I’m sorry. They are.
From the guy who hired Stephen Colbert to talk at the Washington Press Corp dinner without, apparently, having actually seen much of “The Colbert Report,” to the 2000-plus reporters who sat there stone faced while Colbert did KILLER material, they’re all idiots.
It’s not that Colbert wasn’t funny. He was. He made exactly ONE joke that wasn’t politically related: Mentioning that Jesse Jackson speaks with the speed of a glacier, and then added, “Enjoy that metaphor while you can. Your grandchildren won’t know what a glacier is.” They ROARED at that. The material was funny. Colbert’s delivery was impeccable. And if they’d been watching in the security of their homes, they’d have been laughing their áššëš off.
But because Colbert had the balls to do his routine while Bush was sitting right there, they sat there and didn’t laugh–not because Colbert wasn’t funny, because he was–but because they didn’t want Bush to see them laughing.
The degree of nerve that Colbert displayed was inversely proportional to the guts displayed by the Washington Press Corp. They saw Bush wasn’t laughing, so they didn’t laugh. The Washington Press showed a little bit of nerve in the past months, their courage buoyed by Bush’s dropping approval ratings. But when push came to shove, they retreated to being gutless wonders.
Jon Stewart–admittedly not unbiased–described Colbert’s performance as “Balls-alicious.” I agree.
PAD
• 
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 pìššëd 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 pìššëd 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.
Hëll, 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. Hëll, 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 dámņ 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 Ðìçk 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.