Slashdot Mirror
Colbert New Comic-in-Chief
scottzak writes "Hail to the Chief! Stephen Colbert addressed the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday (attended by the President, the elite of Washington politics, and the White House Press Corps) and told the truth. Jaws dropped. Eyes popped. The live audience gasped. Scalia laughed his ass off. You want to see a brilliant comic display some real courage? Look no further. Enjoy the reaction shots, and Colbert's audition for Press Secretary job." The BBC covers the act just prior to Mr. Colbert's, where the President and a look-alike took turns making fun of his speaking skills.
What's sad is, once he does say it how it is, he loses the room...
Funnypics
Unfortunately, for most people, a source isn't biased if you agree with it.
End transmission.
I gotta give him credit. He stood up there and pointed out failures not just with the administration, but with the Media as a whole.
Well done.
Ain't it funny how Colbert is being ignored? This happened on Saturday. It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment. Did it make the major news sites? Type "Colbert" into google news and see what pops up first thing.
Yeah, but wouldn't you be nervous doing that act ten feet from Bush? I thought he came across as quite cool and collected, given the situation.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Actually, no, I think you've nailed it already.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Unfortunately, for most people, a source isn't biased if you agree with it.
On the other hand, for most people a source is biased if they disagree with it. "Biased" is short-hand for "I don't like it". In politics, it's *very hard* to find an unbiased source, if at all possible. Why does it even matter and in which way does it affect the video?
Bush violates the law and constitution. OH SNAP! I'm a "Bush Basher".
Ignore the fact that Bush violates the law and constitution.
Kill the messenger, ignore the message. I'm sure those are tomorrows talking points.
The best part about this is that the funnier and more incisive he gets, the quieter and quietier and quieter the laughter gets.
Too bad that nobody will hear about this except the people who read Slashdot, the people who watch Comedy Central, and the people who watch C-SPAN on saturday night. In other words, the exact people who are most likely to already agree with what Colbert is saying. Everybody else, well, everybody else will just hear about that part the BBC covered-- you know, the bit where Bush demonstrated what a down-to-earth, wouldn't-you-just-love-to-have-a-beer-with-me kind of guy he was by getting up on stage with a body double and deliberately mispronouncing words.
Which means Colbert's little song and dance here doesn't really matter. All right, so somebody criticized the president to his face for the first time in four years. (No, Kerry at the 2004 debates doesn't particularly count.) Okay, so what? The 32% who still approve of Bush's job-- who are, after all, the only people who matter-- won't hear about this, and if they hear about it, they won't listen. The 2006 elections still will go to the Republicans, because even if everyone gets pissed off at Mr. Bush, they still won't like the incompetent, spineless democrats any better.
The Republicans will continue to hold congress after 2006; nobody will ever investigate any of the laws Bush has broken; Bush will quietly leave office in 2008, Iraq will someday eventually get electricity and running water, and talk show hosts and revisionists will nostalgically talk about what a great leader Bush was until nobody remembers him as anything other than a second Reagan. (And how well do you remember the Reagan administration? Yup, that's what I thought.) Nobody will remember that freakish, depressing third half of the Bush presidency where major american cities were destroyed and the President was admitting to impeachable offenses on national television and nobody did anything about it. Everyone will just remember that first, inspiring part of the Bush presidency after september 11, when Bush said that God told him how to lead the country, and everyone believed him.
If you don't like the politics on Slashdot, then why not use the freaking built-in filters to keep political stories from showing up?
I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.
This is exactly the role that court jesters used to play. The only way for bureaucrats and lesser functionaries to get bad news and criticism to the King without losing their heads was to do the job with humor.
Just yet another step down the slippery slope to a Constitutional monarchy.
Colbert skewered the press pretty strongly too. I'm thinking the news blackout has more to do with the mainstream media's own shame than any courtesy to the President.
And sadly enough the press is ignoring it. If you search front page stories at Digg.com - you'll find the same story has made it to the front page of digg three times in the last day and a half - and each story has been buried.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just fear from Bush supporters to allow criticism of Bush. I'm conservative, and I have some major reservations with Bush - but too many of my GOP friends really can't stand discussion. It is too bad that news agencies are too afraid to print accurate criticisms. Though with all the NSA wiretapping and executive gag orders who can blame them?
"Good Grief. Has it come to this that a smarmy comic is getting accolades for his great courage?"
in case you haven't been keeping tabs on the "news", as it's so quaintly and nostalgially called, yes it has!.. doesnt that suck?
i mean if we had real news not only would this story not be in its current place, but neither would bush, our troops, or the DMCA be in their current place.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I take it you really don't understand what you saw...? The lack of response in the audience is the important part - it isn't indicative of him "bombing" in this case.
This wasn't about being funny - it was about being, uh, truthinessful.
He made some brilliant remarks up there - and he held no punches. The "Scott McClellan can say nothing like nobody else" was terrific.
I hope this inspires more people to have the balls to say what they feel and know about the tyranny that has strangled this nation.
I could give or take the humor, but the fact that it was a solid HALF HOUR of sticking it to the preseident's face in that manner was unprecedented. The humour depends on your politics; the balls to carry out an aggressive 30 minute assault on the president to his face is admirable. Make no mistake, this was not done out of comic pursuit; this was a statement. Not what he said, but the context in which it was delivered and for how freakin' long!
The difference between this and traditional presidential roasts (and I've seen more than a few - CSAN nerd here) is that this did not lampoon one or two or ten aspects of the Bush administration, but mocked it's very existence and legitimacy. To his face. In front of the Washington elite. For 30 solid uniterrupted minutes. Think about it: it's the difference between "Slick Willy got a BJ! Ha ha!" and "Monica knows the Clinton administration as well as everybody else - it leaves a bad taste in your mouth!"
See! See that moderation above- flamebait! That's a liberal bias! The exact converse opinion - that it was a great slash at Bush and hysterical sits at the top of this page with +5 Insightful. Disagreement is a cheap reason to mod someone down, and because there are more liberals than conservatives on /., we need to be especially careful, because driving away divergent opinions will turn slashdot into a lousy political blog whose readers take the author's words as gospel.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
and I distinctly heard a snap.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
You shouldn't respect power, rather, you should respect the virtue of one's actions.
God Bless George W. Bush. God Bless America.
Hey, fuckwit, who are YOU to tell God what to do? DEMANDING of God something? The PROPER phrase is, "MAY God bless XXX".
That is key. Anyone who demands things of God is a shithead. Whenever you see someone saying "God bless" without the proper qualification... well, you can safely discard anything else they have to say, for they are truly spiritually retarded, and are probably nothing more than a drone.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
I watched the video and this comment cracked me up: "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personel changes. SO, the White house has personel changes. And then you write "oh, they're just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic." First of all, that's a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. if anything, they are re-arranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Normally I like Colbert's stuff. Most of the time he's witty, intelligent, and makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
medioc
I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).
As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.
Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
>It was a GWB bash-o-thon disguised as humor. Even if it was Bill Clinton, I still wouldn't have found it funny.
Right on man. If he had lampooned Clinton for screwing up the war in Iraq, having a low approval rating, or generally being incompetent, no one would have found it funny. It's such a total double standard that it doesn't apply the other way around.
Seriously though, you don't need to *disguise* a GWB bash-o-thon as humor. It *is* humor.
Really! I've been saying that one thing that sets Canada apart from our important southern neighbOUrs is that we regularly have our leaders immolate themselves on the pyre of national comedy television, and you'll not see something like that in the land of the brave. I mean, it isn't entirely a hair shirt kind of penance that GW did, since it was an elite gathering for the Gang, and not explicitly a guest appearance at one's own national skewering, like Chretien letting Rick Mercer put extra pepper on his burger (Jean once commented on the pepper sprayings at APEC that he just liked it on his steak).
Giving Colbert the lectern without a trap door, and doing the mumbling chimp routine with his doppleganger, that really took cojones. I haven't had that much political fun since Mary Walsh got Chretien to whack her with a golf club, in his own office.
"By the way Mr. President, thanks for agreeing to be on my show" --one of the jokes. I mean why not? It's not like he doesn't have time. The guy gets more holidays than a perfesser.
Damn those pesky terrorists
The President broke the law. AT&T gave customer data on millions of people to the feds and allowed them to tap all their pipes to data mine Americans' private phone calls. EFF sued them for violating FISA, the 4th Amendment, and for the AT&T customers whose private data was handed.
One witness, one expert, and a few internal documents filed, and Bush asserts a State Secrets Privilege; the lawsuit cannot continue. What did he not want us to know?
I don't know how to connect the dots any more obviously. If you don't smell a rat, I suggest you update your BS detector.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
... as evidenced by the reaction here on /.
I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.
Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.
Yah, because the audience is *really* likely to laugh a Valerie Plame joke with Karl Rove (who could very well be indicted by the end of the month) sitting right there.
No, they didn't laugh at what Colbert said because a lot of it cuts pretty close to home for those sitting in attendance. Case and point - when Colbert thanked the press for all the hard work they did during Bush's first term ignoring all his lies and misdeeds.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Colbert's routine reminded me a lot of Jon Stewart's performance at the Oscars (one of the only times I've ever even watched). What I saw that night was a decent and funny performance delivered to a crowd that was so full of itself that it could not emit a laugh. They were present for awards sans comedy.
In Colbert's case, though, the crowd was most certainly attending for comedy. However, I think their blank stares were the result of hearing something they'd rather not. The dinner is always a roast and fun is always "poked." But... I think perhaps this went to a new level.
I see one of two possibilities. One is that Colbert misjudged his audience and that's why his routine did not do well. Or, Colbert recognized that he was given a rare opportunity to speak directly to the President, in a public setting, and in a place where the President could not simply leave. *If* that is the case, then yes, it did take balls. Huge balls.
Of course, unless Colbert actually comes out at some point in the future and makes known what his intentions were that night, we may never really know.
I have to wonder what I might do in such a situation. Like many Americans, I do hold a certain respect for the office of the President, or for any elected office, I suppose. It's that respect which keeps most (though it seems less so lately) political discourse civil. But surely there comes a time when transgressions like Bush's reach a point where you need to take a stand, respectable office or no.
Maybe this dinner was one of those times.
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
In addition to the president he took on the sycophantic press. It was a refreshing change from the news coverage you get these days.
Somtimes the truth gets to be so rare that you are shocked and praised for speaking it at a public forum. Sad but true.
evil is as evil does
People have been lampooning presidents since the first joke about wooden teeth. It doesn't take big brassy balls to do this, just some bad jokes.
The difference is in the amount of pure effort that has gone into insulating Redneck Nero from JUST this sort of criticism. As someone else pointed out, the clowning at this event is usually limited to the daily goofs (Cheney's malfunctioning aimbot, 'Bushisms,' terrist pretzels) and not policy.
He stepped out of that box and took the opportunity to lay it out. It may not be his best work, but he got to say his piece without it being filtered before reaching Bush. That's a worthy accomplishment, regardless of whether the format is nervous and somewhat weakly-written comedy or an organized protest.
All of this assumes, of course, that he's not SO stupid that he thinks Colbert was being sincere.
Surprisingly enough, the article, which appears on the font of the NY Times website, doesn't even mention Colbert's name or make any reference to his performance. Instead it rambles about the Bush impersonator bit for the entire article.
The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy - so one must conclude that Colbert has pissed off the media establishment, rather than the conservative political establishment. Wait, I mean "as well as" the conservative political establishment.
When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.
Read Pynchon.
I'm seeing a lot of courage.
Actually no, the event is not a roast. Yes there's usually a handful of jokes at the government's expense, but no more than any other awards show. The only difference is that the President and heads of state attend this one. Check out the DVD they're releasing of Clinton's performance at one of these things. He really needs to do a SNL gig.
No one has EVER stuck it to the President and the rest of the government this seriously at this event. EVER. Not even close. Not to say no one would, but has a comedian ever had THIS much material? And considering how aggressive the material was, I doubt many would have the guts.
Cheers to Stephen Colbert for not pulling any punches, which no one has ever done at this event.
signed - mindless sycophant that actually has some perspective on the event.
On some topics, like social security, then yes I do feel they are left wing. However, I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, so I do agree with some of their politics. Like I said, though, I mainly go there to get video clips and to stay current on current news and scandals (in addition to Google News and Findory). Of course, I do realize that by only presenting some of the video clips, they are acting as a filter.
No true conservative would be defending Bush or his administration... and that has NOTHING to do with alleged 'liberal bias' (funny how you never hear of the far more prevalent 'conservative bias' in this country... interesting). If Clinton had done even a quarter of the things Bush has done (especially in terms of vastly expanding the power of the Federal Government and the Presidency in particular, never mind the budget-busting spending, the nation-building, etc), you'd probably be screaming bloody murder. It should be no different just because the man in office right now *calls* himself a conservative, without actually exhibiting any meaningful traits thereof.
All my thinking conservative friends are busy bashing Bush as my liberal friends are... because they can see how horrible he is, and because they're not complete hypocrites. They're embarassed by this completely inarticulate, incompetent man and his completely corrupt cronies who are destroying their party and thumbing their noses at the very essence of what it means to be 'conservative'. Bashing Bush doesn't necessarily make you liberal, it just means you're paying attention.
Those most surprised by this are those who pay the least attention. The White House Correspondents Dinner is similar to this every year. Last year the first lady roasted Bush.
u ra-bush-comments_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-01-la
This year's commentary was a bit more biting than usual, and it actually targetted the correspondents (and not Bush) a bit more than usual. Net result: a wash.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
It wasn't that funny, although it attracted headlines for saying rather vulgar things about the president [which later turned out to be true].
Who care if the Republican are voted in again. Your answer seems to be the Democrats.
c /49.htm
Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.
In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democra
Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.
Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?
Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.
Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.
Why can't we vote more people like him in?
Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.
Agreed! I think the problem is that some people don't know the difference between fear and respect. Power earns one, virtue the other.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Who said anything about his accent? "Redneck" has to do with far more than having a southern[0] or Texan accent. Jeff Foxworthy, self-proclaimed "redneck", describes it as a "lack of sophistication," a definition I'll build on rather than reinventing the wheel.
Bush shows a remarkable lack of sophistication in thought which is clearly evidenced by his unflinching, unquestioning adherance to bullshit evangelical superstition, and the inherent insecurity for those that do not; his apparent inability to concieve of the concept of personal responsibility; a total and utter disregard for the concepts of honor, truth, fidelity, and courage; his demonization of intelligence itself...
The list goes on, but if I haven't made the point by now, going further won't do any good anyway. So no, it has nothing at all to do with his accent.
[0]Admittedly, I have a common Yankee failing in that I have a soft spot for a girl with a Georgia accent...
"People should not fear their gouvernments, gouvernments should fear their people"
- V for vendetta
It's not that they didn't want to laugh, it's that they didn't want to be made fun of. If you look at most Oscar host speeches they are light, general humour. The jabs at Hollywood are mild, if there are any at all. Stewart went after Hollywood pretty mercessily, as one would expect, he's a satrist, that's kinda what he does, you know? However they didn't want to be on the recieving end of jokes. They probably thought he'd come and make fun of the president, since political humour is frequent on his show and that's something almost all of them like. No supprise to me he pocked something different (why go and do your show in another setting?) and that the audience couldn't handle it.
As for Colbert, I think they just didn't know what they were getting in to. To me, he seemd right in character. Ok, so maybe it was a little more biting than his normal show, but not much. I can't believe the Whitehouse was stupid enough to invite him. Have you seen the man's show? He is not kind to this administration. If they didn't like it, too bad, it needed to be said and they should have known what they were getting. Get a standup comic if you want someone to come play the fool for the event, but stay away from Comedy Central's satirists.
Thou shant quote from comic books and expect to be taken seriously anywhere other than /. (Put that one in your pocket and take it with you young man).
In Shakespeare's King Lear, it is the jester who, through his jokes and impersonations, proves to be the wisest character in the play, the best of the king's advisors, and the only one who can tell the King what he really thinks of his actions. Colbert should be named Bush's court jester.
I really enjoyed Colberts routine, but what is this couragous act you speak of? This isn't the Soviet Union and Colbert wasn't in the prescence of Stalin insulting him. This is America, where insulting the president is tolerated. I promise you, Colbert won't dissappear to some secret European prison or be sent to Guantonimo Bay.
Yes, it is brave and courageous to do what our troops are doing, but that is because their jobs require that of them. They signed on for this.
It is the lies and deceit of our current administration that has put them in harms way. Which has forced our military into a situation where we can't simply pull out, because it would make matters worse then BEFORE we went into Iraq? Duhbyah's father KNEW this. He even wrote a paper or two on it. One of which was published in Time Magazine.
It ALSO takes bravery and courage to speak out in the current climate of this country and government. To point out the lies and deceit of this current administration spurn hatred and argument. If this continues and the laws that continue to be put forth (some pass) which deny civil liberties it is only a matter of time before speaking out WILL be a crime.
I think lines have been drawn and at this point and no one wants to concede. The facts point out everything, but a vast section of this country doesn't want to admit they are wrong.
Which shows how economic statistics are disconnected from the reality of working class life. To all except the ruling class, the peformance of the stock market matters much less than the size of one's weekly paycheck.
Unemployment may be low but underemployment is tremendous; it is not economic progress when after a factory closes, a skilled worker can only find a job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart with the very Chinese-prison-made goods that put his old employer out of business. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and you can't conveniently exclude the gas pump (and heating fuel). More and more people can't afford health insurance, and real estate prices are so high that new home buyers are saddled with enormous mortgage payments.
Economically these aren't the worst of times, but they sure as hell aren't the best either.
Meanwhile the Bush administrations kills tens of thousands, engages in torture, violates civil liberties, and treats the Constitution with even more contempt than the past few presidents, essentially asserting that "Commander in Chief" means "Emperor". In any sane society, it would be recognized that this man (who believes, you'll recall, that God speaks through him) would be institutionalized for his on protection and that of others.
ITMFA.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
...that this article was featured on digg, got like 1900 diggs and then mysteriously vanished in just a few minutes. They had a link to a torrent with the entire c-span show, which I happened to be able to get before losing the link. But I was wondering how a story with so many diggs got lost so quickly.
I watched the whole thing and let me tell you, you could almost sense that he was really trying to make a point when saying things like "guys like us, we get it, right Mr. President?"
To see a person stand there and do an ironic inpersonation of one of the president's supporters so obvious so poignently while the President was in the same room was almost overpowering. My question is: did the administration think that he was going to tone his act down, or did they really not get the joke of the show to begin with? I couldn't help but think someone was going to catch hell for letting Colbert host the show.
This performance coupled with the one from Jon Stewart on Crossfire make up the two best live TV moments I've seen in the last few years.
I'm becoming convinced that Jon Stewart and associates are the last people remaining with balls in the TV/media realm.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
How far we've come in the past 10 years.
In the mid-1990s, such a statement would have gotten you branded as a right-wing terrorist sypathizer by the popular media and entertainment establishment. Now it's considered patriotic dissent.
- - - - -
- - - - -
It's almost funny how people complaining about the "new wave of McCarthyism" during the Bush adminsitration couldn't lap up enough of it during the previous one. But then, it was their guy in charge, which is more important than any principle.
You are part of the problem.
As long as people want to respect a President like a King, it won't work. It simply won't work.
While I concede anarchy is stupid, blind reverence is, too! Remember the President is there to serve the people, not otherwise.
The man is wrong and you are supporting him! Who's worse: the dumb or the one who follows the dumb?
Now, think about one thing: I'm a foreigner and can call GW dumb. Are you, as a free citizen, able to do the same? Oh, yeah, you could, but you just don't want, huh? And smoker can quit smoking easily, too...
Colbert is nervous and that tells a lot about him and the USA:
1. He's a very courageous fellow, a reason for pride among Americans. Wish I had a fellow countryman of such boldness. He made History. Simply that.
2. America is fouled up since McCarthy. The system used to attack individuals in public! As long as we have people like Colbert, democracy still got a chance.
There's evil outside the US and inside. And they're acting together.
Good people inside and outside would better start acting, too.
Fox news is unofficially the Republican news channel.
And the Democrats have ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.
But the problem with today's media is Fox News.
why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.
"When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth"
... it is likely the forged letter was essentially accurate, the commanding officers secretary said its content was quite plausible. Its just most of the incriminating evidence in his record was most probably purged by Bush operatives, something that was especiallay easy to do when Bush was governor of Texas and commander in chief of the Texas national guard. Rather was of course driven out of the CBS anchor chair and the producer was fired.
In fact the country had already largely turned on the Vietnam war by the time he acted. It would have been a bit braver if he had exposed Vietnam as a failed policy a few years earlier. Cronkite did help take down LBJ but the war continued on for another 5 years before it was lost, so he didn't really make much of a difference.
In some respects it feels kind of like Iraq where the media didn't let out a whimper when the foundation was laid for the bloody and expensive disaster, they waited until it was obviously a bloody mistake and now they are piling on against it now that its too late to do anything about it (i.e. the two options now being stay the course or withdraw and watch Iraq explode in civil war).
"When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized."
On Murrow you are totally misrepresenting reality. Murrow, Friendly, "See it Now" and others at CBS paid a dear price for what they did.
Don Hollenbeck, was another CBS news anchor who lauded Murrow's attack on McCarthy on air. He was eviscerated by right wing editorials for the next 3 months and branded as a communist. He then committed suicide in a gas oven.
Murrow and Friendly continued attacking sacred cows in that 1954-1955 season, including an expose on a Texas land scandal that infuriated their main sponsor, Alcoa, which pulled their funding and put the nail in the coffin for "See it Now".
Many of the people involved in the McCarthy expose were laid off.
Walter Pally and CBS corporate felt Murrow and Friendly overstepped their bounds on McCarthy and throughout their controversial 1954-1955 season and that they were making news rather than reporting it. They pulled See It Now from their prime time slot and stuck them on Sunday afternoon in a form of putting them out to pasture as they ran out their contract.
Murrow eventually became completely disillusioned with TV news, precisely because of the pressures to make it entertaining, profitable, to avoid controversy and to avoid alienating corprate sponsors.
What Murrow and Friendly did was brave beyond belief but the retaliation that followed created a precedent that served to discourage journalists and networks from attacking the power that be, especially when it involved their sponsors.
In a more recent CBS precedent there is Dan Rather's recent attempt to expose George W's borderline criminal National Guard record. Unfortunately they relied on a forged letter to support their story which was wrong. But
"they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news"
It would run completely counter to how news networks work today. They are competing for audience with 50 other TV channels, games, internet, etc. The only successful news shows are going to be the most sensationalist ones, pandering to what their audience wants to see, and most of their audience wants to see celebrity scandals. Most audience also have a massive case of cognitive dissonance, they want their news to reinforce their world view not disrupt it. Thats why Fox is the #1 cable network, lots of people watch Fox because Fox says what they want to hear, America #1 in particular.
Journalists can only attack Presidents when their poll numbers are in the toilet because then they know the majority of their audience wants them to attack the President then. When a President's poll numbers are riding high they generally dont touch them. Journalists are at the head of the like supportinh going to war as long as their is a patriotic fervor whipped up for it, and then journalists can turn against the war when it turns long, bloody and costly and the public has already started to turn on it, like Cronkite did.
@de_machina
I was thinking the same thing. I'm actually wondering if they may actually have not realized that it was satire. There was a really interesting John Stewart / Karen Hughes interview during the presidental campaign where Karen Hughes said something like, oh I loved yesterdays show about Kerry's character and flip flopping , he skies to the left and then skies to the right and then back to the left. And Stewart pauses for a second and says, something like that was satire. An even then Hughes just didn't get it.
The other part of this is, I think Kristol from the weekly standard was being serious when he said he pushed for Colbert to be part of the show. Kristol does get Colbert's humor. I also think Kristol isn't really that much of a Bush fan but he has the street creds w/ the administration that when Kristol said something like conservative pro-bush satire, they didn't understand exactly what it meant.
On the other hand I still somewhat surprised the entire speech wasn't precleared by the whitehouse. To be honest, even the bush & bush 2 speech was pretty eviscerating, perhaps the whole thing actually was precleared and they are actually okay w/ it?
The disastrous effects on the US economy will be felt for decades to come, assuming it actually ever recovers.
Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.
The number of murders of innocents by this administration in its mindless pursuit of greed and power.
They eat children, too!
And most scarey of all, if it was truly the American electorate, and not just those Diebold machines, which was responsible for the reelection of the most seriously moronic president in history!!!!!
No kidding! That wretched democratic process ought to be done away with. The people can't be trusted with that kind of power!
-h-
Done away with? We'd have to have one first. The US is a Republic, which is a "representative democracy" - which in turn is an oxymoron.
There has never been a true democracy. Even in Athens only male, racially privileged land-owners were permitted to vote.
How would we actually know if the people could handle that kind of power or not? No people in recorded history have ever had it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you'd have said this during Clinton's administration when thousands of innocents were slaughtered in Rwanda?
? content_id=125531
....Yawn.
What's your big idea of how to handle Iran, now that they seem dead set on getting nuclear weapons?
Disastrous effects on the economy? I think you need to take an economics class. The economic news has been great. Just an example: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php
As for the rest of your diatribe.... We get it. You don't like Bush. You attribute all that is wrong in the world to him.
You seem to have all the answers. I'd like to hear your ideas. See if you can actually do it without ripping on Bush. I seriously doubt you can.
Take your hate elsewhere.
I watched the show live.
Bush and Bush were hilarious.
Colbert was stunning the audience into silence. The audience was composed of White House Correspondents, hardly a conservative group. They didn't think he was funny. Everyone there politely tolerated Colbert's show because that's what is expected.
I watch The Colbert Report regularly and love his send up of O'Rielly. The problem was, he didn't make a good enough attempt to establish any credibility for his 'Pro-Bush' facade. By blowing that off and concentrating the entire show on anti-Bush rhetoric, he came off as a mean-spirited, crack-pot comedian with mild schizophrenia as his only redeeming gimick.
Bush killed, Colbert shilled.
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
Please, one must always specifically define what they mean. I have seen post after post where people linked to BLS stats - two problems: BLS stats have been mightily revised over the past 10 years again and again - just study the daily listings over the previous 10 years, and, again those stats only reveal the number who are receiving unemployment bennies - which has been drastically altered over the pvious five to six years....
I disagree entirely. I thought it was very good -- and I am conservative, and Republican, and a journalist, and I've seen every episode of The Colbert Report -- and I think most people were not laughing because most of what he said was directed at the journalists themselves.
Ah yes, the Three Card Monty game that is supporting Bush Jr.
How 'bout some commone sense? I know the president has no use for facts
as he chooses "faith over facts" (go look it up, that is one of his
better ones, the ones that can't be chalked up to 'mis-speak' but actually
shed some light on the depths of his ignorance) but the rest of us may
find them interesting.
>>with the stock market well over 10,000
The stock market never has, nor ever will be, a meaningful indicator of
anything meaningful to the populace of this country. It is about as
significant as those numbers surrounding your CPU name, pretty pointless
in the bigger scheme of things and only meaningful when the other parts
of your system are taken into consideration. All these Bushies are basically
saying, "We are fine because we have a 9.9 GHz cpu..." never mentioning
(or even considering) that this is running against 8 Mb of memory...
>>unemployment under 5%
Another trickery. Take into account those who have given up on the job
market and then let's talk about how many jobs he has created. It would
pain the Bushies, but meaningful things like pay rates, pay-to-inflation,
and all those other things that actually make a figure like this mean
anything beyond, "Ain't he grand?"
>>They eat children, too
Ah yes, the famous "They aren't THAT bad, so they aren't bad" logic.
Not even worth the time. Ignore 10,000 deaths because noone got "eaten".
Disgusting.
The last comment is so brainless it is beyond comprehension. Not that
some dolt would try to make that 'point' but the fact that someone who
had their leader APPOINTED would make some flippant comment about the
sacredness of democracy.
The thing that truly terrifies me about this country is not Bush. It is
the 32% (haven't checked the latest figure for this hour) that are so
completely without objective thought.
Actually I doubt that is the case either. What is it going to look like if Colbert dies or is seriously injured anytime soon? If I were Bush I would be praying that the man doesn't slip on a flight of stairs.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
What you call "hate", I call rational and necessary opposition to corruption and incompetence. I also call it an exercise of free speech (we still have that right, don't we? Or has the Bush Administration nullified that aspect of the Constitution too?). I also call it legitimate debate by pointing out facts to people trying to pedal spin as if it were "reality".
I'm a fiscal conservative, and this administration is one of the most recklessly irresponsible when it comes to fiscal matters that has ever held the office, coddling and enabling one of the most financially irresponsible and corrupt congresses ever. And it's pure Republican. Conservative? I don't think so.
I also believe in the rule of law. This administration flouts and belittles the rule of law at every turn. With over 750 "signing statements", Bush actually signs bills into law with one hand, while claiming he won't abide by it if he doesn't want to in the other. In a single stroke, he's seized the power of both the judicial and legislative branches, and utterly spit upon the concept of the separation of powers and the idea of checks and balances.
I also believe in putting the country and the welfare of its citizens above petty party politics... again, the opposite of this Administration and the Republicans currently in power, who are willing to commit treason to further their party's power and control and to prevent anyone from pointing out inconvenient truths.
I also believe in rational discussion and debate, in reality over dogma, in changing ideas and opinions to reflect new information and realities on the ground, and learning from mistakes. Again, all things this Administration eschews and even snears at. The steady stream of spin and deception, half-truths and out-right lies on all fronts from this Administration has been stunning. They lie right to your face, even when they know you know you're they're lying to you. It's utterly shameless.
It's not 'hate', it's utter disgust. It's outrage that these corrupt and incompentent jerks are getting away with destroying this country's credibility, destroying this country's economic future (with its massive debt and outrageous spending and borrowing more from foreign nations than all other admininstrations in this nation's history, COMBINED), shredding the constitution and our civil rights, utterly dismissing any environmental concerns or any sort of long-term thinking, the destruction of the very necessary and beneficial separation of church and state... the list goes on and on and on. In fact, it's hard to come up with any RATIONAL reason for anyone to support this administration. If a Democrat had done even half the things Bush has done (let alone said even a quarter of Bush's verbal goofs), Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. It's the hypocrisy that is the worst.
Maybe you shouldn't be mindlessly letting yourself be brainwashed by paid propaganda outlets like FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.
True, true ... as in "liberals have a bias against facts that do not support their position".