hit 'em with your best shot. The miking could have been the problem as far as audience response.

But still....WOW!!!!!!

PAD: Perhaps, but combine that with the initial reportage that made no mention of Colbert at all [etc.] ...and I think it paints a pretty thorough picture of where the press corp's lips are planted.

Absolutely agree. Level of laughter may not be the best indicator, but all the items you listed in that comment are good examples of how the press has caved.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go off to buy some romance comics.

Den, I suggest reading the last three posts before mine if you want to know why my comment was relevant. Context is everything my friend.

The point is that the people who hired Colbert seemed to have no idea what he was about, and since they seemed shocked that he would bash the president. In Lewis Black's Carnegie Hall CD, he relates how when he gave a similar performance last year (although I think it was for the Congressional Press Corps, not the White House, although Dick Cheney was in attendence), he relates that he was explicitly told not to bash the president. I don't think they gave Colbert this speech since they didn't do their homework and mistook him for his on-air "conservative" persona. Either that, or Colbert showed he really has the balls and just ignored them.

Its true that Colbert didn't have to worry about getting the death penalty over his act. Really he didn't have to worry about any sort of punishment. But that doens't mean that it didn't take guts. I know i wouldn't have been able to do what he did.

Whether it was funny or not really depends on the person.

Manny wrote: "The miking could have been the problem as far as audience response."

I don't think so. The audience laughed just fine during the earlier "twin Bushes at the podiums" segment (which was self-depricating, clever AND funny). The entire segment is making its rounds as a viral video, which you can probably find easily enough by Googling it.

No, I think Colbert didn't get many laughs because, as I said earlier, while his material was clever and biting, as always, his delivery was hamfisted and vindictive. The tension between the two was such that if Colbert had turned and given Bush the finger, I don't think I would have been surprised. And like I also stated before, I think if Jon Stewart had read the exact same material, he probably would have gotten a lot more laughs.

I don't know what's more delusional, thinking that a global warming joke isn't political or thinking that the media has in any way been giving Bush a free ride. Must be an interesting alternate reality you live in.

The point is that the people who hired Colbert seemed to have no idea what he was about, and since they seemed shocked that he would bash the president.

If that was the case, then they were stupid. Colbert's on air persona is basically modeled on Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" where he seems to take one side of the argument, but in fact is making the opposite point by taking things to an absurd level. Again, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to see that within a few minutes of watching his show.

But the fact that he was a registered Democrat should not be relevant to whether or not people should be surprised that he made fun of the president. That's what people do at this press corps dinners! The president himself is expected to engage in a little self-mockery.

The only difference between Bush's self-satire and Colbert's routine is that Colbert's was more biting. Of course, if during the 90s, Sarah Silverman had attended this same dinner wearing a blue dress with a big white stain on it, conservatives everywhere would be praising her for her courage.

I suspect that the real reason people were offended was that Colbert stood within a few feet of the president and reminded everyone that Bush at the nadir of his approval ratings.

I suspect that the real reason people were offended was that Colbert stood within a few feet of the president and reminded everyone that Bush at the nadir of his approval ratings.

And why he's at or near his nadir.

I suspect that the real reason people were offended was that Colbert stood within a few feet of the president and reminded everyone that Bush at the nadir of his approval ratings.

And why he's at or near his nadir.

Joey, what media are you watching?

Maybe we are living in parallel dimensions. Are you living in that world where Republics are the minority in congress and Christians are persecuted for their faith in America? I think that's also the reality where the media takes it to Bush.

I think that reality is called the "No Fact Zone," to which Stephen Colbert alluded to in his speech.

And Den, they clearly hadn't seen the Colbert Report, or they would have pronounced it correctly when they introduced him.

Just reread Dave G's post way up top. Kind of sad, isn't it, when a comedian, someone known for political humor, does his bit in front of the President, the way he always does anyway, and everyone talks about his chutzpah or his ballsiliciousness. In this case, Colbert, in addition to being darned funny, fulfilled his responsibility as a satirist. He pointed out the silliness of a situation and also showed that many "reporters" are pretty much well-coiffed parrots with nary the will to speak an original thought amongst them.