Stephen Colbert addressed at the White House Correspondents Dinner

[Element Alpha]

I think this is what happened (consider this a recap):

Firstly, Colbert gave his performance, where he made fun of the press and the president.

Secondly, noone in the audience laughed. Instead they were offended. This is because this was a dinner composed out of press and governemental highly ranked personnel (Colbert's jokes were on them).

Thirdly, because they were offended, the press decided to ignore Colbert in their reporting.

Fourthly, the video of the dinner started circulating around the net and people started to discuss it. This was not expected by those of the press, who thought they would succeed in covering this up (like they used to in the good old pre-internet days?).

Fifthly, as a first reaction to the amount of interest on the net, the press decided to argue why they didn't talk about it more (i.e. in obscure columns). They stated various reasons, all the way from "he crossed the line" to "he just wasn't funny".

Sixthly, the press still doesn't realize they were not supposed to find it funny or be the judge of wether or not he crossed some line, they were supposed to do their job and report the story the way it deserved to be told: in big captions making the headlines.

Lastly, the issue has completely changed shape, from a comedian making fun of a couple of important characters, to the realm of journalism responsability and their duty to report news items unfiltered by their own collective ego.


Internet discussions are proving to be a valid news control mechanism in this case.

On a sidenote, I wonder if Colbert had exactly all this in mind all along, or if it was just a series of unfortunate events?

 

[CptStern]

mainstream media didnt pick up on this because it's a non-issue ..they dont cover celebrity roasts unless it's in the entertainment section ..and that wasnt entertainment ..at least not for the people in attendance. Also most media is corporate owned, uncomfortable video where the president is mocked isnt exactly what they believe their readers/viewers want to see

oh and incidentily it is being reported in mainstream news, just not on the front page:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...&coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12634554/
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2006/05/stephen_colbert_funny_how.html

but they buried it in the editorial section


here's a very interesting article about why it went ignored by the mainstream media:

..it wasnt funny

Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write in The Washington Post's gossip column: "The reviews from the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner are in, and the consensus is that President Bush and Bush impersonator Steve Bridges stole Saturday's show -- and Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert's cutting satire fell flat because he ignored the cardinal rule of Washington humor: Make fun of yourself, not the other guy.

however this article argues the point that Colbert's real audience wasnt at the dinner; it's online:

"What anyone fails to get who said Colbert bombed because he didn't win over the room is: the room no longer matters. Not the way it used to," says Poniewozik. "The room, which once would have received and filtered the ritual performance for the rest of us, is now just another subject to be dissected online."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2006/05/stephen_colbert_funny_how.html

 

[Element Alpha]

I read the guardians' article, and I do agree with their point. (This is what I meant by asking if Colbert planned this all along)

Still, over here in Europe, everyone saw the twin Bush act, while noone even heard of Stephen Colberts' name, let alone his satire speech.

The main difference with the pre-iraq stories you mentionned the other day is that in this case, the evidence is here for everyone to see for themselves.

This in turn demonstrates mainstream news can and will abuse their narrative power anytime they want to is a fact, as there is no doubt about the evidence, which is right at hand (the video).

 

[CptStern]

and I agree ..but it's not all that hidden or surprising at all:


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/26/1085461831616.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1282106,00.html

I mean's there's 115 instances listed here alone where the media ignored/misled/falsified etc evidence critical to the invasion of iraq

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/prewar_intelligence_wmd

also Colbert is well known in north america (he's even in my son's Elmo video) ..not so sure about his fame overseas

 

[Raziaar]

AHAHAHahahahahaha. Colbert is a ****ing Z! Zzzzzzzzz.

Colbert comes in last, but he's always on top!

 

[Laivasse]

I had never even heard of him until seeing this vid, but it was great stuff. This freedom to do this kind of thing is the backbone of democracy.

The original links are dead and I couldn't find it anywhere on youtube. Anyone still looking for it can get it here.

 

[SubKamran]

I love that speech. <3

 

[Fragalishus]

I had never even heard of him until seeing this vid, but it was great stuff. This freedom to do this kind of thing is the backbone of democracy.

The original links are dead and I couldn't find it anywhere on youtube. Anyone still looking for it can get it here.

Yeah I was just reading that C-SPAN made youtube take it down, but they're allowing google video to host it. And so the plot to dominate the world continues. I hear it's available on C-SPAN's site, too.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The reactions are what really show the comedy here. Most rights are calling it a bomb, while the left are calling it genius.
I read somewhere, though, about the difference between a humourist and a satirist:

"One makes you laugh out of amusement, the other makes you damn uncomfortable if you happen to be the one being satirized."

 

[B_MAN]

i loved the blank, unimpressed stare found on most of the audience's faces
well done Colbert

 

[Jintor]

If they couldn't handle it, why did they invite him?

 

[Murray]

Blargh, can't edit first post so I can insert the link. Sorry.

 

[Element Alpha]

This thursday, Rumsfeld heard hard questions from a former cia agent, just after having protesters removed from the room. The cia guy asked Rumsfeld why he lied about the WMD's, and quoted Rumsfeld words from back in 2002. Rumsfeld stuttered, of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw&search=rumsfeld

Colbert got the ball rolling...

 

[CptStern]

This thursday, Rumsfeld heard hard questions from a former cia agent, just after having protesters removed from the room. The cia guy asked Rumsfeld why he lied about the WMD's, and quoted Rumsfeld words from back in 2002. Rumsfeld stuttered, of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw&search=rumsfeld

Colbert got the ball rolling...

thanks for the link

god

"I havent lied"

I cant believe that got applause. Rumsfeld was directly quoted. To his credit when they were asking for McGovern to be removed he said "no let him stay" ..he should have listened to the audience ..wow he really dug himself into a hole. I bet the whitehouse press core will clamp down on who gets into these sort of things. I cant help but feel this sort of criticism/questioning of "facts" is 3 years too late but at least it's something

you should drop by the politics forum more often Element Alpha

 

[Element Alpha]

Yeah, I know. I admit I lurk a lot compared to how often I post. But this topic got my blood running faster.

I really enjoy how the confrontation between mainstream media and internet (anonymous) reporting is headed in favor of the latter.

This wouldn't have been possible just five years ago.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Yeah I was just reading that C-SPAN made youtube take it down, but they're allowing google video to host it. And so the plot to dominate the world continues. I hear it's available on C-SPAN's site, too.

Well, as long as it's still being shown.

So just remember it is your duty (civic duty for those of us in the USA) to link the video to anyone who hasn't seen it.

[new google video link]