The Colbert story keeps a-rollin'
A staggering amount has been written about Colbert's performance last Saturday, and I've certainly done my part. But it's still happening, and apparently spreading to mainstream outlets.
As it was widely observed on the blogs, most outlets initially downplayed Colbert's role in the event-- or ignored it. Also noted was the media's willingness to report on attacks aimed at then-president Clinton, particularly by Don Imus.
Now many of those same outlets are speaking out (as the above Salon piece catalogues), and they're claiming not guilty by reason of unfunniness. Apparently TNR's Noam Scheiber was at the head of the pack in this regard, but they're using stronger language from NPR to CNN-- "Colbert bombed." It's an easy out. Unquantifiable, subjective, an therefore beyond criticism.
The backup defense is another cop-out. "He crossed the line." Though few apparently held that view when Imus went on a bizarre tangent about Peter Jennings being cheated on by his wife and forcing an abortion at gunpoint.
One thing this does, in my opinion, is to further reinforce the blogosphere's view that DC journalists and TV pundits view themselves as the only people qualified to comment on politics-- and that bloggers are nothing more than angry, petty fools to be ignored. After all, the talking heads didn't sponsor "was he funny" debates-- they opted for "he wasn't funny" orations.
They've long been under attack from the right for not being more ideologically-driven, and responded by pushing more conservative talking points in many outlets, especially cable news (please don't make me enumerate every example, from the breathless reporting of Ken Starr's intentionally-leaked sleaze to the trashing of Gore in 2000, to the mindless stenography that helped rush the nation into Iraq). Of course, the criticism from the right hasn't ceased, nor will it ever. Not until facts have been done away with entirely and all we're left with is quotes from White House spokespeople.
Unfortunately, corporate news entities seem to have decided that, having already conceded to the far right, now is the time to dig in their heels. The verdict? Colluding with a corrupt administration is more comforting than self-examination. The Bushies must be smiling.
UPDATE: And what I hope will by my final exhibit in the Colbert Incident. Yet another New Republic contributor has used the story as an excuse to trash the blogs. This is truly as disingenuous as it is petty, yet the three sentence post was deemed worthy of inclusion in TNR's daily e-mail highlighting new stories. Just see it (and the story they link to) for yourself. As those commenting on TNR's piece thankfully pointed out, the author deliberately misprepresents a Daily Kos item in an effort to show that he, too, is a brilliant satirist to be reckoned with. Their constant potshots at "the blogs" (as though we're just some vast hive brain) are just exhausting at this point. Why are you so full of hate, guys? Wait a minute-- as the blogger, I'm supposed to be the one filled with hate!
As it was widely observed on the blogs, most outlets initially downplayed Colbert's role in the event-- or ignored it. Also noted was the media's willingness to report on attacks aimed at then-president Clinton, particularly by Don Imus.
Now many of those same outlets are speaking out (as the above Salon piece catalogues), and they're claiming not guilty by reason of unfunniness. Apparently TNR's Noam Scheiber was at the head of the pack in this regard, but they're using stronger language from NPR to CNN-- "Colbert bombed." It's an easy out. Unquantifiable, subjective, an therefore beyond criticism.
The backup defense is another cop-out. "He crossed the line." Though few apparently held that view when Imus went on a bizarre tangent about Peter Jennings being cheated on by his wife and forcing an abortion at gunpoint.
One thing this does, in my opinion, is to further reinforce the blogosphere's view that DC journalists and TV pundits view themselves as the only people qualified to comment on politics-- and that bloggers are nothing more than angry, petty fools to be ignored. After all, the talking heads didn't sponsor "was he funny" debates-- they opted for "he wasn't funny" orations.
They've long been under attack from the right for not being more ideologically-driven, and responded by pushing more conservative talking points in many outlets, especially cable news (please don't make me enumerate every example, from the breathless reporting of Ken Starr's intentionally-leaked sleaze to the trashing of Gore in 2000, to the mindless stenography that helped rush the nation into Iraq). Of course, the criticism from the right hasn't ceased, nor will it ever. Not until facts have been done away with entirely and all we're left with is quotes from White House spokespeople.
Unfortunately, corporate news entities seem to have decided that, having already conceded to the far right, now is the time to dig in their heels. The verdict? Colluding with a corrupt administration is more comforting than self-examination. The Bushies must be smiling.
UPDATE: And what I hope will by my final exhibit in the Colbert Incident. Yet another New Republic contributor has used the story as an excuse to trash the blogs. This is truly as disingenuous as it is petty, yet the three sentence post was deemed worthy of inclusion in TNR's daily e-mail highlighting new stories. Just see it (and the story they link to) for yourself. As those commenting on TNR's piece thankfully pointed out, the author deliberately misprepresents a Daily Kos item in an effort to show that he, too, is a brilliant satirist to be reckoned with. Their constant potshots at "the blogs" (as though we're just some vast hive brain) are just exhausting at this point. Why are you so full of hate, guys? Wait a minute-- as the blogger, I'm supposed to be the one filled with hate!
posted by Matt Sandwich | 5:56 PM
<< Home