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.
He accurately predicted the Oscars using his Da Colbert Code. Watch him celebrate.
For the love of God, save this guy's poor server, and use a torrent instead. Remember to seed after you're done downloading. there's a pretty big demand for this clip.
Be forewarned however... the torrent contains the entire C-Span broadcast of the event. Colbert's speech starts around the 54 minute mark. Some of the other bits are pretty funny, including bush playing along with an impersonator, although absolutely nothing can beat Colbert's speech. Watch it. It's funny on so many levels. I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.
I think this one's going to go down in the history books, and is by far the funniest thing ever broadcated on C-Span's airspace.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Is that the mainstream press coverage has mostly covered the Bush lookalike and not the pure political embrassment Bush suffered at the hands of Colbert. Perhaps the educated guess for this strange disconnect would be that the press hosts the event and it would be less noteworthy if the President stopped attending.
"People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." --Will Rogers. Seems oddly appropriate.
I'm all for a skewering of authority, whoever happens to be at the helm. But, after viewing the whole video, while some of it has got to make some of the audience decidedly uncomfortable (note the camera cutting to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame!) I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else.
So, how accurate is that perception?
Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run? Or Nixon's?
That's what the 'net is so great for... putting something like this into a very broad context, not just believing that Steven Colbert doing a bang up job here is the first and last time it's ever happened.
Exactly. You, sir, understand what is going on.
I think this is Stephen Colbert's Crossfire appearance. Jon Stewart played Crossfire the same way: pointing out all the faults of the people he was with. Stephen Colbert's audience was even more prestigious than Jon Stewart's. I didn't know about this appearance until after it happened (so I download the video last night) and I was amazed that he had the opportunity to chew out the president... right to the presidents face!
Unfortunately, I think some of the humor was lost on people who didn't realize the character Colbert plays. However, I also think he has made a lot of new fans this weekend.
Ever watched the Colbert report? He trips over his own words almost nightly, no matter what the subject matter or context. It's just part of the Colbert charm by now. During 'The Word' segment earlier in the week he stopped to curse and laugh at himself over it. It's been hit or miss, when for a while it seemed he had gotten over it. Granted he did seem a tad nervous in this video, that's my take.
I don't need this, I've got a Master's Degree in folklore and mythology!
Two reasons its being ignored:
1. The press is, generally, in Bush's pocket. Part of it is 9/11. Part of it is that war makes news organizations (and their parent companies) money. Its well known the Jack Welch pressured NBC news while he was CEO of GE. I would wager this has continued and expanded. (aside - It really says something about a president who can have such backing in the press and still manage to go down to the thirties in approval rating.)
2. Colbert skewered the press as much as the president. He called them on not raising a fuss, not making waves. Why would they want to bring attention to their own short-comings?
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
A real journalist would probably recognize Colbert's performance as the only news-worthy thing to happen during the event. Here Colbert is providing the best politically satirical speech in years (a generation?) right in front of the bubble boy president. Of course, a real journalist would probably not attend these sort of "buddy up to the administration" events. The fourth estate (ideally) should provide a check on those in power.
P.S. I love Colbert, but whats this doing on slashdot? I guess it is "news that matters" but not in any tech sense AFAICT.
I think Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson cut to the heart of the matter in their famous exchange. Namely, when Carlson seemed to attempt to challenge Stewart on the basis of the contention that his comedy show had journalistic standards no better than those of mainstream journalism:
... If that's your goal ... I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?
and
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to
Karma: Chameleon (comes and goes)
It seems like a standard dilemma to me. Comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have nothing to lose. They're certainly not going to lose popularity with their audience, and if anything will gain more followers. They'll probably never have another chance to do what they've done, but they probably wouldn't have anyway.
For journalists and news networks on the other hand, the nature of how the competition works means they have everything to lose. If a journalist steps too far outside the bounds of what the government considers "acceptable" for a journalist, they probably won't be allowed in again... unless everyone does the same thing at once making it impossible for the press secretaries to ignore, which seems unlikely. Access to high government officials is everything to many news networks, especially the larger ones, so getting the network rejected could spell a big demotion if not the end of a journalist's career.
The story's premise was that it's possible to measure the percentage of truth in a statement.
Physical science papers and textbooks were only in the 90-95% range. If you said the age of the Eath was 4,388,765,309 years, for example, that might be 100% true but you'd never get published. In other fields, the socially tolerable level of truth was far lower.
The story's punch line was that only two groups of people were socially permitted to make 100% truthful statements: research mathematicians, and comedians.
(Also look up the history of "court fools").
When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized. When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth. It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership. Hopefully the rise of indy media, blogs, and being humiliated by "fake news," etc will shake them from their complacency in the long run, and they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news. One can always dream and in the meanwhile their is the internet and the comedy channel.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I find it odd that the only people in politics that "say it how it is" can be found on the comedy channel. It's almost... funny.
There's historic precedent: in Imperial Rome, often the only public criticism of the Emperor came from comedians and satiric poets.
Additional comparisons to Rome after the fall of the Republic are left to brave commentors. (But hint: never-ending Proconsulships in the Middle East, a rubber stamp Senate ignored by the Emperor.)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
http://thankyoustephencolbert.org
For serving as an example, telling it like it is, I've thrown together a site to collect thank yous for Mr. Colbert.
Hopefully this site will help boost awareness of this story, which is already being distorted in the mainstream press.
Go over and say thanks.
This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs. How I wish that fake news organizations that push the Government's agenda only existed in dystopian futurstic worlds in sci-fi novels. Fox news uses logical fallacies to justify Republican led efforts and demonize Democrats in general. Fox news is unofficially the Republican news channel. I stress that this wouldn't be as big an issue if they weren't dishonest in the way that they present their arguments. There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, but convincing others of such opinions via malicious distortions of the truth is insidious. It should be called out with the full ferocity and scandal the press is capable of. This is dangerous for a "news channel" to do because some people don't even know what a logical fallacy is (maybe like 32% of people?).
There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.
Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
You guessed it (or not), Fox News. Not CNN, MSNBC or Bloomberg (yeah, I watch all of them). All of them except Fox News just mention Bush duble and that's it. Only Fox News had a take on Colbert's rip on Bush and Administration. Although the take was pretty much saying Colbert went overboard and bombed, but at least Fox News mentioned it in the news.
Yeah, Fox News.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
WTF?! Bombed? Maybe with the crowd, but he was bloody brilliant. Fucking balls of steel to say what he did with the president a few feet away. Most other comediens would turn on the fake chuminess, "oh schucks, you know I'm just kidding" after every bland joke, and then kiss and make up with old Georgy boy.
WTF is with the NY Daily! Really, every other blogger is praising Colbert like nobody's business.
It cracks me up how many people are still completely ignorant of shows like "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "Real Time with Bill Maher," et. al. and what they're all about. It boggles the mind that so many people can still come on these shows and be completely caught off guard when the host starts asking them irreverent questions.
It's like Jon Stewart himself once said after a particularly funny interview segment with a befuddled Senator, "Why do people still talk to us?"
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.