Cohen -- who never criticized Bush's 2004 skit mocking lack of Iraqi WMDs -- called Colbert "a bully " for his "rude" and "insulting" correspondents dinner routine
SUMMARY: In a column titled "So Not Funny," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen declared that comedian Stephen Colbert's scathing routine at the White House Correspondents Association dinner was "rude" and "insulting," and added that Colbert was "a bully." However, Cohen offered no criticism of Bush when, in a pre-taped skit at the 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association (RTCA) in 2004, he made light of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
In his May 4 column, titled "So Not Funny," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen declared that comedian Stephen Colbert's scathing routine at the April 29 White House Correspondents Association dinner -- in which Colbert satirized President Bush, the Bush administration, and the press -- was "rude" and "insulting," and added that Colbert was "a bully." Yet despite his disdain for Colbert's efforts to poke fun at such topics as Bush's lagging poll numbers, Cohen expressed no disapproval of Bush when, in a skit that had been pre-taped for the 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association (RTCA) in 2004, he made light of the administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. By that time, more than 500 American service members had died in Iraq.
In his April 4 column, Cohen took exception to numerous jokes Colbert made during his 20-minute monologue:
Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s. He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.
Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the media for supposedly repeating the cliche "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." A mixed metaphor, and lame as can be.
In addition to labeling such jokes "rude" and "insulting," Cohen argued that Colbert, the host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, took "advantage of" Bush's "sense of decorum," and suggested Colbert's jokes about Bush's low approval ratings, his intelligence, Iraq policy, and domestic spying made Colbert "a bully." Cohen claimed Colbert could have used the opportunity to tell "Washington things it would have been good for them to hear," but he did not elaborate on what those "things" -- different from what Colbert chose to address -- might be. Cohen suggested that Bush not attend the dinner next year, writing "Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David."
Cohen, however, had no criticism for Bush's March 24, 2004, RTCA skit mocking the administration's failure to find WMD in Iraq. In fact, Media Matters for America could find no instance in which Cohen made any comment about Bush's skit.
The annual dinner featured Bush narrating a slide show with pictures of him searching the White House for Iraq's WMDs. As the BBC reported on March 26, 2004:
One pictured Mr. Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr. Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said.
And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"
At the time, more than 500 U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis had been killed in the conflict. Iraq war veterans and family members of fallen soldiers spoke out against Bush's joke, calling it "disgraceful" and stating that it "cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day." Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA) also responded, stating: "If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought. Unfortunately for the president, this is not a joke"
The day after the RTCA dinner, Cohen penned a column titled "Empty Talk at NPR," lamenting the termination of longtime NPR host Bob Edwards. A Media Matters review* of Cohen's columns since March 24, 2004, has found no mention of Bush's WMD skit.
* A Nexis search of The Washington Post for "(Richard w/5 Cohen) and Bush and WMD" from March 24, 2004, to May 4, 2006.
Bush poked fun at a war that he started, a war that has claimed American lives. He just wants to laugh it up about his false war marketing campaign while our military families grieve. What a despicable man this is.
Bush's search in the oval office for WMDs was the most disrespectful thing that I've ever seen in my life. We have in Bush, a man who calls himself "the war president", yet he, himself, chose not to go to war when he was a young man. He has no problem sending someone else to die. He is the worst type of coward. Most, are content to slink away, while GWB flaunts his phony tough guy image.
I think the veteran's who've supported him in the past should demand an apology. He and his ilk in the Republican Party have done everything in their power to heap glory on themselves while casting doubt on real heros who've opposed them at the ballot box.
I wouldn't hold your breath - I'm just sitting here anticipating all the righties who are - no doubt - already typing away "why are we still talking about Colbert" and "it wasn't funny" or "it showed a lack of respect for the man and the office" - you'll get no apologies out of this corrupt, evil bunch in the White House. Don't you remember? - The Chimp can't even think of any mistakes he's made as President. Colbert hit the nail on the head - it WAS funny as hell, but also a little uncomfortable to watch. The audience didn't know if they should laugh or panic. Wonder if Bush told Colbert that he did a "heck of a job". But, don't worry - next Comedy Central will be bought out by a religious broadcasting group (sort of like what happened to AAR in Phoenix) and they'll replace both Stewart and Colbert with Religious programming. And Colbert will probably be audited by the IRS for the next 10 years. I'm waiting for Rove to contact the Bass family to fund the creation of the "Comics for Truth" to smear Colbert, and tell us about how he drowns kittens for a hobby, and air doctored photos of him taking various women to Planned Parenthood clinics. Then they'll trot them all out on the morning shows, and start linking him to mysterious deaths. Any takers on that bet?
The righties calling anyone a 'bully' is ridiculous. Have some respect? Respect for a man and a regime that respects no one or anything? Forget it. Colbert is a hero... brass balls.
Apparently, Bush was upset by Colbert's bit... Amazing. I take heart in the fact that SOMEONE has the guts to stand up there and tell it like it is.
And I really like your moniker, worrierking! I don't post very often because the incipient fascism is so depressing, and, well worrying. All I can say is, thank goodness for MMFA and other watchdogs--they have stronger stomachs than I!
Bush has made the press his punk and they seem to both fear and love the man. Have you ever see how they gush over him and laugh at his stupid inane jokes. Colbert let the punks know the whole world knows their punks and the punks don’t like it. They had gotten all dressed up and their tuxes and evening gowns for a pleasant evening of light hearted entertainment and their pimp, I mean the President had agreed to honor them with his presence. You know the WH correspondents dinner is sort of like the infamous “Players Ball” where pimps and prostitutes get together annually dressed in their pimp-Ho finest to select the player (pimp) of the year. Hell it’s the event of the year and that damn Steven Colbert comes along and spoils it. That's why they are so pissed with him. Next time they better make sure the keynote speaker is some cornball like the Bush double.
Benjamin Franklin must be rolling over in his grave observing the cowardly weasels that want to call themselves news people. Do they realize how much trouble Benjamin Franklin got into lampoon the puffed up grandiose politicians of his day. Like Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart he often used satire to let the citizens know when they were being misled by incompetent buffoons. Colbert said what most a lot of us in the "real world" are saying everyday. And we would just love a chance to let the politicians and their main squeeze the press know how we feel about them. Go Steven!
You disrespect true pimps like Filmore Slim, Bishop Don Juan and Mr. Whitefolks with your Bush analogy. Replace Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rove with the three I mentioned and we wouldn't have started this foolish war. Our economy would be in much better shape also, it would be "looking good".
I watched Colbert's bit and it fit perfectly with his on air character - any one who expected anything else from him was just deluding themsleves. Satire and the best comedy has an edge - a sharp one that can and should cut. It was funny and it did make some there uncomfortable - too bad - time to come out from their Washington and Fox news cacoons. As to being a "bully" - compare Colbert's standup with how Bill O'Liely treat most who disagrees with him and you will be able to tell that there was nothing bullying about Colbert's bit.
Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are really the "no spin zone"
People like Cohen, Matthews and the rest of the media who have their collective panties in a twist over Colbert's spot-on skewering of the President and the gaggle of right-tilted sycophants and slavering fellatrices that now comprise the bulk of the White House press corps(e) because they are more concerned with keeping their cocktail party invites amongst the oligarchy in good standing than they are with telling the American people what's going on.
"We didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try and find out"
Does Cohen understand that the "mixed metaphor" of the deck chair gag was, um, part of the joke?
I can only imagine how Cohen reacts when someone quotes Yogi Berra.
>>Does Cohen understand that the "mixed metaphor" of the deck chair gag was, um, part of the joke?
Do you think it was part of the joke? I just think that it would have been hard to carry off the joke by not making a mixed metahpor. ("He was re-arranging the restuarant chairs inside the Hindenburg?")
But what strikes me is what a stupid, silly point on Cohen's part. That is like making fun of someone's spelling on a blog. You only do it when you have nothing else to say.
What Colbert did was expose the MSM for their collective incompetence during the run up to the war. Probably didn't sit well with Cohen who is smart enough to know that what Colbert said is essentially true, and that had to hurt. It's not easy being a lapdog.
I cheered Richard Cohen's brave and very welcome April 25 column, "No, It's Not Anti-Semitic," a rebuttal to Eliot A. Cohen's April 5 op-ed, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic." But, as Anonymous (former CIA senior official Michael Scheuer) noted in his book Imperial Hubris, sometimes it's not so much a question of speaking truth to power as of speaking truth to "hubristic arrogance."
And unlike Mr. Cohen, I doubt Mr. Colbert thinks he was speaking from a safe and secure position. For example, both of Tina Brown's (sp?) most recent enterprises seem to have ended rather abruptly after they gave voice to pointed criticism of President Bush. Just a coincidence?
Of course way too much is being made of Mr. Colbert's satirical speech supporting the president; but seeing as the subject remains in play...
Does it occur to you that Mr. Colbert's monologue at the dinner (again, delivered as a satire of a supporter of the president) was nothing different from anything he'd say as host of his nightly television show?
He nightly (and satirically) bashes the liberal media as "destroying America"; he nightly supports everything about the president (I love it when he asks Congresspersons "George W. Bush: great president, or greatest president ever?"); he nightly lampoons the Iraq debacle by voicing (satirical) support for it (he asks those same Congresspersons "Iraq: great war, or greatest war ever?"); he nightly satirizes all things about the Administration (I like when he inexplicably turns and looks right into the camera, and out of nowhere triumphantly declares "activist judges!", as though that single phrase should tilt all public discourse on the courts in one direction); he told the head of the ACLU right to his face that he was hurting America (the ACLUer responded with a smile, and a loud retort; he played his part well); he bashed Ralph Nader (who didn't do as well)...
And Mr. Colbert agreed completely with William Kristol on everything he stands for, and in the process exposed Kristol as a cheap mouthpiece for the Administration who didn't have the courage to publicly confirm his own convictions; all he could was grin the determined grin of the guilty, and stammer "I'm speechless".
It was the state-of-the-art in satire, and it was simply just another one of Mr. Colbert's nightly television shows.
What made the dinner speech any different from what he presents nightly?
HE SAID IT RIGHT TO THEIR FACES IS THE DIFFERENCE.
And did you see them sit there, "speechless" and grinning the determined grin of the guilty; it was the same response as Kristol's, but multiplied by hundreds.
RIGHT TO THEIR FACES WAS THE ONLY THING DIFFERENT.
I loved it (obviously); so did millions upon millions of Americans who have not the opportunity to speak to the Administration (and it's many hacks) right to their faces.
It was a great job; the professional satirist did a great job.
It was satire as good as I can possibly imagine it could ever get; better even.
Stephen Colbert: great satirist? or greatest satirist ever?
the NSA couldn't figure out he is a comedian ???????
"I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq" is pure genius!
I love that one, but the Hindenburg line was even better. What I really found amusing was Cohen talking about how funny he is, and how unfunny Colbert was, and criticizing the Hindenburg comment for being a mixed metaphor. What? That's one of the best lines I've ever heard, and I watch a lot of comedy. I have an extremely difficult time believing that anyone who is really judging a performance on its merits instead of personal bias is going to pick at such a great line for being a "mixed metaphor", even if it was one (which I don't quite get how, anyway).
Bottom line, Cohen is full of it. He says Colbert should have told them things that were good for them to hear (he didn't?) and that instead he was preaching to the choir (ummm how?). I have no idea why anyone should take this guy seriously.
it was SUPPOSED to be 'rude' and 'insulting'. I do wish the Post were not so editorialy incompetent, to the point they don't even read their own paper!
Can anyone fathom Bob Somberly's comments at dailyhowler.com? I am referring to those that read him. He is a leftist and generally factual, but Somberly actually supports Cohen. Somberly thinks Colbert is "dishonest" and "self-important," as well as saying he delivered a harrangue and was unfunny.
What the heck is going on with Somberly? I can see thinking Colbert was unfunny (humor is subjective), but why would he disparage Colbert in that way?
Colbert not only devastated the right with the most penetrating satire ever performed, he exposed the cover of their agent provocateurs who embedded themselves in the left camp. Colbert's routine drew lines in the sand; you can tell who is who by their reaction.
...because he's an idiot?
>>Colbert's routine drew lines in the sand; you can tell who is who by their reaction.
Somberly is not part of the group that cheers conservative democrats, or someone who lazily follows along with what is acceptable. He would really respect what MMFA does because MMFA is factual and not hyserical, like much of the blogger world. He has done some excellent work. Generally, besides MMFA, he is the most reliable site out there. Which is why I can't fathom his entries on Colbert. Somberly sounds like a Fox apologist, and I say that not because I disagree with Somberly, but because of his reasoning.
>>By conventional standards, he was rude to his hosts.
What conventional standards? He wasn't at a regular party. He was paid to skewer Bush. And the phrase "Idon't buy it" is about the weakest one. You can use it to dismiss almost anything. I also don't see that centrist voters will see Colbert as rude, and this comment also contradicts what Somberly said earlier, that Colbert pleased his TV audience. Centrist voters might see anti-war speeches or angry heckling as rude. I doubt they will say the same about a joke, if they pay attention at all.
I do agree that the Colbert thing is a bit of a distraction. It really won't make a difference. But then why does Somberly feel he needs to weigh in?
And by the way, how exactly is Colbert self-important just becuase he didn't please his audience? That makes no logical sense. Somberly also called Colbert dishonest for the same reason. This is some of Somberly's weakest rhetoric.
for this phony bush war. how about he apologizes for that? colbert is a bully? how about bush, who has let everyone opposed to him and his policies be portrayed as a traitor. bush gets the respect that anyone who has done his best to lead this nation to ruin deserves. in other words none. cohen and bush: two immoral peas in a pod. anyone who wanted to, could have gone to sites like buzzflash at the time and see every one of bush's prewar claims thoroughly discredited. there was a study done of newspaper editorials the day after powell's un speech [which means they were probably already written], and almost everyone was falling all over themselves with praise and comments about how solid his evidence was. but it was known at the time that the mobile labs evidence was probably faulty. the american media was a willing participant in the selling of this war. i say good for colbert. did he lie? is he responsible for thousands dead and maimed for life. that would be bush and you and your ilk, mr. cohen.
I'm just so sick of it. Day in and day out, more of the same. Worse every day. The people will rise up. They're not fooling anyone. If there was ever time for a revolution, this is it. Either impeach him, indict him, or face the consequences. It's just a matter of time, and time is running out...
A skinny white guy with glasses.
A bully.
Right. Uh-huh...
It's hilarious when GWB/Steve Bridges makes fun of his own approval ratings and his intelligence, but "rude" and "bullying" when someone else does it.
Got it.
I am curious. What did he write when Imus lampooned Clinton? I am sure it was something along the lines of "well, he deserved it." or.." the truth has come out."
What a double standard. He is a comedian at that. Lambasting a comedian for making jokes.
Cohen is a joke. When his IQ reaches 50, it's time to sell. Wait, that's Bush. I guess I am a bully now. Always wanted to be one.
I ran a search in the "Washington Post" archives back to 1987 for the word "Imus" with "Cohen" as the author. Cohen did not comment on the Imus performance at the Clinton dinner in 1996. However, that same year, Cohen did comment on an appearance that Bob Dole made on the Imus show.
Yeah, Cohen does exhibit selective outrage for different presidents.
I think I know what he's worried about: from his perspective, the left blogosphere is becoming "just like the right" in its tendency to put enthusiasm ahead of the strict facing of facts. But the examples he chooses, like his complete distrust of Joe Wilson -- seemingly accepting a large part of the conservative line of unproven slights against him. In this case, he takes the position that Colbert wasn't funny because he didn't "play to the room." Well, he would have had to completely drop the right-wing idiot he's been playing for the last six months. The Colbert Report character is funny but very assaultive. It's a tricky way of saying what you want to by irony, capitalizing on the fact that the O'Reillys of the world say whatever the hell they want to, unfettered by fact. I don't know. I thought it was very funny, but not to those in the room.
Maybe the fact that Somerby is himself a performer is coloring his stance here. Maybe he's finding himself more and more in a minority position in the lefty blog world he helped to create.
>>Well, he would have had to completely drop the right-wing idiot he's been playing for the last six months. The Colbert Report character is funny but very assaultive. It's a tricky way of saying what you want to by irony, capitalizing on the fact that the O'Reillys of the world say whatever the hell they want to, unfettered by fact. I don't know. I thought it was very funny, but not to those in the room.
I think Jon Stuart said it best. They hired Colbert to do the act he always does, a loud obnoxious talk-show host. What did they expect? And as another poster pointed out, the lawyer in his excellent letter, you have to act your role completly in order for satire to work. You can't say at then end "Just joking!"
Somberly claims in one of his posts that the NIE claimed Saddam was trying to seek fisile material from Africa. Somberly is absolutely so wrong in this respect. He manged a quote to come to this conclusion. He apparently doesn't understand the difference between yellow-cake and fisilie material, a huge difference if you are talking about a country's nuclear capability. (He has admitted to not knowing the difference.) I had to read and re-read Somberly's piece and the actual NIE because I couldn't believe how wrong he was. He is usually very precise. When somone pointed out his error, he merely reasserted his belief in a smug way.
When Somberly is right (almost always) he is a joy to read, because as you point out he doesn't want the left to turn into a cheering and jeering crowd that the right has become. But when he is wrong, he comes across as a big smug jerk who won't admite his mistakes and who thinks we are all rubes.
Back to the Colbet routine. You would think he would cheer Colbert. Here is this stupid correspondent's dinner, which as comedian Jon Stuart said (I'm paraphrasing) consumates the arranged marriage between the press and the president. These phony people never ask the real questions for the president because they don't wan to make him feel uncomfortable. Never are these questions asked in America, and our liberal newspapers play along with the game. For example, why isn't anyone asking the president why he is bothering going through the UN with Iran when he broke the UN charter by invading Iraq in 2003? It is such an obvious question, but that would make people feel too uncomfortable. In supposedly enforcing the UN resolutions agains Iraq, our president violated the fundementals of the UN worse than Saddam ever could have. Why should we believe the US really cares about international law? But this question never gets asked. Nor does the question "If the US has invaded a country in the middle east under false pretext, and now threatens Iraq with real nuclear weapons as opposed to the hypothetical ones possesed by Iran, why shouldn't citizens of the world not see the US as a threat and not Iran?"
These questions are never asked because we don't want to make the president feel uncomfortable. We want to keep the range of debate in a very narrow sphere.
So Colbert comes along and pokes fun at the president and the phony press. And Somberly jumps all over him. Somberly's excuse, that Colbert was paid by the audience and therefore has a right to entertain them, is almost bizzarre. As if Colbert signed some sacred contract! Wouldn't being honest to your own brand of humor and your sense of irony, the source of your humor, be more important than who wrote the check? And even then, Colbert was paid to skewer the president. He was biting, but not unpredictably so. He was in character. It wasn't like he completely switched his routine at the dinner.
Finally, Somberly feels like he has to weigh in on whether Colbert's show is funny and in doing so comes across as opionated bore. Who really cares what Somberly thinks? It is really just his opinion on something subjective, not an analysis of facts for which people visit his blog.
A post Columnist ignored relevent facts and supported Bush.
Just another day at the Post!
Cohen's disparaging of Colbert as a "bully" is simply the howl of outrage by one who was stung by Colbert's naked scorn for the power elite--of which the White House correspondents are a part, as is Cohen. Or, to make use of a William Burroughs book title, (named by Jack Kerouac), Cohen didn't like being confronted with the unavoidably distasteful "naked lunch, frozen in time on the end of the fork" for all to see.
One aspect of Cohen's tirade which reveals how personally stung he must be at being called out for his craven mendacity in supporting Bush is his lack of proportionality. He calls Colbert a "bully" for merely daring to make jokes at the expense of man--the President--in his presence, who, by contrast, has acted criminally in invading a country under false pretenses, who has caused the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, of thousands of hapless American servicemen and women, who has caused the imprisonment and torture of hundreds, if not thousands, of persons, many or most of whom are innocent of any wrongdoing, (and, hey, I thought we didn't torture even the guilty!). Colbert told some jokes, Bush has violated the law and the Constitution. Colbert mocked, Bush allows Katrina to destroy New Orleans without having adequately prepared an emergency response. Colbert made quips, Bush has bankrupted Amerca. Colbert told the truth, Bush tells lies.
I see Cohen's point; Colbert is a mean bully.
Yes Mr. Cohen...you are a funny man. A real Class Clown. I can hear the ripples of laughter as your classmates and teachers fall to their knees...victims of your razor sharp wit, fueled by a monsterous intellect. HA HA HA HA HA!! Cohen strikes again! You may have been the class clown then, but today you are just another Bush toadie. down on your knees in a permanent state of fellatio and homage to the Clown of them all.
... both incompetent/goofy AND dangerous.
In Bush's own "twin" routine, he emphasized the "incompetent/goofy" part.
With Colbert's presentation, we saw illustrated the DANGEROUS part.
Sounds "fair and balanced" to me.
Dear Mr. Cohen:
First, my credentials. I was part of a successful improv comedy group for over 10 years. Professionally, I am a lawyer (and funny lawyers are a rare breed, indeed). I actually am funny and have been able to get up on stage and make many people laugh at the things I have done and said. Intentionally so, I might add. To respond to your column, I have no idea if you are funny. From reading your column, I have a hint that you probably are not as funny as you might think and that you certainly have no ear for satire, parody or irony.
Let's being with a simple point. Stephen Colbert is not "Stephen Colbert." Colbert has created a character he portrays called "Stephen Colbert." This Colbert character hosts The Colbert Report and was featured on The Daily Show. This Colbert character satirizes the vapid, know-nothing, self-important media types who attended the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. You are mistaken to suggest that "on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness." Unless you mean the character Colbert plays on The Colbert Report is reminded of his supposed greatness. Indeed, the Colbert character is convinced of his greatness and importance in the exact same misguided and foolish way that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are convinced of their own importance and greatness.
What Colbert does brilliantly, and what he did at the Correspondents' Dinner, was to use conservative tropes to highlight the emptiness of media coverage and Bush policy. In fact, Colbert used absurdity, contrast and hyperbole to elucidate how the media continues to fail in its mission: to carefully examine our government's policies, to expose hypocrisy, to help, to provide accurate information and not simply disseminate propaganda. The vital point you missed is that comedy, like all art, has many strains, many paths. Satire is a high wire act. The satirist can never break character to wink at the audience, such a display would destroy the tension and make the satire meaningless. Think of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" or Andy Kaufman wrestling. There would be no impact if Swift or Kaufman said "just joking" at the end.
You are wrong again in thinking that Colbert was "speaking truth to power." At its heart, comedy is about resistance. At the Correspondents' Dinner, Colbert exposed the complicity between the media and the Bush administration. He wasn't there to play the role of clown, but of dissident. Comedy does not need to be funny (whatever that might mean), but as with all interesting art, comedy, through the satire of the Colbert character in this case, can be unsettling and thought provoking. Colbert may not have been funny to you, but his satire was brilliant and in not recognizing this, you completely missed the point.
Sincerely,
Todd Covert
Very good points.
Todd Covert,
That's a great letter! I wonder if you'll received a response from Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen,
One cannot argue another into finding funny that which is not experienced as funny in the moment. As has been said, explaining a joke--dissecting it, as it were--kills it.
However, I, for one, did find Mr. Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner funny...and brave. Was it rude? Perhaps. Should the President of the United States be spared rude commentary to his face on his performance in office? Absolutely not.
I don't particularly care for Mr. Colbert's television program...oh, it's amusing, but I don't seek it out to watch it, as I do THE SIMPSONS or THE DAILY SHOW, from whence Mr. Colbert's show derives. In other words, it's alright. I like Colbert in small doses...as the roving correspondent on THE DAILY SHOW, or as the high school teacher on the former Comedy Central program STRANGERS WITH CANDY. At half hour length, he palls on me just a smidgen. Perhaps he does his faux-O'Reilly act too well.
But, that is neither here nor there, except to point out that I don't have a predisposition to champion him as a fan. (Just as you felt compelled to tell us you're a funny guy, to certify your bona fides to judge whether Colbert was or was not funny.)
The larger point is: the President is not just some show-biz has-been who is owed some respect or deference despite (or because of) his fading career. He is the acting head of our country, the "commander in chief" of our military, as he is too fond of reminding us at every opportunity, the frequency of his claim intended as both a club to end any arguments as to his actions, and to bolster his own personal insecurity. This is a man who has violated international law by invading a country under false pretenses, and who has violated domestic law and the Constitution in his authorizing the warrantless NSA wiretaps, in his detaining (at least) two American citizens incommunicado in military detention for years, without charging them and without bringing evidence against them; he has violated the Geneva Conventions, not to mention simple human decency, in sanctioning the use of torture against detainees, whom he and his ruling cohort dismiss as "terrorists," and "the worst of the worst," without having to prove these claims, (and notwithstanding that even if and where these characterizations are true, this does not justify torture, even if Bush and company define it down to "mere" abuse).
Frankly, Bush deserves much more in the way of a "rude" awakening than this. Although I have no hope he will ever face the cold fact of an indictment against him for his various crimes against humanity, he certainly deserves to; if the worst rebuke he will face for his actions is a 20 minute lampooning at a Washington banquet of the power elite--who themselves were deservedly lacerated--then he has, like the corporate CEO who "suffers" termination with only his Golden Parachute to comfort him, got away with his offenses scot free.
Cordially,
Robert Cook
I think these blog threads are great—I’m learning a bit about comedy, which is interesting since I never studied up on it as an art or a science. Many critics have overlooked the comedic context of Colbert’s speech—they say that it was rude, but I thought the the dinner was understood to be a roast— or was it a roast? Colbert's speech should also be regarded as part of a comedic tradition. I’m surprised that no one’s mentioned the “Jackass” style of comedy, the humor of which in fact depends on its marks’ inability to get the joke. And no one’s brought up Hunter Thompson’s gonzo tradition either, stepping outside of one’s professionally proscribed box. Thompson was never exactly over-concerned with manners. Colbert's speech was well within the "bounds"-- or lack thereof-- of post-modern humor. It’s like, 2006 and even Bob Hope has passed away.
Mr. Cohen, I just read your commentary "So Not Funny" and wondered if we saw the same show. I thought it was hysterical, though the Press Secretary skit was a little long and slow. In fact I almost literally rolled on the floor laughing when he did the bit about how all you reporters should be spending more time with your family, maybe writing that novel "about standing up to the administration, you know fiction." I thought, "ooh, that hurt." Of all the things I see this administration doing, I can't help but think of what happened to the press that crucified Clinton during his administration for stuff like Travelgate. To this day I don't know what exactly Whitewater was all about except partisan witch hunting with a 40 million dollar price tag. But the "liberal media" gives Bush & Co. a free pass, and when an impudent comedian not only points this out, but rubs their little noses in it, their whiny feelings get hurt like some spoiled mama's boy on the schoolhouse playground. Colbert wasn't a bully, he was standing up to a bully and talking down to some wimps, but I guess if the bully and wimps are on your team it might not seem that way. I can think of one person who spoke at a correspondents dinner who was a bully though, Don Imus. I did some Googling and checked the WP archives and couldn't find a commentary from you about your outrage at that. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough for it, or maybe you were just flattered because he mentioned you by name. Truth to power might be a tired phrase, and it might not be all that risky to do here in America (yet). However in this day and age where you have to sign a loyalty oath to attend one of the president's town hall meetings, where you could be thrown out for having an anti-Bush bumper sticker, Mr. Colbert did the right thing. It's a good thing they don't require those oaths from the press (yet). But to me, it is looking like they won't even have to.
The blog of Lisa Finnegan has a similar story about the coverage of the Rumsfelds being called a lier.
Take a look at [link to www.noquestionsasked.org]
She compares the actual transcript to what the reporters at AP and other agencies and papers choose to write.
Very sad to see how they manipulate the news to make Rumy look good!
Move over Juvenal, Voltaire and Jonathan Swift. Here comes a major satirist who goes, unafraid, right into the villain's faces.
Justin Frank, MD is a Washington, DC based psychoanalytic-psychiatrist. For an understanding of Bush's "issues" read the book "Bush on the Couch".
In his "search" for the alledged WMD one might wonder why he has not urged his daughters to join the this noble endeavor and serve multiple tours of duty in search of the "mushroom cloud" now Secretary Rice was said was something we didn't want to "see".
fletchb