White House Correspondent's Dinner
I just watched Steven Colbert's performance. Links to it are HERE.
I saw it along with my wife and after we discussed it. I remarked to her that on the face of it it seemed to be a gutsy move to bring up subjects that those there didn't like hearing. Ostensibly, such edgy banter should be praised, but there was something wrong.
After five years of Rovian, choreographed public propaganda I had a hard time believing that Colbert wasn't closely vetted, and that the material was given a pass for some tactical advantage. After all the staginess and props and filtered audiences and prepared questions, was the Machine really going to allow this comedian to spank the sockpuppet and his administration in such a public manner without gaining from it? Maybe this was some sort of safety valve of dissent, or an attempt to shed the Bubble Boy stigma?
No, I changed my mind after doing a little digging. Apparently this was a shocker that was unexpected by the handlers. Colbert rose to the occasion, nailed the fascists to their seats and proceeded to set them on fire. The proof is reading the reactions to what he did, and also in the absense of reporting it.
That the guy dropped bomb after bomb on the shrub to his face, is a huge story in itself. It wasn't pretty and was delivered in an edgy, ironic way which seemed to leave the audience gasping. (Unlike the previous comedic routine with Bush and an imitator which used one liners and sight gags, a far more easy way to generate laughs) If media chooses to ignore a story like that it shouldn't come as a surprise, but it means the PTB wished it would never have happened.
Came across this review at The Civil Engine:
"First of all, I have to say that the guy has some serious stones. The crowd was mostly silent, yes, but it was only because Colbert didn’t give the usual nods, nudges and deference to power that are so common at these types of events. He pounded the Administration and the press with equal measure and when the crowd was made up of the Administration and the press, well, what kind of reception would you expect?
I watched along with my sister (a Republican) and my girlfriend (a Moderate) and they were both in tears from laughing so hard. Does that mean we all have a poor sense of humor? No. It means that we can see Colbert’s schtick for what it is: Brilliant and brave."
I couldn't agree more.
I saw it along with my wife and after we discussed it. I remarked to her that on the face of it it seemed to be a gutsy move to bring up subjects that those there didn't like hearing. Ostensibly, such edgy banter should be praised, but there was something wrong.
After five years of Rovian, choreographed public propaganda I had a hard time believing that Colbert wasn't closely vetted, and that the material was given a pass for some tactical advantage. After all the staginess and props and filtered audiences and prepared questions, was the Machine really going to allow this comedian to spank the sockpuppet and his administration in such a public manner without gaining from it? Maybe this was some sort of safety valve of dissent, or an attempt to shed the Bubble Boy stigma?
No, I changed my mind after doing a little digging. Apparently this was a shocker that was unexpected by the handlers. Colbert rose to the occasion, nailed the fascists to their seats and proceeded to set them on fire. The proof is reading the reactions to what he did, and also in the absense of reporting it.
That the guy dropped bomb after bomb on the shrub to his face, is a huge story in itself. It wasn't pretty and was delivered in an edgy, ironic way which seemed to leave the audience gasping. (Unlike the previous comedic routine with Bush and an imitator which used one liners and sight gags, a far more easy way to generate laughs) If media chooses to ignore a story like that it shouldn't come as a surprise, but it means the PTB wished it would never have happened.
Came across this review at The Civil Engine:
"First of all, I have to say that the guy has some serious stones. The crowd was mostly silent, yes, but it was only because Colbert didn’t give the usual nods, nudges and deference to power that are so common at these types of events. He pounded the Administration and the press with equal measure and when the crowd was made up of the Administration and the press, well, what kind of reception would you expect?
I watched along with my sister (a Republican) and my girlfriend (a Moderate) and they were both in tears from laughing so hard. Does that mean we all have a poor sense of humor? No. It means that we can see Colbert’s schtick for what it is: Brilliant and brave."
I couldn't agree more.
posted by nolocontendere at 12:31 AM
2 Comments:
Great observation. I'm glad Colbert wasn't put off by the icy reception. He's a bright guy, and understands that his role up there went well beyond eliciting laughter from a bunch of tight asses.
The only thing I have issue with in this post is when you say that Colbert spanked Bush in "a public manner."
CSPAN is hardly "must see TV" and if someone didn't read the blogs, I doubt they would even know what transpired that night. The media blackout on Colbert is astounding but expected.
Apparently, "the Machine" really isn't going to allow the sockpuppet to be spanked.
Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment
<< Home