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.
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.
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."
Hmmm...sure are a lot of rich Dems though, aren't there? We just give them a pass. They can tell us to bike to work and reduce our carbon footprint while they fly private jets and ride in SUV cavalcades.
"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
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.
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.
I used to spend a lot of time on the C|Net site, but in the last year or two they've gone very "green", often "hard left" - and the point is good. This is not supposed to be about politics, and just because we're techies doesn't mean we all fall in lockstep with a political philosophy. And much of "environmentalism" is highly political. So report on "green" by all means, but keep the emphasis on how tech relates to it. When a post assumes that everyone worships Al Gore's position, you lose me as a reader. I'm also surprised to see this on Slashdot. Where's the tech angle? I think there are enough political sites that it's inappropriate for a purely political post to appear here. Let's hope that it isn't the policy at /. to drive away anyone who doesn't lean hard left.
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".
Well, it's news for Nerds and stuff that matters.
The Colbert Report is a popular show among a lot of demographics (nerds included). I'm sure if John Stewart or Stephen Colbert dropped dead today the story would make it onto Slashdot's front page and nobody would complain that it wasn't truly Slashdot material.
On top of which, the story connects with politics so that adds just of a little of "stuff that matters."
" 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 correct adjective form is Democratic.
"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."
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
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.
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
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.
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.
-- 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/
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.
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.
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.
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".
It's "Nip it in the bud." That's not a spelling error, so you should feel happy about that. Butt-nipper.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.