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.

Comments

Poor Colbert?

[crazyjeremy]

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.

What's sad is, once he does say it how it is, he loses the room...

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Anonymous Coward]

When there's more news content on Colbert/Daily Show than on the evening newscast, which is more dead, journalism or irony?

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Yst]

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:

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 ... If that's your goal ... I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Mr. Slippery]

if anyone is "hurting america", it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want.

Inherently contradictory. If any media source has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want, then as a media source, Jon Stewart has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever he wants, including the idea that media sources have responsibility to do things other than report whatever they want.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Snowman]

The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves. I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself.

The important thing is to learn how to read and to listen. I read multiple news sources, even the same story (which often is rehashed AP stuff, but can have a different slant). While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture. Another thing I've noticed is journalists like to slant the first sentence or paragraph heavily, setting the reader up to a particular point of view. Be careful with that. Another thing is often those counterpoints that might just break the whole article are left to the last paragraph. They can claim journalistic integrity by keeping it in there, but this has two effects. First, not everyone reads the whole article. If they do, they get the idea that since it's so far down it isn't important or maybe not even valid.

Don't blame the media for biased reporting, or the people for not speaking up. Blame people who trust blindly and don't learn proper communication skills. Reading and listening are far more important than writing and speaking, and in some ways, far more difficult.

Full Footage on youtube

[nanop]

Crooks and Liars doesn't have the full footage. Instead, check out the 3 segments on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II

The transcript is also available here:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811

The BBC?

[Steve Ballmer's Fat]

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

Cajones

[PaulQuinn]

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.

Re:Funny?

[PaulQuinn]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stephen was bang on...

[Hamster Lover]

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.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[courtarro]

Part of the "illusion" of minimal crowd reaction was likely due to CSpan's audio configuration, which leaned heavily on the speaker and very little on the crowd. Since most comedy shows mic the crowd for cheering and laughter, it's somewhat strange to watch a comic when you can't hear that live reaction. I think that this is the case here, and I'm guessing the laughter was quite a bit stronger than it seems in the video.

How bad has it been in the past?

[wh0me]

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.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[nick this]

And I'm not sure you got the point of Colbert's monologue. I don't believe he was playing for laughs. I think he saw an opportunity to actually put his money where his mouth was, and took it. You are right. It was out of place for the event, but I think that was exactly the point. Letting everyone laugh comfortably while we prosecute a war in another country without being able to answer a fundamental question like "why did we go to war" wasn't on his agenda. And it shouldn't be. Good for him, I say.

Re:Torrent link

[isd_glory]

"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??"

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[adpowers]

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.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

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.

Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

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.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[nick this]

I don't know. I think this played on many levels. On one level, you are right... he's Steven Colbert playing a commentator who believes he's praising the president, but the praise backfires and the results are comedic. Ha, ha, he's lampooning O'Reilly.

On a level deeper, though, Steven gets to say thing as the commentator that he couldn't just stand up in front of that crowd and say. He gets to say what he really believes, only say it in a way that's funny when coming out of the mouth of Colbert the pundit.

Example: he's asking the president why he wasn't considered for the part of the white house press secretary. At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious. He has nothing but contempt for those people. Meanwhile, they laugh... they LAUGH... because ha, ha.. he's lampooning O'Reilly. Except he's not.

You can see that same mechanism in effect in several of his "jokes". He really is pushing wickedly vicious attacks at the president and the press, and they can't decide whether to laugh or not, because they aren't sure what level to take it at.

I thought it was brilliant -- he was able to attack them savagely, and still come across like he was tossing softballs. Amazing.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[Breakfast Pants]

Unfortunately you may have watched so much television with laugh tracks that unless people are laughing you can't distinguish funny--I feel for you, and don't worry, you're not alone.

Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[mrraven]

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.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[demachina]

"When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth"

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 ... 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.

"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.

Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[ecorona]

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?).

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[apparently]

Yeah, but why can't we take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner

because our soldiers can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the families who have lost husbands, wives, daughters, and sons to the war can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the Iraqi people can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because reality doesn't stop for everyone else while you're safe at home.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[radtea]

I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian

You seem to imply that because he is a commedian this is not a great political statement.

That is a complete non sequitur. If you really believe it, do please adduce some evidence for it. Please note that the proposition you must defend is not "some commedians are incapable of great political statements" but rather "ALL commedians are incapable of great poltiical statments, and NO commedy act is capable of great political statement." I believe, given the many counter-examples, you will find it very, very hard to create a rational, fact-based defense.

Many commedians have made great political statements, and Stephen Colbert has just taken first place in their ranks. He spoke the raw truth, in public, to the face of power. With an administration that has lied and obfuscated its way through six disasterous years of unnecessary deficit and unjustified war, that is a great and wonderful thing.

Re:Worth a watch

[fatboy]

They eat children, too!

Only when market forces allow it, not all the time.