Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus


More On The Colbert Blackout

The traditional media's first reaction to satirist Stephen Colbert's uncomfortably harsh mockery of President Bush and the press corps at Saturday night's White House Correspondents Association dinner was largely to ignore it.

Instead, the coverage primarily focused on the much safer, self-deprecatory routine in which Bush humorously paired up with an impersonator playing his inner self.

The result, however, was a wave of indignation from the liberal side of the blogosphere over what some considered a willful disregard of the bigger story: That a captive, peevish president (and his media lapdogs) actually had to sit and listen as someone explained to them what they had done wrong; that the Bush Bubble was forcibly violated, right there on national television...

Thanks to Marcie.


At 6:51 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

I'm not sure why people read newspapers for news (as opposed to housing, good eats, etc.)

The first place I heard about this story was on Digg. A dude posted a torrent to the entire cspan coverage, and I watched it right away.

Why would I need the NYTimes to tell me what happened?

It's funny when people on the further left (of the times) try to prove that it has no bias by showing how it doesn't go to their extreme. I've found, while living in MA, that there is a very, very specific brand of liberals that are tolerated. Colbert is outside that group.

At 9:33 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

I think The New York Times often has well written, informative, and intriguing articles.

Since they derive income from their readership, it makes sense for political-minded people to criticise The Times when it reveals biases.

At 9:56 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

yah ... "good eats", and it also has a great travel section.

I think there is a strong trend: information presented in newspapers that is inherently editorial is good. It is more honest. It isn't trying to be objective because it isn't.

Reading the news from a source lieing about it's intentions is a bad idea.

I think the NYTimes should reveal their biases and run with them. I'd certainly respect them more.

At 7:59 PM, Blogger Miguel said...

May 3
NYT picks up the story.
Sploid has the advantage.

At 12:08 AM, Blogger joško said...

Best line:

"The dazed president looked like a retarded kid being stomped by street toughs."

At 9:46 PM, Blogger joško said...

Letters to the NYT:

To the Editor:

Re "After Press Dinner, the Blogs Are Alive With the Sound of Colbert Chatter" (news article, May 3):

The "debate" in the blogosphere over Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner misses the point. The routine was neither a flop nor very funny.

Mr. Colbert's aim wasn't to please the attendees; there was no trace of anxiety when a "zinger" was received in silence. His real audience was at home, and his aim was to make his allegiances clear. On that score, it was no flop.

And although I am a fan of Mr. Colbert, I rarely laughed. If his performance wasn't funny, perhaps it was because he wasn't joking.

Andrew Price
Berkeley, Calif., May 3, 2006

To the Editor:

Even if the major media uniformly found Stephen Colbert's performance to be unfunny, does that make it unmentionable?

Beyond that, funny or not, the clubby, almost collusive relationship that has evolved between the press and the White House was made more obvious by their mutual discomfort and shared silence.

Reese Lloyd
Atlanta, May 3, 2006

To the Editor:

I don't think the problem is that Stephen Colbert was "predictable" or not creative enough, as Mary Matalin, the Republican strategist, would have us believe. The problem is that the room was full of people who take themselves too seriously.

I suspect that what that crowd really expected was that Mr. Colbert would play ball, tone it down, gloss over the issues and be the chummy sort of hail-fellow-well-met sycophant they are comfortable with.

Tracy Brooking
Kennesaw, Ga., May 3, 2006

To the Editor:

Asking Republican pundits and members of the Washington press corps if Stephen Colbert's routine was funny is a little like asking the Yankee front office and the team's fans whether they think the Red Sox winning the World Series was gratifying.

The defensive statements you printed from those made most uncomfortable by Mr. Colbert's "truthiness" only add to the delight of those of us who thought he was really funny.

Christine Burns
Tuckahoe, N.Y., May 3, 2006


Post a Comment

<< Home