Slashdot Mirror
Measuring the "Colbert Bump"
An anonymous reader writes "Democratic politicians receive a 40% increase in contributions in the 30 days after appearing on the comedy cable show The Colbert Report. In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing. Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise 'disproportionate real world influence' — likely due to the 'elite demographic' of its audience." In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
For president!
Moreover, even a cursory analysis demonstrates that despite being a comedy program The Colbert Report appears to exercise "disproportionate real world influence" -- likely due to the "elite demographic" of its audience.
I saw this news a few days ago and must confess I couldn't draw a logical conclusion from it. I find the explanation in this article to be unsatisfactory also.
... and it would take just one nutjob billionaire who loves The Colbert Report to make those donations. Or it could be like a Hollywood joke for the rich and famous to build a fund.
... ah, what am I saying, there's a real lacking sense of humor on that side of the parties in my mind.
Perhaps it's interesting but little can be learned from this 'study.' There's just too many factors to say
To expound upon the conclusion of the article, what about Democratic guests of The Daily Show which is just a half hour earlier on the same channel with (probably) the same "elite demographic"?
Maybe it's really about Democratic politicians looking really good against Colbert's over the top ultra-conservatism? Just as speculative (and easily dismissed) as the article's conclusion though. Can anyone else reason out a better explanation?
Has the study looked at shows with over the top ultra-liberal hosts interviewing Republican politicians
My work here is dung.
But perhaps Conservatives don't watch the show in the same numbers that their Liberal friends do, equating to the "gain nothing" for the right side of the aisle?
Not to overplay the "Republicans are a bunch of old humorless farts" stereotype, but let's face it, Republicans aren't exactly Comedy Central's chief demographic in general (and they sure aren't the primary audience of "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report"). Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
There have been a few attempts at more conservative humor. Colin Quinn used to have a show that followed Stewart that was more to the right (and very funny), but unfortunately it got cancelled after two or three seasons. And Fox News did a Daily Show-esque show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour" that was just abysmal to watch and not even close to funny (it ran for 13 episodes before the Fox conservatives abandoned their opposition to euthenasia long enough to grant it a mercy killing).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The first person to actually question the Bush regime said it right to his face at the press awards banquet.
And he gave Scalia the finger and made him laugh.
And then he basically called the sheep like media whores to their faces.
And everyone who had been keeping their mouths shut woke up
Shouldn't it be Democrat politicians rather than Democratic politicians. After all, whatever your views on Republican politicians, aren't they Democrati...
Ah, I see your point.
America, Home of the Brave.
Many Republican and a few Democrat politicians don't realize that they are the joke.
Given the left-leaning slant of the show, why would a Republican or Conservative watch it? Colbert's bias is obvious - and that's fine, he can have any opinions he wants. Republicans/Conservatives are not humorless - it's more like "the show is not funny for them." Is it a surprise that the left-leaning audience doesn't pony up money for Republican candidates? The conclusion seems obvious - I'm frankly surprised the article appeared on /.
And Fox News did a Daily Show-esque show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour" [wikipedia.org] that was just abysmal to watch and not even close to funny (it ran for 13 episodes before the Fox conservatives abandoned their opposition to euthenasia long enough to grant it a mercy killing).
That's the problem with conservatives, they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset. I'm sure plenty of them think the people behind the Daily Show and Colbert Report take the same approach as they do; have a goal to promote an ideology, then after that come up with humor to support it. Never even crosses their mind that the shows pick things that you can make fun of, and just because it's a lot easier to make fun of republicans than democrats, that's what the shows do more of.
That speech was the reason I started to watch the show and then the Daily Show. :)
Since I don't have cable I don't get Comedy Central.
Even if I did have cable, I wouldn't get the US Comedy Central since I live in in the NL
So now I have a daily ritual of watching TDS and TCR online the day after it aired
One of the best things of the Daily Show imho is that they call the politicians on their stupidity and hypocrisy (sp?) every time they do something they said they wouldn't. :)
Colbert is just fantastically funny, his book is funny, the Tek Jansen DVD is funny. I just love the guy
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Have there been many attempts at "liberal humor". I don't think the Daily Show counts. Jon seems to make fun of whoever would be...er... funny. It is not surprising that Bush fits the bill most of the time. Any show that plans on being funny in a "conservative" or "liberal" way is probably going to be terrible. Picking a side just reduces the possible objects of ridicule.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
Elite? Ohhhhhh, I get it. Nice jab at the McCain campaign there!
This may come as a surprise, but Stephen Colbert isn't a republican. He's a character, played by a man who also happens to be named Stephen Colbert. This man? He is what we call a satirist.
Although he makes fun of both sides, it is much easier to make fun of the republicans - since their politics (under introspection) aren't very good. All he does is bring it to the front.
Also, many democrats are younger and don't have 'time' for politics, but do have time for comedy. If they're watching the Colbert Report, then they get a dose of politics in with their laughter (or laughter with their politics?).
Perhaps this is the only way to get young people interested in Politics - to make the stupidity that goes on at capitol hill equally accessible to everyone... through satire.
Well, as the saying goes, "correlation is not causation" and it's quite possible that the "Colbert Bump" is just a myth. And besides that, the "elite demographic" is mainly Republicans- the top 5% of wealth holders in the US doesn't tend to vote blue.
If this were a politically oriented web site, I could see this being posted, but not on the front page. It would be buried under a dozen or so more relevant.
This is Slashdot. It is tech oriented. I understand politics are important, but the slant has always been how politics will impact our IT related issues. So net neutrality is very relevant. This is not.
I am absolutely baffled how this got accepted as a story.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Building on what elrous0 said,
Republicans are a bunch of old humorless farts
... oh wait, did I quote that out of context?
The first person to actually question the Bush regime said it right to his face at the press awards banquet.
I believe that was the "White House Press Correspondence Association Dinner." Although he spoke a lot of truth and I thoroughly enjoyed it, he also said this to the Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong from China:
I believe in democracy. I believe 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, welcome. Your great country makes our Happy Meals possible. I said it's a celebration.
It's all truth, too. But it is not diplomatic. At what point do you call it "balls" versus "being an asshole." You may not respect China but whether or not you do, we are all living on the same planet.
My work here is dung.
Even though it makes me sad, I love these guys, Colbert and Stewart.
They make me laugh c'ause otherwise I'd be crying all the time about the things I cannot change.
I hope Stephen does get to talk at the Dems convention, it'll be a funny romp indeed !
As far as the rise in donations, the US gets to see their politicians in a social contect
out of the norm for most of them, and so if they show something of a personality, they get
the attention they deserve...sorry cookie !
End of Line.
The candidates probably wouldn't be invited on the show in the first place unless they were "up-and-coming" and exposed to the Democratic donor base before they got on the show. It would be just as logical to say that their increase in donations is the reason they get invited on the show and not the other way around.
Troll or not, here you go:
They are talking about Stephen Colbert from The Colbert Report.
I think the surprise is that the Colbert Bump actually exists rather than just all being in his mind.
China is a super power. Is criticizing China somehow "being an asshole"? Colbert wasn't stomping all over someone who was already down. He aimed it squarely at the one of the world's most powerful nations. He kicked up, now down.
But it is not diplomatic
And he's not a diplomat.
Wait... Colbert is pregnant?
Whoah.
Not to overplay the "Republicans are a bunch of old humorless farts" stereotype, but let's face it, Republicans aren't exactly Comedy Central's chief demographic in general (and they sure aren't the primary audience of "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report"). Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
Yeah, I wonder how many legmen got nervous when Al Capone wanted a sit-down? Stewart is a pretentious ass who looks down and mocks conservatives. Colbert does the same, just in character. Conservatives aren't invited to share views, they're invited as fodder for ridicule. Whether your a Dem or Repub, if you can't see that you're blind.
Be fair, it's not slashdot that's the problem.
It's the corrupt assholes that pay lip service to the electorate during campaigns and then go right back to screwing them for money the minute it's all over.
The big two party systems is the problem, not the people that it's driven to cynicism.
Limbaugh's success is almost entirely due to his sense of humor. He was basically a Colbert/Stewart of the Right, before Comedy Central was a political humor channel. Now, humor is somewhat subjective, and Limbaugh has a mean streak that comes out at odd times and spoils the party. His mask only slips occasionally though, and he can usually convince his loyal listeners that he was joking or that the monster they saw was just misunderstood. (for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease, or expressed glee at the suicide of Kurt Cobain.)
Even so, Limbaugh has a great sense of the absurd, and his selective reporting of the news has been great at finding things that are both idiotic and obviously "left-inspired." Now, he's dishonest to a degree, so he'll lie, exagerate or misreport when it suits him. Still, it's actually fairly easy if you go to the right places to find some absurdity related to environmentalism or feminism. Shooting fish in a barrel, it is. Frankly, he doesn't outright lie that often, because he doesn't have to. Clowns attach themselves to any political movement that has any power.
The new young Turks of Right Wing talk haven't been humor oriented, they've been revenge oriented. So people like O'Reilly and Hannity come across as hate-filled trolls without anything resembling a sense of humor. This is all to the good, because people with no sense of humor make perfect straight men victims for satirists.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
"In contrast, their Republican counterparts essentially gain nothing."
Well there's a shock. I've always thought that Republicans going on Stewart's or Colbert's show was a complete waste of time, unless their aim was to be mocked mercilessly with no benefits whatsoever. Stewart at least tries to be somewhat balanced (as much as his politics will allow him), but Colbert wastes no time with such ideas.
It'd be like a liberal Democrat going on Rush Limbaugh's program. Just what do you think you're going to get out of it? You're certainly going into hostile territory with little hope of reward. You're not going to sway that audience's opinions... they're pretty well set. I think a Republican going on Colbert's show is not only a waste of time, it's worse. He has a young liberal audience, and if anything changes their opinions, it'll be time and experience. Nothing you say is going to sway them.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I hope this doesn't mean he's going to be too disconnected from the rest of the /. demographic!
Yes, with those kinds of distractions he might start making missteps like posting duplicate stories. Imagine what slashdot would become with something like that...
Republicans aren't humorless, but they generally don't gravitate towards comedy writing or performing either (leading to a dearth of comedy shows with conservative writers and performers). It's unfair to blame Comedy Central for that. Republicans tend to gravitate towards business school and political science, liberals tend to gravitate towards the liberal arts and more artistic fields (including writing and comedy). There are plenty of exceptions, of course, (including the aforementioned Colin Quinn) but let's not kid ourselves. Asking Comedy Central why it has so many liberal comedy writers would be like asking Wall Street why it has so many conservative stock brokers.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are not mere news parodies or simple comedies. They're actual news shows that also happen to be funny. They don't make stuff up like SNL or the Onion, they present real news.
Sort of like the movie Shaun of the Dead. Despite what people think, it was not a parody of zombie movies, it was a real zombie movie that also happened to be really funny.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I'm rather conservative. I watch both Colbert and Stewart because I find them both funny. Their bias is quite obvious, but I don't mind. The fact they are open about it (as opposed to trying to pretend to be neutral) makes me like them more.
Rarely do I not find something funny because of my views. I'll disagree with some of the things Stewart says (for example), but I don't take him seriously enough to be put off by it (and it doesn't happen that often).
What they spend most of their time doing, making fun of the media and politicians doing dumb things, works just as well for either party. If they ignored the Dems I would be turned off, but they are always right there to poke fun at Pelosi if she does something notably stupid.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
BTW, I'm an independent who's a social liberal (I don't care who you sleep with or marry) and government conservative(government should be the last resort for any problem outside of what's explicitly stated in the Constitution and even then it still spends too much money).
Unfortunately, the joke is on us.
She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF
I think you'll see a change in this if and when Obama becomes president. Just like the Clinton administration led to the mainstreaming of foxnews, dennis miller (back when he was successful), and talk radio-- the Bush administration has led to the success of Kos, Olbermann and Colbert. While I'm sure the Daily Show and Colbert Report will still be funny, they won't be as poignant and cutting edge with a Democrat in the office. Something else will come along and be the new "in" thing of political satire.
Conservative views are ridiculous though.
Every time a repub is allowed to speak they come out with hypocrisy and intolerance.
If you look at the charts in the original article, the bump starts around two weeks before they actually appear on the show. Which makes me suspect that the Bump is more likely due to the candidate making a round of interviews (of which Colbert is one), rather than it being due specifically to the Colbert interview.
No, just the first person funny enough to get the opportunity and able to get away with it.
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you."
- attributed to Shaw
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
That's the problem with conservatives, they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset. [...] just because it's a lot easier to make fun of republicans than democrats, that's what the shows do more of.
Funny, because that's the same thing I hear Conservatives say about Liberals and they both back it up with the same "proof".
See the point yet? They're both wrong.
The greatest thing that's wrong with politics right now is this team sport cheerleader mentality. You're either a Democrat or a Republican. You have to show up to games wearing your team colors or be chastised by the other fanatics (aka "fans") of the team. And god forbid that you might actually be a fanatic of the other team! That will result in nothing less than the tossing of stereotypical derogatory chants back and forth which, of course, will lead to some parking lot brawl.
Don't dare try to have a different opinion other than the teams party lines, otherwise, they'll try a hostel take over of your position. Just ask Joel Liberman, who supports the Iraq war and some tax cuts and was attacked by his own party by them running and financing another Democrat to take his seat.
Don't dare try to say you support the right to abortion, gay marriage or that you're agnostic or atheist, as a Republican. You'll be similarly cast down from the rank and file.
The point is, the problem with politics are people you the parent. Those people who actually THINK one side is better than the other by default. That one side a bigger joke than the other or what have you. Sadly, the true joke are these people and these are the people that Colbert and Stewart make fun of. These people are blind to the obvious and sheep of the proverbial Shepard. These are the people who make easy targets for jokes because others can clearly see their blind ignorance and stupidity on ISSUES, not political affiliation.
People who think like the parent are the one's who think with an intensely partisan mindset. They're the one's, are there are a lot of them, who keep these political charades going. Nothing is going to change until we break down the walls of party affliction and the team sport mentality. Politics are not a game that's played on Sundays and Monday nights. Competition and competitiveness only amongst people only lead to a loss for everyone as important issues get ignored for a few small mindsets of a minority of people who are bullied and repressed into taking the same stances as the party out of fear or reprisal. This is the true killer of independent thought and critical analysis, yet it'll be the last thing anyone will be willing to "fix".
" And Fox News did a Daily Show-esque show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour" [wikipedia.org] that was just abysmal to watch and not even close to funny (it ran for 13 episodes before the Fox conservatives abandoned their opposition to euthenasia long enough to grant it a mercy killing)."
Hell, I'm a conservative, and I'll be the first to tell you that show wasn't just bad, it was plain embarrassing. Bad skits. Canned laugh tracks. Every bad trick in show business you can think of, that abomination had it. It couldn't die fast enough for me.
That show was a prime example of somethings conservatives sometimes do that they never should... try to make a right wing version of a successful liberal phenomena. "Hey, we'll make a conservative Daily Show!". No, you wont. You'll make a cheap knockoff that nobody likes and is done badly. And to be fair, liberals also do this stuff as well... how many attempts have we seen to try and do a liberal version of Limbaugh's program? There's a long and distinguished list of utter failure on that front (Hello, Air America!).
For whatever reason... one sides' success.... The Daily Show, Limbaugh, pick your example... just doesn't seem to translate well to the other side. Any attempts to "reverse engineer" it and make your own seems destined to fall on it's face.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The problem with "Tough Crowd" was not the subject matter, or whether or not is was funny. The problem was it was an organizational clusterf***. Colin Quinn couldn't moderate at all, guests talked over each other, and little was said during each segment.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
The correct adjective form is Democratic.
I wonder if China got the Colbert Bump?
But it is not diplomatic And he's not a diplomat.
If you're addressing an ambassador from another country in your own, I think it would be a good idea to be respectful in a diplomatic way. Of course, I'm sure we'd love to develop that kind of image for ourselves.
I wonder if there is a similar bump for an appearance on The Daily Show...
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
How did that happen?
Did he adopt?
"That's the problem with conservatives, they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset"
Uh, some can, some can't. Are you actually going to claim liberals are any different? Because I'd love to point you to several major liberal websites where the denizens will readily prove to you that if it ain't liberal, it's downright evil. No room for gray areas. Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Truthout, Alternet... there's a pretty long list here. So if I were you, I'd reconsider this notion that liberals are all capable of tolerant, non-partisan thinking. They're just as human as the conservatives they oppose.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I think being "respectful" is 90% of the reason this country is a mess right now. The fact that the public is too scared of calling their politicians and politicians of other countries hypocritical lying murderers to their face out of fear of being called "disrespectful" or worse "un-American" is disgusting. Maybe you sir need a ball transplant since yours have obviously failed.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
If you're addressing an ambassador from another country in your own, I think it would be a good idea to be respectful in a diplomatic way. Of course, I'm sure we'd love to develop that kind of image for ourselves.
Colbert is not a representative of the U.S. government and he has neither a legal nor moral obligation to refrain from insulting China. You'd probably think that it'd disrespectful to picket the Chinese embassy over Chinese human rights violations, right?
As an Aussie I apologise for Rupert, as an old fart I like what I've seen of Colbert and the Daily Show because I prefer comedy to anger when it comes to political discussion. IMHO the most agnogstic (and some of the funniest) political/social satire to come out of the US in recent years has been in the form of cartoons. Ironicaly the best known of these is the Simpons ( a Fox production ).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He mocks everyone constantly, but there is a bit of a difference in how he does it that betrays his bias.
His mockery of republicans is usually along the lines of "what are those crazy people thinking?"
Whereas against democrats he tends to be more "come on, guys, I was counting on you and then you sucked."
He doesn't give anyone a free pass (which I greatly appreciate) but he does betray his bias a bit.
Dude, *lighten up*. Stephen Colbert is a comedian and satirist. Is roasting China along with everyone else in the room him being undiplomatic or him doing his thing?
If China can't take some ribbing from a comedian, what kind of super-power does that make them? Remember when that guy got a monkey to throw up just like Bush? Hilarious! Did we get on his case for lacking in diplomacy?
The only "misstep" diplomatically was putting Colbert in the room with that many powerful people, and then handing him a mike and asking him to do his thing. If the people in that room couldn't handle some humor, then he shouldn't have been asked to do the speech.
And frankly, I'm getting tired of everyone pussy-footing around China. Welcome to the World stage, China! You wanted to be a super-power? You wanted recognition and a bigger say in how things go? Well guess what, my Chinese friends? Along with greater visibility and decision making power comes a lot more criticism, outrage, and being mocked.
Welcome to our world. People have been beating on the US for years. Sometimes it was just whining (hey, I wanted to be in charge instead of you!), and sometimes it was because we used our power to run rough-shod over people. Regardless, the world didn't spare us anything--and they shouldn't.
But China? Oh, poor China! Everyone is so insensitive, so judgmental! Poor, poor China! They only own everyone on the planet through trade imbalances or by owning the country's debt. When people start to complain about China's policies, a Chinese representative reminds them that China owns them lock stock and barrel, and then an apology along with copious amounts of back pedaling ensues (see US toy makers after the lead paint fiascos).
So pardon me if I don't feel sorry for them. No one in the rest of the world is treated with as much fear and trepidation as China. And when they don't feel they get enough respect, they come down on people hard. They are big-boy country. They can clearly take care of themselves.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
Eh, John McCain did pretty well on The Daily Show, and when I saw him a few years ago Bob Dole was absolutely awesome.
But that's The Daily Show, which has a slant sure but is perfectly willing to tear Democrats and liberals a new one whenever its appropriate. I think mostly it's because Stewart and the show came unto their own during a period when Republicans were in power and thus provided the majority of the targets. Stewart is liberal in his politics, but I don't think that dominates the show which is mostly about deriving humor from the news. It's not the same as 'liberal' or 'conservative' talk shows.
Colbert Report, though, is obviously dominated by its slant. There's no avoiding it, as his character is a caricature of a conservative talk show host. He "praised" the President to his face for going with his gut instead of facts, saying "reality has a well-known liberal bias".
But yes, even though they're different shows, I don't doubt that their demographics are largely the same, and that it doesn't include a lot of Republicans.
The enemies of Democracy are
I am quite certain that I read this same story last year. Perhaps a different show, but the same conclusion. Hobo science.
The 8 month old child must be around 1½ years by now.
That's because a large part of humour is breaking taboos and mocking authority. If youre a conservative youre not going to take a radical position and try to shock the audience or attempt to mock those who sign your paycheck. Its not part of the conservative character, thus this terrible hateful comedy they attempt.
There is tons of conservsative humor, but its 100% unintentional. With the right mindset O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are fricking hilarious.
Bunch of self-appointed know-it-alls with severe narcissistic disorders if you ask me.
In short, assholes.
Dude, I didn't realize you were personally involved.
Yeah, well you have to disagree with the fairtax because it's not on your teams agenda.
Since China donates the most to Democrats, quite possibly.
The article makes no comparison of the 'Colbert' bump to any other bumps. Normally this would be funny if it was reported on his own show because he's funny as he over exaggerates everything, but in reality every show has its own demographic bump. Every time a new movie comes out, the star(s) will make the rounds on all the tv/radio talk shows in order to promote it, and the same goes for politicians looking to get their message out in hope of getting votes and contributions.
Exactly. I remember how comedians treated the Clinton administration. It was incredibly nasty over trivial things and Bush gets a free pass on a lot of stuff compared to Clinton. Arguably, they are more harsh on Democrats because they might self-identify as Democrat and dont think theyre doing any damage or being inappropriate. Banter among friends and all that. And of course, sex sells. Clinton's affair probably launched 100 comedians careers.
If Obama becomes president its really going to be the same deal. We're going to hear about how he isnt really liberal, how both parties are the same, easy jabs at the realpolitik, etc. Which is the same self-deceptive rhetoric that got Nader a million votes and arguably helped put Bush into office.
You must not be watching the same show that I am. Jon Stewart is an extremely kind/generous/softball interviewer. I've seen him conduct a 'contentious' interview maybe two or three times (one of those was Feith). Colbert is contentious and slightly in-your-face (with everyone), because he's impersonating Bill O'Reilly's evil twin. The venom you see there is necessary, if one is going to pretend to be a conservative.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
I believe on most male mammals, the balls are not far from the asshole. So it makes sense, there is a very thin line between the two.
- The Saj
So... you are libertarian then. Call it what it is.
I thought Mike Huckabee was polling around 1% before he showed up on the Colbert Show. I don't know about contributions, but it wasn't too long after that he became a pretty influential second-string candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
And then there were none.
Yeah, but noone ever got elected because of the "Denis Miller Bump"
Conservative views are ridiculous though.
Every time a repub is allowed to speak they come out with hypocrisy and intolerance.
Pot, meet kettle.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Could the appearance on Colbert's show be part of a wider ranging media blitz by some of these candidates? Could they be appearing on Colbert, Leno, Letterman, Meet the Press, The Muppet Show, and Larry King all over the course of a week or two? Then following it up with a few high profile public publicity events coordinated with a few big fund raising events?
Its called a media blitz.
If there is a 'Colbert Bump' then we need a controlled experiment. Have a Democrat and a Republican appear on Colbert's show, and make no other public appearances for a month after word. Then measure the outcome.
I think it is just an artifact of campaign style differences between the two parties. The Democrats have been fond of the Madison Avenue marketing blitz style for a while (lots of flash and no substance). Republicans are more of the smoke filled back room style. (Have third parties funded by wealthy friends and talk radio media figure-heads smear your opponent with a constant feed of lies and innuendo).
I really doubt the bump in donations is attributable to an appearance on Colbert's show alone.
The best "Contentious" interview he ever had was with John Bolton, who made some pretty outrageous claims that Jon waved off, only to have a presidential scholar on the next day to contradict everything the guy said.
That being said, his least contentious/biggest softball interview? Lynn Chaney, by far.
Have there been many attempts at "liberal humor"
Yes, and they're not too hard to find either: The best known example would be Al Franken (author of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"). Slightly more regional would be Molly Ivins. Michael Moore has at times been more comedian than filmmaker.
I am officially gone from
"Tough Crowd" was actually my all-time favorite Comedy Central talk show (liked it way better than Stewart, Colbert, or Corolla). I loved its spontaneity and unpredictability. Sure, it was a little disorganized. But the gems that came out of those comedian's mouths from time-to-time would often have me on the floor laughing. The comedians were great at riffing on current news topics and even better at riffing on each other.
Jim Norton was particularly funny. If Norton was on the show, you could pretty much count on at least one comment so outrageous that it would shock the audience into a stunned silence. I remember more than a few that left many jaws dropped. "I was watching one of those ads for the Shirley Temple DVD collection the other night. I really liked that commercial and she was just adorable. And after if was over, I cleaned the spunk off my t-shirt and went to bed."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
-- likely due to the "elite demographic" of its audience."
Nice job feeding into the media narrative that Republicans are pushing: That liberals are elistist snobs. Slashdot should not do politics.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Yeah, well you have to disagree with the fairtax because it's not on your teams agenda.
No, I don't play on the "stupid" team.
Oh, I think he gave Obama plenty of free passes when Clinton was still in the running. It was painfully obvious.
Proof: Denis Miller was only funny while Clinton was in office.
As I recall one of the big laugh lines of the speech was the attack on reporters writing a book about a reporter asking tough questions about the government... you know, fiction.
Colbert and Stewart aren't in this for politics, they're in this to attack the culture that has surrounded modern politics. Namely the stupid ass media pundits.
Maybe I'm slow, but what's so offensive about "Your great country makes our Happy Meals possible."?
Right, next you'll be saying that the greatest threat to America isn't Bears.
Let's not forget when Colbert was running for president in South Carolina he did have the fastest growing Facebook group as well as a presidential Facebook group larger than all the other candidates combined.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Not to overplay the "Republicans are a bunch of old humorless farts" stereotype, but let's face it, Republicans aren't exactly Comedy Central's chief demographic in general (and they sure aren't the primary audience of "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report"). Even when conservatives do come on Stewart or Colbert, it's generally a very uncomfortable interview (polite applause from the audience, host trying desperately to think of something good to say).
They aren't the old-money blue-blood party any more. They're now the Jesus party.
And of course, sex sells. Clinton's affair probably launched 100 comedians careers
I'm surprised Hillary didn't find a way to take credit for this and tout it as some sort of "job creation" ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Am I the only one bothered by an 8 months old being close enough to a TV for long enough to be noticeably affected by it?
That's a growing consumer, alright...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That being said, his least contentious/biggest softball interview? Lynn Chaney, by far.
Eh, I actually think that was appropriate on his part. Lynn Cheney doesn't set policy. I don't see the point of beating up on someones wife just because you disagree with his policies.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Now, humor is somewhat subjective, and Limbaugh has a mean streak that comes out at odd times and spoils the party
You mean like the time where he called a 13 year girl a "dog"?
Sorry, that guy is a fucking asshole. End of story.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I can think of at least a few reasons why one might go on such a show, that wouldn't be a complete waste of time:
* Seed planting - You might have the opportunity to make a statement to that audience - a claim, a promise, whatever, which people might disagree with at the time, but you are on record as having said it, and that audience may well remember it in the future, for good or bad (good would be if time proves you right, bad would be if time proves you to be a fool). You say that only time and experience will change their minds. Part of the process of 'experience' is hearing someone say something that you disagree with, then having them proven right in the future. So maybe you appear now not for a short term benefit, but perhaps for a longer term benefit.
* Positioning - If a candidate is perceived as very conservative, or very liberal, they can use appearances on moderately liberal or moderately conervative shows as an opportunity to make announcements about new positions/policies, or a change of previous position, to try to attempt to reposition themselves more to the center. In that case you are not trying to change the audience's mind about something you and they disagree on, but instead trying to find a common ground with that audience.
The funniest thing that Limbaugh ever did was call for harsher penalties for drug users then get himself busted for being an oxycodon addict.
The icing-coated irony was delicious for everyone.
I thought it was even funnier that his doctor shopping got a slap on the wrist, thus illustrating the way the law operates differently for the Haves and Have Mores than for the rest of us.
Well, no, that wasn't funny... that was more stomach turning than funny.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
I get almost all my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. So do most of the people I know around my own age.
Yes, really.
CNN is basically useless - how much are they really allowed to say? Between the watered-down news plus the extraneous fluff (shouting head matches and scandal of the week) they don't actually show much news.
Fox News should be called Faux News - these are the guys who basically got the courts to say it was okay to lie to people about the news, remember?
and local news channels are a joke - something caught on fire? ORLY? In a city with a million plus people, something catches on fire EVERY DAMN DAY. Get over it. Oh, good, that leaves more time for water skiing dogs and other junk news, right after that report about the great festival this past weekend that was so awesome. You know, the festival? The one they DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT until it was too late to attend? Yeah, it rocked.
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
The funniest thing that Limbaugh ever did was call for harsher penalties for drug users then get himself busted for being an oxycodon addict.
What's scary is that little episode didn't really cost him many viewers or respect. I guess Republicans only care about hypocrisy if it's the gay kind....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Juice Analytics did this nifty research project on Colbert Bump as well: http://www.juiceanalytics.com/writing/colbert-bump/
Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as a dog back in 1993 or 1994. Look it up.
they'll try a hostel take over
I agree with what you're saying, but this little typo got a visual in my head that I couldn't stop giggling about.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
...for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease...
No, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox didn't take his medication before the taping to make is condition look worse. Also, Rush pointed out that MJ Fox supported three Democrat candidates because they favored embryonic stem cell research. MJ stated that Jim Talent wanted to criminalize the research could cure his disease. That was simply not true. What Talent opposed was a bill that inaccurately called "The Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative", because it allowed for human cloning. Jim Talent supports stem cell research from adult lines or the lines that were in place before Bush's executive order. Saying that Talent wanted to "criminalize" research was simply not true. Fox used the team "Stem Cell Research" and never attempted to clarify that he meant "EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research". Instead, he made it seem as if Republicans were against all stem cell research, which, again, is not true.
So, it's not that MJF has Parkinsons, or even that he supported three Democrats (he is a free man, after all), but the fact that MJF didn't know learn the facts before doing the commercials. Of course, I'm giving him the benefit of doubt and assuming that he didn't know better as opposed to being dishonestly partisan.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Am I the only non-Republican who found Colbert overrrated? It's a one joke show. I admit I haven't watched in a long time, though. Did it get better?
More likely, it's because the vast majority of TV political coverage is more superficial and intellectually bankrupt than this comedy program.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
What's disgusting is your ridiculous hyperbole. Being respectful doesn't mean you don't have balls, it can often mean you're just more careful about choosing your battles. If you think problems in this country are honestly 90% the result of simply not calling people hypocritical lying murders (ooh - to their faces!), the size of your balls is irrelevant because you're a pea brain. That's right, a tool, a moron, a putz, a fool. The value of giving people your opinion of them is vastly overrated. Seriously. Lack of voting, political corruption, moral corruption (I'm sure that one will be popular on slashdot), stupid kids, shaky economy. These are only 10% of reason why this country "is in a mess right now"? Or, better yet, all these things are caused by people simply not speaking their minds?
Whatever.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
There's something very wrong with American's "unofficial fourth branch" of government when people have to watch a COMEDY show for scathing truth about politics and world events.
anonymous reader is the source? This isn't news!!! How do I get this crap off of my google news toolbar?
No, it isn't. Unfortunately, some people can't distinguish the difference between criticizing China and criticizing the Chinese.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
This does not surprise me in the least. What we as American Voters should do is vote for the candidate that isn't bought by these donations!!!
That is also why NBC, CBS and ABC national news casts are no longer watched by a majority of television viewers and not in my home at all. LEFT WING NEWS all the time.
Lieberman is a douche. He supports involuntary censorship of video games, i.e. he does not support the first amendment, i.e. he can not ethically take a job that requires the defense of the Constitution.
Not that there aren't other things wrong with him and not that others are perfect, but hey, Slashdot->video games -> Lieberman is a douche meme.
Need to nip this Spelling Bee bullshit in the butt.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Since both mainstream Republicans and Democrats oppose it (both want a large spending government these days) I would say you probably do.
That's the problem with [the other side], they can't approach things without an intensely partisan mindset.
Irony, much?
We'll see what happens when Obama is president and the Democrats control Congress. I'm a moderate conservative, and I find Colbert hilarious. Stewart? eehh eeh eehh... not so much.
The graphs only show +/-60 days, a time period in which TFA suggests that the appearance on tCR is causing a shift in fundraising. What we need, to get a sense of the impact of tCR is to look at these same candidates in time periods when tCR is not a possible influence, e.g. +/- 120 days.
It's all well and good to look at non-tCR candidates at the same time as the appearance, but we also need to look at tCR candidates at other times.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I partially agree. There is a difference between tolerance and respect. You can be intolerant of someone's behavior and respectful at the same time. The problem is that people are tolerant of their politicians' behavior (or maybe just apathetic), and don't hold them to a higher standard, which they can do by not electing them. But, hey, as long as they get that corn subsidy through Congress, who cares if they're molesting children online, right?
Clearly you aren't a regular viewer.
Stewart invites Republicans on, even reads their books if they have it, and asks real questions on why they've chosen to do what they've done at certain junctions. He'll even agree with some decisions and offer counters and give examples of other directions they could have taken.
What he's doing is an actual interview. What the "REAL" media should be doing instead of stupid Crossfire-type programs. The only difference is he throws in jokes. It's still Comedy Central afterall.
Dunno if he *could* have got enuff sigs, but he was warned that appearing on a primary ballot, even in jest,could cause his show to be classified as campaign material. That would have invoked all sorts of 'equal time' rules or some such.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Obama hasn't made any major mistakes in this campaign, he hasn't said anything stupid. He looks like someone who is very confident, calm under pressure, and isn't easily pushed into saying something he would regret later. It was very hard for the media to find something to latch on to play over and over -- so they basically had to make shit up. Therefore he had nothing to apologize for. ...
Clinton on the other hand left plenty for the media to grab. Weird emotional angles, dubious appeals to race
(Contrast this with Bush -- he gaffes all the time, but he never apologizes for it. And anyway he really gets a free pass.)
Actually I find Stewart's interviews with Conservatives to be quite interesting. Unless they start spouting nonsense he has some very wonderful diaglogues and hes good at getting to the bottom of whats being discussed. Sometimes I wish he had a non-comedy show so we could see this more. However, if the subject (from either side actually, he did this with Pelosi the other night) starts spouting BS, he generally opens up and will openly argue. The latter is clearly biased by the hosts views, but the former is very well done..
I didn't know I was part of an elite demographic. When do I start to benefit from this?
Everyone is a hypocrite. Gore's excessive energy usage at his home is one. But many give him a pass, because he buys "green" energy (whatever that is), probably from his own company. And flies around in private jets that most of us can't afford.
There are hypocrites on every side. Only the truly blind can't recognize this.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As any Colbert watcher knows, after an appearance on the Report, the size of their contributions triples in the next six months.
I came here for a good argument
He didn't "point out", he lied. The symptons MJ Fox exhibited were those of /taking/ the medication (L-dopa), not the disease.
I didn't detect much of a partisan air back then---they made fun of Clinton a lot, but it didn't come across as if they were conservatives or anything. And in 2000 they were pretty equal-opportunity in attacking both Gore and Bush. These days they come across as distinctly left-leaning; even as a left-leaning person myself it's sometimes a bit uncomfortable when they seem to lapse from humor into some sort of political monologue. So I'm not sure they can successfully, given the corner they've painted themselves into, go back to the previous, less-partisan approach of just making fun of whoever's in power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But perhaps the time for irony has passed. The thing that pisses me off is that Clinton lied about sex, and we all slap our knee and go on with ourselves. Bush knowingly invades a country with no plausible pretext, kills and maims a few hundred thousand people, and we're supposed to keep chuckling. Democrats and Republicans are equally cowards and chickenhawks, but at least the democrats don't go around waving their guns whenever some idiot across the world rattles his.
The insane cowardice and greed from Cheney, Reagan, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Bush II is absolutely the reason our economy (and culture, in my opinion) is in the toilet. Look at any deficit per GDP graph and any graph showing what we spend on the military since WWII. Every time we spend less money on war, our economy does better, and our debt goes down, and the dollar as a result becomes stronger. Why do you think they hated Bush I so much? He responded with appropriate action to Iraq in Kuwait, raised taxes to balance the budget instead of giving more breaks to the wealthy, and kept his secret prisons and genocidal right wing para-military campaigns in Latin America hush-hush. They hate Clinton because he raised taxes for the wealthy and cut military spending, and kept quiet about the embargoes that killed God knows how many Iraqi civilians.
What's the difference between McCain and Obama on Iran? Obama would talk to them before he'd consider dropping a nuke. He's right of Nixon for chrissakes, and I'll take Nixon over McCain any day.
Gah. This is offtopic and rambling. But I can't keep laughing about it, even on TDS or TCR.
Keith Olbermann attacks the strong and powerful. Those who can defend themselves.
Bill O spits on the weak, the victims. He verbally abused the son of a firefighter who died on 9/11 because he disagreed with him. He is racist. He is a warmonger. He wishes people's death on air for disagreeing with him. He practices sexual harassment, and has weird fetishes about fallafels.
It's not just a difference of opinion.
When Stewart gets interviews with big names, he usually softballs them. He wants them to come back. He is pretty tough on the little people in the administration, because no one really cares if Doug Feith or John Bolton never comes back. But McCain has been on the show several times, and he could be our next president. And wouldn't it be a feather in Stewart's cap to interview a sitting president? So, he softballs them.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think being "respectful" is 90% of the reason this country is a mess right now. The fact that the public is too scared of calling their politicians and politicians of other countries hypocritical lying murderers to their face out of fear of being called "disrespectful" or worse "un-American" is disgusting. Maybe you sir need a ball transplant since yours have obviously failed.
And I think that the general inability to forcefully disagree with someone without being disrespectful is, in fact, the biggest problem. If you think calling someone a hypocritical lying murder is a good way to get your point seriously considered, you are mistaken.
Courtesy and respect are fundamentals of civilized, intelligent debate and discourse. They're what's missing from our politics, and general policy discussions. They're not as much fun to read or say as ad hom attacks, of course. That's why you see and read and are reported so much of the sound bites and attacks. Sure, it feels good to accuse someone of being a liar or hypocrite, but it's much more productive to offer an attractive solution. The perception that anyone unwilling to denigrate the other side to make a point is a lack of balls contributes to the morass. If you can eloquently make a persuasive argument, you will advance not only your position, but the discourse. And advancing will get us out of the mess we are in right now.
In short, I disagree with your premise. I believe your position to be unenlightened, and generally contributing to the problem, rather than helping it. But if you read this, you'll see I didn't have to call you anything to get my point across. It's a shame this is too far down the page to ever get read.
I'm willing to bet that 1/100,000 chance of dieing from a first dose of coke is mainly because only 1/100,000 people are able to afford that much coke for their first dose.
Seriously, if the chances of OD are the only things keeping you from dusting up I'd say you should give it a go. Get a gram cut it up into 10 equal sized lines. You'll almost certainly be OK. As with all new to you substances, read up on the Erowid page first though.
Of course the Coke trade is a dodgy business and you'll be giving money to bad people, so don't make a habit of it mmkay?
Nick
You're right and make a good point, but I just have to say Colin Quinn was never funny. Not even on Caroline's.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
There are hypocrites on every side
Did I ever say that there weren't?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Oh goody, the liberals have banded together to make one show moderately successful. Meanwhile, right wing talk has so dominated radio that Democrats want to overturn the first amendment to silence it. Rush Limbaugh just got a contract for hundreds of millions of dollars while NPR can't exist without federal subsidies and beggar's nights despite owning all of the IP for Sprout and Sesame Street.
The Washington Post and New York Times lay off hundreds of workers because no one even reads their free sites while the Wall Street Journal can actually make money from paid online subscriptions. Fox News is usually always number 1, while MSNBC is a lukewarm also ran.
Even the remade Battlestar Galactica tanked in ratings once it tried to make the retarded liberal argument that we could even be friends with the Cylons after they destroyed the entire human race.
This is my sig.
Just about our entire Federal Government (US) is built upon lying murdering assholes. I said it about Clinton, and I said it about Bush.
The last president I had respect for, as limited as it may have been, was Ronald "Tear Down This Wall" Reagan. That took balls. And the Asshats on the left hated it, because he was provoking Russia. Whatever.
We need the same kind of President now. I'll vote for the first Candidate that says "Mr Putin, Get the FSK out of Georgia".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think the shows are very thought provoking, they are very funny but they are not news and they are nowhere near unbiased (which is ok as they are a comedy show). People up to and including political science professors at my alma matter (wish I could find it on line, Ive only seen the editorial in the alumni rag I get via snail mail) have praised the show as real news and are not bothered by the fact that its becoming a *primary* news source for some young people.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
"So, yes, the Republicans are more effective at betraying the country and completely screwing it up because they don't let facts get in the way of their "disciplined" assault on this nation and their support of their party over the interests of their country."
If you'd take your lithium for a minute and use some reason, you'd recognize that whatever your party, whatever your ideology, if your party's leadership can't crack the whip and line up the votes, they're not going to get anything done in Congress. Sloppy anarchy isn't a virtue in politics. If you want your party to be noble, free spirits that can't get their agenda passed, hey, best wishes and good luck. But most people actually want their political party to accomplish something. This is simple politics 101; if you don't have some unity in your political organization, you're not going to get jack squat done.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
MOD PARENT UP! Slashdotters need to make this happen for the American public. Even if I can't trust the Colbert-Black juggernaut, at least I'll ENJOY not trusting them...
Taco's kid isn't the only one. My son started watching Colbert with the family quite young. It never failed to get a reaction from six months onward: Sesame Street got interest and curiosity, but that eagle and the opening theme heralded a wide-eyed sit-up-take-notice response. It was so strong that we'd play Colbert to get him to stop crying during teething misery. (Not crying makes giving medicine a whoooole lot easier.) Nowadays, when we sit down to watch something and start the music, he promptly runs over and plants himself on the middle of the couch between us and stares raptly.
It doesn't last, of course - he runs off again pretty quick, particularly losing interest during the interviews - but everything before that seems to hold his attention pretty good, and he's now almost two. Stewart gets a lesser but equally approving reaction - he's more likely to come sit down with us, but not so likely to sit up and take notice at the opening theme.
Babies: nature's shininess meter.
By my experiments, Colbert > Noggin > Sesame Street > Stewart > Teletubbies, etc. There's a ranking system at work here in my boy's brain, though I'm not quite sure what it is yet, as he hasn't got the ability to inform me of his true opinions.
I will note: John Stewart introduced a puppet named "Gitmo". It was Elmo with a beard. When he fed that thing to the dogs, I do believe we experienced the boy's first traumatic television event. Ever after, the hubby vets the programs before the baby gets 'em. That was the one moment I regretted the TV. Most of the time, I tend to take Jeff Vogel's parenting approach. TV is a god at capturing a child's attention, and should be used wisely.
I'm just here for the pie.
Please describe how pointing out that one particular group in politics is intolerant, hypocritical and has ridiculous arguments is either hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous in itself?
BTW, I'm no democrat either, but the right wing take the cake in this arena.
It's not overtly political, but "King of the Hill" has a lot of fun skewering "liberal" positions - it's probably one of the most "conservative" comedies out there, and successful at it too.
Still, it's not dogmatic about who it goes after, and conservative absurdities take a licking on the show too.
When it comes down to it, the show's creator Ed Judge is against stupidity more than anything else (as shown in his recent film Idiocracy), but he seems to like going after the more subtle stupidities, like well-meaning but simple-minded positions not thought through well enough to notice the consequences being worse than the problem they're trying to solve. This is the kind of stupidity "liberals" are prone too, and it's a bit more work to figure out than the "conservative" stupidies which tend to be stupid on the face of it.
Because it's more work to understand, people tend to think "liberal" positions are simply inherently "less stupid", rather than stupid in a more complex way. So it's true that Republicans are easier to make fun of - Democrat politicians just look like stupid people, Republican politicians look like stupid people with stupid positions. It's both harder to reveal "liberal" stupidity and harder to understand it, so there's less making fun of it.
Nice screed. Both bad. EOL
"...objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences, subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." -Gould
its comedy seems to be FAR more high quality and audience more elite.
Read radical news here
There really is no fixing this. That is how party politics are. Not just here but anywhere. What we really need is to break the bi-partisan fixation of our government, i.e. let some other parties have a go.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
The greatest thing that's wrong with politics right now is this team sport cheerleader mentality.
You're absolutely right!
Just ask Joel Liberman, who supports the Iraq war and some tax cuts and was attacked by his own party by them running and financing another Democrat to take his seat.
Wait, what?
Joe Lieberman's primary challenge was the opposite of the team cheerleader mentality. Instead of saying "He's a Democrat; we can't challenge his seat!" people were willing to look at the actual issues he supported and decide that they could put a better Democrat in office. In other words, they were able to look past the team colors he was wearing and judge him by how well he was playing. Just because you don't agree with those voters' definition of "well", don't dismiss what a valuable service they're performing by making Democratic politicians more aware that even the 50% of the population that mostly agrees with them aren't going to give them a free pass for having a "D" by their name.
Now all we need is for more Republican voters to do the same; if so many of them hadn't put that "team spirit" ahead of conservative values, the Bush administration and their cronies might have been replaced in time to save their party from imploding.
There are a couple changes that could make this easier. Get rid of plurality voting so that it becomes possible for moderate third party candidates to run without sabotaging their own voters. Get rid of the seniority system that punishes anyone who wants to replace their incumbent in Congress. But I suspect that if we could somehow get past the psychological problems of party politics, we'd find it easy to fix the technical deficiencies.
In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
Now that I think about it, this makes sense. Babies love faces, and Colbert's broad satire comes with some really broad facial expressions. Angry, hurt, sad, gleeful, and more angry. It's probably the only grown-up show on TV which spends most of its time showing a big full-screen shot of a man making goofy faces. Even the Daily Show doesn't compare: Stewart has to deliver most of his punch lines with a newsman's straight face.
# nip it in the butt instead of nip it in the bud
A text-book case... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Now, he's dishonest to a degree, so he'll lie, exagerate or misreport when it suits him.
Same thing with Colbert and Stewart, if you're looking for it. Not saying this is a bad thing, just that this is what entertainers have to do sometimes to be entertaining.
Support the FairTax
You didn't. But many people only see hypocrisy on one side and not the other. Which makes them hypocritical. Its actually funny if you think about it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Talk about an "elite demographic" alright! It's more than just a little appauling that people who have either the Daily Show or The Colbert Report as their main source of news are identified as "elite."
Not saying that the shows aren't funny, but it's yet another sign of the perpetuation of uniformed voters and bumper sticker politics.
I stopped watching the real news years ago and now just DVR the Daily Show and Colbert Report. It's much easier to stomach with all the shit going on these days (not to mention hilarious). I love those guys and their reporters
"The irony when tending a flock of sheep is the dogs you put in place to protect them are genetically mutated wolves"
In my home we refer to Stephen as "Loud Daddy" because my child would scream bloody murder when we paused him (and only him) on screen. Even at 8 months old the kid has strange taste.
Papa Bear and now Loud Daddy. Heh, you need to email him that, I think he'd get a kick out of it.
Then again, Loud Daddy does sound like an annoying web 2.0 start-up.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I think there's a complication there, both for Stewart/Colbert and for people in general, of being seen as liberal or pro-Democrat when they are more strongly anti-Bush right now.
I know I've had it in arguments with co-workers. I think that Bush and the Republican party has done their best to trash this country over the last eight years. I blame the Democrats mostly for failing to stop it... but to be criticized to have to have done something.
What have the democrats led in the last few years? You can complain at them for enabling Iraq, but they didn't start it. Same for our economic problems, wiretapping, environmental policies, etc. They may be floating some crazy ideas, and they may be enabling the Republicans - but for recent history, they haven't been successful enough to be able to make fun of them.
I don't want ANYTHING that Obama is talking about. But I don't want to elect someone who continues Bush's policies, either. And so my complaints end up sounding pro-Obama.
I imagine the Daily Show will be just as funny after the election, because the mainstream media isn't going to stop being ridiculous any time soon.
"The first person to actually question the Bush regime said it right to his face at the press awards banquet."
I wouldn't say he was the first person to question the Bush regime, he just happens to have enough power and fame to have done it on TV in front of everyone.
easy.. check google trends... pick a unique mentioned word on colbert, and see how the trends behave...
I believe on most male mammals, the balls are not far from the asshole. So it makes sense, there is a very thin line between the two.
It's commonly known as the "taint."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
That reminds me of a joke I just made up.
What's a good liberal joke?
Education reform.
What's a bad conservative joke?
Economic responsibility.
...Bill O'Reilly's more evil twin. There, fixed that for you.
I watched the Colin Quinn show a few times because I actually wanted to see something similar 'from the other side' so to speak, but his comedy simply was not up to par with TDS. If it was out there with no comparison, it would have lasted longer, but the TDS was just infinitely better and thus Colin's show just looked bad by comparison.
The 1/2 Hour News Hour was a fricking train wreck. I watched a few mins of it a few times, but it was one of those things that was so terrible it wasn't even good at being bad.
No, they're identical twins, exactly as evil. I just didn't think I needed to point-out that Bill is evil.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Eh, I see it on both sides. My favorite example of Democratic/Liberal hypocrisy are those that talk about how important our civil rights are while simultaneously supporting gun control. Umm, WTF?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that this story is an elaborate TROLL written up by the writers at the Colbert Report. I mean c'mon...real world influence? LOL!!! You guys got suckered in on this one!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
You forgot South Park. I don't think I've ever seen more conservative humor, disguised as "libertarianism" (yet conspicuously making fun of liberals way, way more often than conservatives).
"...for example, when he made fun of Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease..."
He did not make fun of it. He stated that he thought MJF was acting to make his symptoms appear worse than they actually are and took issue with MJF's claim that embryonic stem cell research would cure him and others like him. As it turned out, MJF was not acting. He has a policy of strategically stopping his meds for certain interviews.
No need to dispute the source on that info either, as it was MJF himself.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Isn't Bill O'Reilly's evil twin Bill O'Reilly?
The joke about Ann Coulter is that "she" is a transvestite.
Just look at his adam's apple.
Your next post will either be concrete proof of this or an abject confession that it's a lie. Those are your ONLY possible choices.
I have plenty of proof. First is the assault on the free markets. Obama and his arch liberals have attacked:
Oil - see various speeches about "big oil"
Auto - see various speeches about telling Detroit what cars to build
Agriculture - see various speeches about "the price of food."
Coal - see cap and trade calls.
Health - attacks health insurance industry
Trade - attacks free trade
Finance - attacks lenders
Really, the question with Obama, and most leftists, is what business has he not attacked? Its pretty clear that Obama despises private enterprise, because, every time someone makes a profit, he's out there arguing that those profits need to be taken. And, in fact, if you really look at cap and trade, it really is, getting government's permission and a piece of every form of economic activity there is.
By the same token, Obama wants to vastly expand government even more than Bush has expanded it. He argues that, rather than everyone working the same number of days per year to pay their taxes, some folks should have to work, so that he can pay the bill for... let's see, his $500 billion civilian helper corp to rival the pentagon, his $300 billion health insurance plan, his plan to double medicare spending, his plan to increase social security spending, and his plan to buy everyone broadband...
So, he wants to restrict, tax, and otherwise disincentivize economic activity in the private sector, whereas turn off the brakes on government. This is essentially a command and control economy, where, in the supposed name of saving the planet and helping the poor, Obama and his boys and girls will build a federal state that consumes nearly every dollar of profit earned by everyone, and gives it to himself.
That's pretty commy crap enough for me.
Piggy Piggy super Obama on top. Or, maybe he just wants to be like a Pharoah. Daddy's little Pharoah... that's your Liberal Messiah.
This is my sig.
For you international viewers, The Daily Show has a global edition that airs on CNN International
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
True true, but it's a compilation of all the week's stuff, putting 4 episodes in 1. :)
It's good because you get to see another intro that you won't see otherwise, but personally, I prefer the complete episodes on the website.
I'm VERY happy that I can watch the complete episodes without being chewed out because I don't live in the US
This is the sig that says NI (again)
But what about RON PAUL?
(ha-ha, only serious)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
My theory on gun control:
Your right to own a gun ends at my right not to get shot by one.
Chris Rock is right. We don't need gun control. We need Bullet Control.
John McCain has been on the Daily show many times. The problem is, he used to be someone who stood up for certain things that broke away from his Republican counterparts. This made him and Stewart get along swimmingly. Now that he has basically flip flopped on everything that made him a decent human being to be completely in line with Bush, you can see the interviews with Stewart have a sad tone to them. As if Stewart lost a best friend to drugs and prostitution. If you really want to see uncomfortable, watch the Daily Show with Dick Cheney's wife. Yikes!
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Right, it's Velociraptors.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
On cable?
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
maybe he thought that americans might need some clarification.
it's funny because it's true.
Actually, I know a lot of Republicans who loathe Stewart but love Colbert.
I don't think they get it.
expandfairuse.org
Yes, because being politically correct is clearly a hallmark of the Republicans, while the Liberals seek to break down all barriers to any sort of unfettered speech.
What's up, my ni...
For enabling us to feel like we can ditch our nuclear program? I'd say it's worth the cost.
Keep in mind that you're blaming a budget issue on a Republican president that had a Democratically controlled congress. Last time I checked it was congresses job to create the budget.
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
No, he's not a comedian, he's a partisan hack that uses his show to further his own political views. Yes, he uses comedy to make his points, but rather than being done for the sake of comedy, it's basically done with the intent of reducing his opponents to absurd strawmen. If you agree with him politically, you love this because it's basically angry browbeating of a caricature. It's more like a gym class bully than an actual comedian.
Now compare this to the Daily Show, which specializes in pointing out hypocrisy or pinpointing the absurdity in what would otherwise be considered fairly normal, or the Colbert Report which makes fun of the browbeating that the Rush Limbaugh show does.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
You obviously haven't heard of the secret ingredient.
Fluoridated water.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not that 'they' intended it to be.
But it was such an obvious Hollywood left circle jerk it eventually came down close to Colbert as an unintentional self satire.
Unless you agreed with it, then it was wonderful...squirt/ooze.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It will never make it true.
FYI 'Democracy Now' is also a liberal program.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Have Colbert/Stewart ever displayed the kind of judgmental and hypocritical attitude as Limbaugh?
I don't think your comparison is apt.
For the most part, but there are a few noteable examples. Jay Severin comes to mind. I'm liberal, and honestly, I think the guy is really funny. It's all about the delivery.
The article isn't what I feared it may be from the title.
I enjoy Colbert's show, but I'm really not interested in the "measurement" of his "bump".
The line between having huge balls and being an asshole is very thin. In general stating truths that people are afraid to state is ballsy. Like, "China is a totalitatian regime." And, "Cheap products in American stores are manufactured by people working under conditions equivalent to slavery in China."
Great humor is painful. Free Tibet.
That was the best part of the speech, and very appropriate at a press awards banquet. A vicious rebuke of people charged with reporting the truth, who failed miserably.
Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
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!
Don't dare try to have a different opinion other than the teams party lines, otherwise, they'll try a hostel take over of your position. Just ask Joel Liberman, who supports the Iraq war and some tax cuts and was attacked by his own party by them running and financing another Democrat to take his seat.
If the sentence...
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. .. Is a joke, then yes, it is pretty funny.
How about going to the sex tourism capitol of the world with a big bottle of unprescribed Viagra. Class act that Limbaugh.
When does an analysis show obvious disregard for enough of the facts that it becomes diatribe?
Gahhh, I forgot to preview :/
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The Colbert Report appears to exercise 'disproportionate real world influence'
I don't think so - humour is often the most honest way of communicating news and viewpoints about the political reality, especially when the "serious" news are controlled by special interests. We saw that in the old East-bloc - you couldn't criticise the government in the news, but you could often get aways with it in comedy.
It is interesting to see that the democrats gain from appearing in a comedy show and the republicans don't. Perhaps it is because people have a lot of sympathy for a persons that can laugh at themselves? I often get the impression that the republicans take themselves very seriously.
Screaming when his face is paused? It's said that children can see the *real* faces of demons... ;)
Same here (France -- oh yeah, we cheese-eating surrender monkeys just looove these guys ;-)
Besides, Stewart and Colbert not only call on the hypocrisy of politicians, but they also call on the media (esp. Jon Stewart) and the way they choose to present (and often distort) news and events. This is at least as important, for a healthy democracy, as criticizing politics.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I can't imagine how Bill O'Reilly could be the "good twin" of a pair...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Your right to own a gun ends at my right not to get shot by one.
Under that theory we should outlaw drivers licenses -- your right to drive ends at my right not to get run over.
And hence, I do my best to avoid driving on the sidewalk so long as you do your best to avoid walking in the middle of the road.
Just a note on China owning all of our debt; So what?
Just as Athens did thousands of years ago, if the U.S.A.'s debt ever becomes too much of a burden, they can declare that it doesn't apply any more and anyone who has a grievance can see our military.
Tip of the hat for the xkcd reference.
Wag of the finger for daring to imply Bears aren't the #1 threat. Velociraptors may be a close second, but don't forget who's really in charge.
I watched one episode during the primaries where they really tried to have a bunch of jokes about Obama... No one in the audience laughed and John Stewart whispered to the camera "guys it's ok to laugh at him" since then I haven't seen them go after him as hard.
Also the reason democrats see a boost and republicans don't is very simple. The first reason is the Audience is an extremely democratic demographic. The second is Republicans get most of there money from people with a lot of money. Lobbyists rich businessmen, people who benefit most from the lower capital gains tax and smaller min wage etc
Please describe how pointing out that one particular group in politics is intolerant, hypocritical and has ridiculous arguments is either hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous in itself?
BTW, I'm no democrat either, but the right wing take the cake in this arena.
First, your idea that the right is "hypocritical, intolerant or ridiculous" is soundly disproved by the fact that only the Democratic Party has a former KKK member within its ranks. It doesn't help that he is considered a "respected member" of the party.
Let's see, "ridiculous arguments"... Well, "The Surge is a Failure" comes to mind. More recently, "Drilling for oil won't help for 10 years" is another doozie. Instead, they prefer alternative energy which won't help for 30 years. We send kids to school every year that won't graduate for 13. Besides, that is exactly what they said 10 years ago.
Intolerant? How many times to you see people on the right celebrating when someone opposite the aisle gets cancer? I can't find anyone who is happy that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. Take a look for yourself for a find example of the tolerance of the left. Then, of course, there was the rioters throwing snow balls at Bush's motorcade on his way to his first Inauguration. How many of these people apologized when it was proven that he actually won the election? If you need more examples, they are easy to find. Check out The Daily KOS, Huffington Post or Democratic Underground.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi, who promised, "We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship." Is that what she meant when she turned the lights out on them? Maybe she was referring to her quote, "The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans." when she refused a vote to allow offshore drilling. How about her saying, "Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way." and then saying that Bush is a "Total Failure"?
Hypocritical? There John Edwards winning "Father of the Year". Also, what did Milosovich do that Saddam Hussein didn't? Why was it OK to overthrow the government in Bosnia, but the Senate approved and funded war in Iraq is somehow "illegal"?
Now look, I'm not saying the Republicans are perfect, but don't ignore the sins of one party in order to bash the other for doing the exact same thing!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Now you've gone from "I already gave you proof" to "Go find proof yourself!". This is backpedaling, and a further admission that you have no proof.
First off, the fact that Obama commonly runs against McCain by saying that McCain is to continue the "Bush" economy implicitly rejects Republican economic policies. In fact, he does this explicitly in his book. So, what are Republican policies, and who do they favor, and how would Obama reject that. So right off the wheel, based on that statement alone, Obama is against free trade, domestic manufacturing, coal mining, farming and oil drilling, because, the Bush economy has been to be pro-free trade, devalue the dollar to promote domestic manufacturing, increase coal mining and oil drilling, and other resource extraction.
Saying that Obama is a radical leftist if not downright communist is like calling the sky blue. There's not a single statement that I made that could actually dispute. Still, for the benefit of our readers, here we go:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Some salient points:
Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest.
Just read what he says.... it's not like he's trying to hide anything. Full bore commy liberal, and all the heavy handed state stamping out of free enterprise that follows.
This is my sig.
He mocks everyone constantly, but there is a bit of a difference in how he does it that betrays his bias. His mockery of republicans is usually along the lines of "what are those crazy people thinking?" Whereas against democrats he tends to be more "come on, guys, I was counting on you and then you sucked." He doesn't give anyone a free pass (which I greatly appreciate) but he does betray his bias a bit.
No one can be completely bias free. Frankly, I'd rather get my news from a source that clearly shows its bias then one that claims to be bias-free.
No, I will not work for your startup
Your response to policies leading, by your own admission, to another World War is ``so what?''?
Good luck winning that war without an economy, too.
Frankly, I think that's more damning. There are a lot of people in this country who would far rather vote for someone whom they politicaly disagree with, but who at least has guts and principles they are willing to stand up for. If a person truly believes the country is being hurt, and isn't fighting tooth and nail to stop it, how can we possibly entrust them with the reigns of power?
This is why Democrats keep loosing elections, even though polls show they hold the majority positions on most issues.