Yesterday I saw an amazing act of defiance. Stephen Colbert took to the podium on the White House Correspondence Dinner (video), and began to speak for the millions of frustrated people around the world. After forty minutes of very light material, including some back patting, Stephen Colbert humiliated the president by speaking in his Colbert Report character (an ignorant, but patriotic news reporter) and tried his hardest to associate the president to his character. Many thought Colbert went too far, but this is the character they paid to see. They should have not have expected anything less.
He’s not so different, he and I. We get it. We’re not brain backs on the nerd patrol.. We go straight from the gut, right sir? [Look directly at Bush] That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut.
He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man’s beliefs never will.
This is amazing (and not cruel) because it points out the flaws in Bush’s personality that he often has prides himself on and is often humorously celebrated. Colbert completely undermines Bush’s supposed stedfast personality trait and shows how absurd and dangerous it is.
Now, I know there’s some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full…because 32% means it’s 2/3 empty. There’s still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn’t drink it. The last third is usually backwash.
Colbert’s remarks fall inline perfectly with Bush’s statements. Bush has said that he does not pay attention to poll numbers and does not like to read the newspaper. I’ve read some blogs which say that Colbert was disrespectful, but it’s only offensive because it’s close to the truth and associates Bush to Colbert’s idiocy even more.
People critical of the speech say that Colbert was disrespectful to the president. But what is respect? How does someone get respect? By having power? If that is the case dictators should deserve the most respect. Respect does not (should) come with power! I do not think that Colbert disrespected Bush, if anything he was defiant, playing his fictional character, in spite of how accurately it portrayed Bush.
So far Bush and his supporters are offended. We should expect this to be a front page story, correct? Nope. Colbert also associated the large media companies to his idiocy.
Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the affect 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. Put them through a spell check and go home.
What are the consequences for offending the media? Today we learn that if you offend main stream media: you disappear (from the headlines). So far we’ve seen almost no mention of Colbert’s speech in any of the major papers. We’ve seen it covered in the Huffington Post (Peter Daou: Ignoring Colbert: A Small Taste of the Media’s Power to Choose the News and Ignoring Colbert, Part Two). How is that possible? How is the that the “most powerful man in the world” can be humiliated in a room of reporters and no one reports it? How is it that man who speaks for people’s frustrations around the world, and now has over 12,000 thanking him, can not be considered news worthy? I am not from the conspiracy-theory mindset that blames “MSM” for everything that fails in the world, but there is no way that you can watch this video and think Colbert is irrelevant.
Just a few weeks ago we heard that Chinese press censored the protester who heckled President, Hu Jintao. I am not suggesting that the US government asked the media to censor the reporting, but this is exactly the type of self-censorship that the media has practiced in order to protect the president, and has gotten it in hot water before. The media’s responsibility is to be a loud speaker for the people and is not better than China when it shuts out resentment held by its people!
Colbert showed the Emperor has no clothes, and the Washington press corps showed they are little more than fashion reporters.
On the contrary, Colbert did clearly disrespect Bush. He called his competence into question in front of lots of people in a way bush had no way to defend against. Whether or not this is bad is what should be up for debate – i happen to think it needs to happen more – but to say that it was a respectful performance, or that Colbert showed any respect for Bush is simply not the case. It was a clear articulation of the views of many people, including Colbert, who have nothing but utter distain for Bush, not respect.
i could see jon stewart and colbert sitting around after this, deciding which had more effect: the crossfire charade or this speech. the man had balls of titanium.
i believe that it doesn’t matter whether or not the media commented on it. the word-of-mouth is enough. if they are trying to get a younger generation to perk up and get more informed, all signs point to success.
i mean, who would have watched the white house correspondence dinner if not for colbert? but we did watch it, and probably if you didn’t understand all the jokes, you looked them up.
i think that’s the most important thing about the speech.
Elizabeth, the reason why a lack of mainstream coverage is bad, at least imho, is that the word of mouth effect tends to be among people who thought it was cool to begin with. The mainstream media tells lots people about it who don’t have friends that already watched it on YouTube or wherever.