Stephen Colbert certainly made a big impression at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Many people in the room and covering the event were not impressed. Hey, he made the press out to be lapdogs. They almost came off worse than Bush. But if he hurt some itty bitty feelings in the press corps, good for him. The transcript from the event is pretty funny, and that's what counts in a comedy routine.
Personally, I'm inclined to appreciate that Colbert threw stuff this scalding at the POTUS from but a few steps away. Rock and roll! Slap that sumbitch around like an ugly, redheaded stepchild. Keep him humble.
Just do not pretend like you're seriously participating in political debate. Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are mere comedians, not intellectuals whose material should be taken seriously. Colbert is not, in fact, a legitimate political commentator making rational arguments based on facts. He's a liar and a slander artist. That's his job.
Look, comedy isn't fair. That's a given. Fair and balanced comedy is probably going to be worthless, and not even funny. Yuck!
But of course, you don't run the country based on frickin' comedy routines. I feel stupid for needing to say something that obvious, but we can't run our military based on punch lines from Comedy Central. It's going to take a little more than a half-assed Jon Stewart monologue to deal with crazy nuclear mullahs in Iran.
Specifically, I reject the underlying point of Colbert's claim of "truthiness." In his backwards comic way, he's arguing that he's speaking truth to power and that the power (Bush, et al.) is lying. That is, in fact, substantially exactly backwards on both counts. In reality, President Bush has been among the more honest presidents of recent memory — if only because he knows he couldn't get away with acting like Bill Clinton.
But more significantly, Colbert, et al., routinely make crap up. Colbert said at this dinner, "I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." In context, he obviously means Bill O'Reilly, but in all real truthiness, it's even more applicable when speaking of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. I think O'Reilly's a slug who'll twist facts and make mountains out of molehills, but he's generally not just making crap up. O'Reilly runs, perhaps, a selective facts zone, but Colbert and Stewart pretty much DO run "no facts zones."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ryan
I think you're on the right track, and the foundation of most comedy is lying by omission. That being said, Colbert is funny as hell.
2 - Eric Olsen
good points Al, and I mostly agree. Part of what people are responding to with Colbert is that a large number of people, of every political stripe, do respond to news and events as Colbert's neo-neoconservative does: not letting the facts get in the way.
3 - zingzing
hrm, don't you think that your article clearly illustrates exactly what colbert wants to say? that while he shouldn't be taken seriously, neither should o'reilly (who is an entertainer), and neither should bush (who pretty much fits your "not intellectuals who [...] should be taken seriously" and who use "an appeal to emotions rather than logic" who "just needs to be truthy enough with himself to accept that a lot of this shtick is just whoring for his [dwindling] audience.")
his comedy, like all of the best comedy, has elements of truth. or, truthiness. whatever. he points shit out... and that shit is funny. too bad for you if it works to point out how manipulative people like o'reilly and the current administration have been with "the truth" (smile, nod) vs. "the truth" (frown, shaking head).
liberals depending on comedy central is just as fucking stupid as conservatives depending on fox news. but, at least we get a laugh out of it.
4 - Barry
I like how you denounce everyone who doesn't have "evidence" and then add your own attacks without evidence. Really makes you sound intelligent. And there is clear evidence that Bush exaggerated evidence, but I guess that would just be opinion evidence.
5 - Michael J. West
liberals depending on comedy central is just as fucking stupid as conservatives depending on fox news. but, at least we get a laugh out of it.
Now there's an example of bias at its finest. I get PLENTY of laughs out of Fox News.
6 - zingzing
oh shut up.
7 - bogornes
Well, I agree with some points (Comedy isn't fair, a comedian shouldn't run the world, a punchline can't sum up a total argument). You follow up with a pretty bad example regarding Rumsfeld:
"OK then, let's look at that statement as an argument. The implication is pretty clear and simple: that Rumsfeld and the Bush administration have really screwed the pooch, and any major military guy who was speaking honestly would tell you that.
Except that there's no significant evidence supporting this implication. It is a statement of fact, not opinion, that there is no basis for these implications. There were half a dozen retired generals with who knows what combinations of personal and professional axes to grind who spoke out a couple of weeks ago. "
Read 'Cobra II' (maybe you have). The number of retired generals (0 or 5,000), axes to grind (your baseless, perhaps factless, editorial comment), the number of generals trotted out in support are ALL meaningless (they are merely ephemera). You fall into the same trap as reporters and politicians. (you opine, "...it is a statement of fact, not opinion, that there is no basis ...") There are lots of facts and facts matter (read the book! and many, many others). Colbert is just a comedian, but he daily points out that we live in an increasingly fact-free envrionment. WHO said something matters much more than WHAT was actually said, which matters more than what actually is TRUE. (and the loudest, most persistent one wins). It is the crux of his satire, and it is a devastating critique of our media (traditional and bloggy) and political discourse.
8 - Blue Meanie
Sounds to me like Al is a bit too busy crying in his 3.2 beer. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot do you?
For years we have had not only Limbaugh and his AM radio buddies doing this exact same shit, but they don't even have the decency to be funny, or label it "humor". Instead they have always taken the tone of journalists or reporters.
Then we got an entire 24 hour news network, most of whose airtime is at least as factually challenged as Stewart or Colbert and who pale in comparison of real reporting to the usually funny as well as informative Countdown with Keith Olberman.
But, as was said, "we all know reality has a liberal bias"
And that's the Truthiness.
9 - fran
Man, are you running scared! Can't take the truth, can you?
10 - Scott Kennedy
The biggest argument against taking Al's commentary with any weight is the selective use of evidence he employs. He offers one tepid quote of material from Colbert's routine, a joke about generals (for which he also omits the punchline), ignoring all the the much sharper, funnier, and more scathing material in the speech. If you haven't seen the video, you owe it to yourself to view and form your own opinion, rather than to accept the carefully edited version suggested by Al.
11 - JELIEL³
"In reality, President Bush has been among the more honest presidents of recent memory`"
Now that was funny, priceless even, ROTFLMAO worthy. And then I zipped through the rest of the article because all credibility was gone at this point.
But it takes humorist, satirists bringing the daily dose of much needed sarcasm for someone people to wake up. Comedy isn't policy, but bringing truth to light through comedy can only help. Humor can be a tool for change.
12 - Al Barger
Some of y'all, particularly Zingzing and Blue Meanie, are kidding yourselves in all different directions at once. You're volunteering as the targets of my criticism when you carry on like Colbert is an insightful intellectual. He's not. He's a comedian, a sitcom writer throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.
Plus, you're also just being silly with your attacks on Fox News. There are certain specific commentators that are more obnoxious- O'Reilly and Sean Hannity specifically - but Fox News is a perfectly legitimate news organization. I'd judge them to be more actually fair and balanced than other networks.
The main thing is that they present the known facts on major public issues, and they do have plenty of critics of the administration on network on a regular basis. Your basic complaint is really that Fox does not just go on blindly and rabidly attacking the administration at every turn.
Again, O'Reilly's a clown, and Hannity is a tool, but that's two commentators, not their whole staff of reporters.
This is not to say that Fox News is the only news source you need. That'd be stupid to say of ANY media source. Even with honest intent, their necessarily subjective choices in what facts to cover in what way certainly leaves stuff out. This would be true of any news organization.
Limbaugh is a curious middle case. I'm a middlin' Limbaugh fan at best, but he's basically legitimate. He presents himself as being largely entertainment, and specifically he presents himself openly as a political partisan making arguments.
But unlike Colbert, Limbaugh often clearly states a position on an issue, and presents relevant FACTS and at least an attempt at a reasonable argument. Now, you may question the relevance of some of his facts, or the line of his argument. I don't buy a lot of the stuff that he says.
But unlike Colbert or Stewart, he DOES present facts and arguments such that you can specifically argue against them. Limbaugh says that gas prices are caused by XXX, based on these data points. That's at least the beginning of an intelligent public discourse. In short, Limbaugh offers legitimate political argument, Colbert does not.
But Colbert IS a lot funnier.
13 - Blue Meanie
Well now Al, criticize away, from what heat you have brought so far I think a parka may be needed.
I personally have no idea what Colbert's intellect is, nor did I ever allude to such. Instead I have pointed out not only how insightful his most uncomfortable remarks were, but how devastatingly accurate and biting properly aimed sarcasm can be as a tool of political discourse.
You give yourself away defending Faux news and Limbaugh. Not a smuch as you did with the quote from your post that Jeliel set up there.
You can honestly, and with a straight face call this president honest by any stretch of the imagination?
Call your shrink, you need your meds adjusted. Case in point: the Pres states clearly on national Tv that he not only doesn't know anything about the Plame leak, but that he will fire anyone involved.
a Lie as has been born out in Fitzgerald's prosecution, not to mention what the WH itself has stated since.
There's lots more, folks have written whole books on how untruthful and dishonest Bush and his administration has been. Hell, just the NSA taps and torture shit that has come out of his signing statements has shown just what kind of lowlife he is.
But still you stick with the 30% of kool-aid drinkers that desperately want to believe and trust this scumbag and his cronies.
Do the measly few dollars of the tax cuts really buy your soul so cheaply?
14 - Al Barger
Jeliel, again, mere derisive laughter is not a political argument, or evidence that you are right. All that means is that you feel it way down in your gut- exactly what Colbert is mocking conservatives for.
Mr Kennedy, I actually offered TWO specific examples from Colbert's presentation- the generals and the scripted Helen Thomas quote from his "job interview." Those are intended as examples, not as a thorough line-by-line critique of his whole piece.
Also, the point was not to criticize them for not being funny, but rather for not being truthful. His presentation had a lot of the gut-level truthiness that he's nominally criticizing the conservatives for.
But I do second you in urging readers to see this for themselves. But better yet, separate the performance from the words he's saying and their meaning by clicking that transcript link and reading the text of his whole presentation.
15 - Al Barger
BM (comment 13), your comments are but a shotgun blast of derision, not any kind of logical argument. Stuff about calling a shrink and checking my meds is, again, not evidence that your outlook has any merit whatsoever.
Bush has mostly been pretty honest. He did NOT fabricate pre-war intelligence. He did NOT just make that stuff up about Nigerian yellow cake.
Now, you don't get to be POTUS without doing a little stretching and spinning. He didn't want to admit to knowing Ken Lay, and they haven't been very forthcoming on the Plame business.
I'm not necessarily even giving Bush much credit for great high morals. The hostile press keeps him halfway honest. He'd probably be stretching stuff a lot more if he thought he could get away with it, but he knows he can't.
Your broad shotgun of Bush hating reflects a lack of clear thinking. You blast Bush over NSA and torture, which complaints might have some merit. But they're NOT evidence of dishonesty. You might reasonably argue that Bush was overstepping his bounds with the NSA stuff, but that doesn't make him a liar. You need to be more clear and linear in your argument.
[SARCASM ALERT] But of course you're right that my defense of FNC and Limbaugh are evidence of my partisan bias. Any objective source of news or commentary would spend all day jumping up and down yelling about Bush being Hitler and a liar.
16 - ss
Actually, my dad is a Limbaugh fan, and although I haven't been subjected to Limbaugh for years, I heard plenty in his early days (back when Al would admit he was a fan, most likely).
Limbaugh would cherry pick an outrageous quote from a lefty Humanities prof, counter it with a cherry picked factoid from a right wing think tank, then go off on a rant. That was his bread and butter, and although a few conservatives caught on quick and disavowed his nonsense early on, many were captivated by it for years and years.
Those would be the same people continueing to argue that there were WMD's in Iraq.
17 - zingzing
and where did i ever say that colbert was an 'insightful intellectual?' i actually said he was a comedian, acting a fool to point out the foolishness of others. come on now. he plays like a neoconservative, a particularily stupid one... because it's fucking funny. what about comedy do you not understand? what about reading comprehension escapes you here? to say that we're "volunteering as the targets of my criticism" just makes you targets of our criticism of stupid targets of criticism who don't know that they are the targets of criticism. you think we're the ones that look silly here? no, it's bush and his ilk (which may now include you).
fox news is not, nor has it ever been, 'fair and balanced.' that's just a tagline. like 'i'm lovin' it' is mcdonalds' tag line. one has nothing to do with the other.
18 - JELIEL³
The problem with folks NOT on the left is that everything must fit in a little box and cannot be in more than one box at the same time.
Stewart, Colbert and folks like Letterman are cultivated intellectuals with bitting wit. Clowning around doesnt mean the clown isnt an intellectual. What makes them hystericaly funny is that they have the brains to see the big picture with a crispness that non-funny people lack. Just watch them when they interview people, they make references to history or what not that the layman knows little of. Stewart can completly crush the smartest of them with a knowledge base that is impossible to ignore.
There's steve-o funny, but there's also intellectual funny. Being smart is about seeing the complete puzzle without having all the pieces of the puzzle.
19 - Scott Butki
"Bush has mostly been pretty honest. He did NOT fabricate pre-war intelligence. He did NOT just make that stuff up about Nigerian yellow cake."
Stop, Al! You're killing me!
"mostly pretty honest" - quite an endorsement.
20 - Al Barger
Scott, I don't particularly mean this as an endorsement of Bush, but as a critique of his opponents. That's not the same thing at all.
Again, I emphasize that after a dozen chances I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush.
Nonetheless, the most criticized words of his administration, the main classic example of Bush "lying" is the 16 words from the SOTU- but in fact evidence clearly indicates that Hussein was actually trying to buy Nigerian uranium. Bush was absolutely accurate in what he said there, and not just in a Clintonesque legalistic way. No amount of sarcasm from Comedy Central will change that.
21 - Blue Meanie
Well Al, I have no need for a shotgun, and might I add that your swiping jibe earlier was responded to in kind, and you have done me the favor of repeating the same tactic?
Now that logic has shown truth, let's try a bit of fun.
Yes, I blast Bush over warrantless tapping and torture, not just because he authorized it, but because of the dishonest way he did it.
Publicly he signed Bills passed by the House and Senate he controls, which banned each of those things in specific. He then waits until everyone is gone and the cameras are off, then puts on his signing statements saying he doesn't have to listen to any of it, or follow the now passed laws.
Now, if that factual enough for you to see the blatant dishonesty and disregard for not only the country's laws, but the process as outlined by the Constitution?
Now, as far as your request that I be more clear and linear.
No.
I'll argue as I like, it's up to you to keep up. So far you appear to be the only one having any trouble doing so, and I've not put anything out there that recent polls show over 60% of the American people agree with.
As for your own feeble attempt at humor, Bush is a liar, proven time and again, but I will agree he is no "Hitler"
Hitler was competent.
22 - Al Barger
Again Jeliel, with comment 18 you are completely delusional, ascribing intellect and insight that are not in evidence. Name dropping a couple of historical allusions is not anything near to proof that Jon Stewart has any legitimacy whatsoever.
You're just so at up with Bush-hatin' that anybody who trash-talks him is considered to be a genius. However, merely throwing every possible vague and unjustified slander and derision you can think of against the wall to see what sticks is not at all a legitimate form of rational political argument.
And leave Letterman out of this. He's got more humility than to be caught up in this foolishness. He is not trying to delude the public into thinking that he's a crusader for truth and justice the way that Jon Stewart especially does on a daily basis.
23 - Al Barger
BM, your criticisms of Bush are irrelevant to my points about Colbert and Bush-haters. Even if Bush is a schmuck, that doesn't make Colbert's arguments legitimate.
I'm not real thrilled about the NSA stuff, but Bush has at least some arguable defense for it. I will tend to give him some benefit of the doubt on this issue, though. This is a legitimate policy dispute, not some personal corruption. Bush wasn't authorizing wiretaps on domestic political opposition, but trying to catch people who are trying to kill US citizens whom Bush is responsible for protecting.
The tactics in this instance are questionable, and it's perfectly reasonable to want to slap him around a bit on the topic. But this does not by any stretch justify comparisons to Hitler. If Bush erred on the NSA stuff, it was in the direction of being ham-handed in the pursuit of absolutely legitimate ends.
More importantly, this does not justify the irrational hit and run tactics of Stewart or Colbert being taken as legitimate political debate.
24 - deege
Would Al please follow his own rule that personal attacks are not allowed?
Satire, a time-honored tool for raising difficult truths, triumphed Saturday nite. For those who don't get it, well, having to explain a punchline takes the fun out of it.
Arguing with those who refuse to get it is probably a waste of time.
25 - Some
"legitimate political commentator". hmmm. Isn't this an oxymoron?
I think the people who dislike what Colbert did would like it to be about "hey, he is just a comedian, don't get your panties in a bunch and start questioning things" Well, Ronald Reagan was an actor, so in this world, I suppose the showbiz status doesn't really affect "legitimacy" in politics too much.
I agree. Stephen Colbert was hired to do a comedy routine, and he did it. But, the hubub that is surrounding it are people that haven't heard the press get slammed, be it through comedy or otherwise, in a very public format. Quite frankly...I enjoyed it. So, if political discussion and action of America's situation starts taking hold, who cares if it was a comedy routine or a "legitimate political commentary"?
And for that...Thank you Colbert!