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
Here is the torrent link:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/296239
Registered Linux user #421033
Crooks and Liars doesn't have the full footage. Instead, check out the 3 segments on youtube:
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II
The transcript is also available here:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/5981
He accurately predicted the Oscars using his Da Colbert Code. Watch him celebrate.
WTF? That BBC article was not only pointless, but about three paragraphs long. At least post an article that discusses the topic, like maybe... E&P story
All I could think watching this, with Colbert never wavering, never holding back, never hurrying his words, was this man has balls.
Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.
And kudos for being kinda funny too.
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.
It is really worth the watch. Colbert starts about 40 minutes into the video. Get the torrent or watch it on youtube (part 1, part 2, and part 3). If you haven't seen the Colbert report - it is quite good. Comedy central has a bunch of videos up - my favorite is the "know a district" ones.
The Colbert Report is really high quality political humor, like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart - it is funny because so often it is true.
Oh he didn't entirely lose the room. Far from it, considering the exceptionally dry speakers preceding the Bushes and Colbert. (All praise the invention of fast forward). Colbert's greeting of Scalia, comments regarding Fox, boxing a glacier, DC the mallowmar city, Plame, and Helen-Thomas-the-stalker were all priceless. The interviews of the press corps in their little caves and 'presidential humor - cspan style' segments were great too. By all means watch it if you haven't.
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.
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?
"People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." --Will Rogers. Seems oddly appropriate.
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.
Stephen was in great form with such lines as:
"Wow, what an honor...to sit here, at the same table as my hero, George W Bush. To be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face...is he really not here tonight?" (in reference to the Vice President) "The one guy that could have helped."
That killed me. Later:
"I believe in democracy. I believe that democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, uh welcome. You're great country makes our Happy Meals possible."
Huge groan from the crowd on that one.
He got some huge laughs, but some got no reaction and I can only assume that either those in attendance were brain dead and didn't get it or offended by his frankness. Either way, he was dead on and hilarious.
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.
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!"
"I think this one's going to go down in the history books..."
25,000 people using bittorrent to download an hour-long C-SPAN special
That should go down in the history books as "the day that the anti-filesharing lobbies collectively went: WTF??"
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
Stephen was on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Link to video. And the CBS text.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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").
"What's next, the NY Times not agreeing with the president on Iraq?"
Unless that was an attempt at irony, you really should pay closer attention to current events. The New York Times was pro-war from the beginning. Remember Judith Miller, the NY Times reporter who ended up in jail for contempt during Scooter Libby's grand jury hearing? She wrote one article after another for the Times backing up the Bush Administration's false claims of WMD. She was their star reporter, their headlining act, the woman with the (erroneous) inside information. When Joseph Wilson wrote his op-ed piece calling out Bush on his State of the Union lie, Scooter Libby leaked information to Judith Miller that he hoped would discredit Wilson. That's how she ended up in jail, because she refused to reveal Libby as her source. There's lots more to the story, but the crux of the matter is that the only difference between the New York Times and the New York Post as regards the war in Iraq is that the Times uses a classier typeface.
i thought, therefore i was...
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?
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.
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.
Have you watched the Colbert Report? Ok this is what he does, this is his shtick. He pretends to be a super patriotic to the point of stupidity pundent that supports the administration (Bill O'Reilly would be the closest analogue) but it's actually biting satire that's criticising it. Whatever he's pretending to make look good, he's actually ripping on, and masterfully so I might add. Since he's playing the government loving windbag, they are the most frequent target. The media is another frequent target.
Well, you ought to know this when you book him. This is what he does, so this is what you are going to get. Getting pissed that he ripped on the administration and the media is like getting pissed becuase you book Carlos Mencia and get racial humour. Of COURSE that's what you get, that's what he does! If that's not what you want, book someone else.
This was Colbert doing what he does best. That it fell flat on the audience because they don't like being made fun of is of no concern. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't hire a satirist because they are likely to pick on you. This goes double if you are already a favourite subject for them. I have no idea what the Whitehouse was thinking booking him. It's not like it's hard to find out what he's about. He's on national TV 5 nights a week for you to see.
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."
I saw it live, and when Colbert came on I said to myself "are they fucking stupid?!" Stephen Colbert is of course no fan of the president and I was suprised to see him hold his own up there as the audience refused to really laugh. Stephen bombed, not because he wasnt funny, or truthfull but because the audience seemed affraid to laugh.
:)
:)
:)
The whitehouse bit with Helen Thomas stalking him wasnt that funny. Stephen was funny overall though. It was interesting to see him be polite towards the president after having just said "the country doesnt like you and this whole thing is a mess"
Stephen did well considering the audience...
And thats what i'm really insulted by... (I'm not insulted by Stephen, i loved it) but the audience, the members of the press, the celebrities, the politicians, lawyers, judges, lobbiests...
Something just feels off when the press has a dinner with the whitehouse administration, plus celebrities. It just seems like a big get together of the wealthy and powerful for no reason.
For example, anyone that watched it on C-span, you would have seen George Clooney surrounded by 10 or more girls at a time after the dinner. There were no guys around Clonney, and i just found it histerical because they let 30minutes pass before showing clooney on tv again, and there he was with another 10 girls surrounding him wanting pictures
OK Clooney has political motives, but what about Phil Simms? Tiki Barber? Ludicris?... What could they possibly have to do with the whitehouse reporters?
It just seems like a slap in the face to the public. I dont think the Press should be "hanging" with the press. And i certainly dont think it should be a big celebrity dog and pony show.
What i found histerical is the number of old white men with young hot dates
The whole thing is rather phoney, and by that i mean the government, and the press
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
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.