My Opinion on press silence re: Colbert

[Ready4Change]

I've been reading and thinking about peoples theories on why/how the press is mostly holding it's tongue about Colberts speach at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Theories from "they are on the WH payroll" to "They live in fear of WH backlash" etc...

Maybe there is some truth in those, at least in some cases. But, to a large degree, I think the press is silent out of guilt.

Colbert spoke in sarcastic, but unmistakable terms, about how the White House Correspondents have been just parroting WH statements. He pointed out exactly how they have failed in their DUTY to present the whole picture to the American Public, not just the WH Administrations side of things.

Colbert put them in a predicament: Either write of the truth of his statements, and expose their own failure, or denounce him, and thus verify his words. Instead, as cowards do, they are holding their tongues, hoping not to be noticed.

But I am noticing. Each of these "correspondents" who remains silent may as well quit right now, for their future words mean nothing to me. Each who criticizes Colberts speach without acknowleging the truth contained within it is, in my opinion, covering their own guilt, and also may as well hang up their pens and notepads.

Colberts speach is, for me, a spotlight, revealing heros and cowards alike. It had some humor. It had jagged points. And it had big brass ones. But mostly, it spoke truth to power.

It was one of the most truely AMERICAN things I've seen in years.

[sce56]

1. Hear Hear! The one thing missed was the scripted portion of Bush*t Q&A

From http://www.comedycentral.com/




THE COLBERT REPORT
Who roasted George W. this weekend? The journalist with the most balls!

[Nite Owl]

2. Yes, it was most revealing

not just of this administration but the press. Could be why the applause seemed so light and, too, there were no boo's either were there because it was as much about them as *.

[ShortnFiery]

3. "I think the press is silent out of guilt."

I disagree for no one entity, as a group, save for politicians and frat rats has as much overblown ego as The Press. They don't feel guilt for they are invested up to their eyeballs in the corruption of D.C. I wouldn't doubt some of the "big players" like Tweety, Blitzer, Dobbs and Kurtz have big bucks invested in the Warmongering Military Industrial Corporations.

War's damn good for business, therefore, damn ALL who dare criticize our Dear Leader A.K.A. Daddy War-bucks!, sent to us by God Almighty! :patriot: :sarcasm:

Nope, The Corporate Media is way too full of themselves (by nature) to have second thoughts. Their only fear is that of getting caught and punished.

[Ready4Change]

12. I can't paint everyone with the same brush.

I know some in the press are doing their best, despite limitations put in place by their hierarchy and corporate ownership. (And some have lost jobs because of that.)

There were some who laughed openly at Colberts speach. Some who covered their laughter. And some who may have been shocked into realizing their culpability, and some who couldn't fathom what he was referring too.

I think there's a similar range in the political and public ranks. People who've known all along the wrongness of this Administration. Those who have awoken to that wrongness. Those on the cusp of awareness. And those too zombified by fear, paranoia or hatred to ever wake up.

Colberts speach was, I think, a nice kick in the ass to members of the White House Press Corp, something that might wake a few up. More is needed.

[BillZBubb]

4. It's not guilt.

The press as a group believe they are doing a good job. Hard to believe, but true. So, they thought Colbert's attack was unfair and untrue.

From their cozy vantage point they cannot fathom how craven and superficial they have become. They can't see that they are tools of the Bush regime.

That's why they didn't like Colbert. It's impossible for them to see their own flaws.

[Ready4Change]

13. For some, you're right.

For others, I don't agree. Some recognized exactly what Colbert was saying, exactly how it applied, and exactly how their reaction to that might be viewed. A few laughed openly, but most tried to cover up their reactions.

Think about those covering their reactions. Hands over mouths, eyes wide in surprise, maybe in shock. Their body language indicated fear, almost horror. Colbert was naming names and pointing. Were they next? Why fear that? Can't be fear of Colbert. He has no power to persecute them.

They fear being found guilty of thought crimes against this Administration, by this Administration. They've seen fellow reporters lose jobs and respectability as the result of the WH smear machine. As a result, they have become their own mental jailors, denying themselves their own First Amendment rights.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. It was great....but I don't think it was as big a deal as some here think

it should be.

Yes it was a fantastic poke in the eye. But so what? The idiot is being poked in the eye every second day now.

The idiot had been self-depreciating over his own polls in the previous bit. Really, it was good but not all that earth-shattering.

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. NYT is covering it now....

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/arts/03colb.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=70a78dd8Q2FQ7DT8wQ7DQ5DQ5BKQ7BPQ5BQ5BQ24Q2BQ7DQ2B77mQ7D7lQ7D7eQ7DQ5CPQ24Q7BQ7D7eKQ5BQ60wQ22cQ24kQ60

[gristy]

7. Yes, finally. In the Arts section.

But I'll take it. For starters.

[Dr Fate]

17. But the Bush "twins" skit got in the front of the paper, I'll bet. n/t

n/t

[rocktivity]

14. The New York Times covered it Monday

or rather, their designated Bush worshipper/Condi Rice biographer Lisa Bumiller did. The results are predictable--it doesn't mention Colbert even ONCE.

:headbang:
rocknation

[peacetalksforall]

8. On Sunday, DUers talked about the silent press. It was true. There was

plenty about the Bush show and hardly a peep about Colbert.

Do you think - that they HAD to wait until Monday to get the talking points from the WH? Whether on Sunday or Monday - they must have been told to deliver several points - with the main ones being that he was not funny and that he was over the line.

By Monday they were talking a lot and it carried over to Tuesday.

Do you think that they were waiting to find out if people like us were not supporting him before they did anything. If we hadn't supported him, they might have been twice as vicious because they could say - even Democrats are critical.

Either way, they had to save themselves since they are co-responsible for the war and for the reversal of rights, the NSA - all of it. They have given him a dozen passes a day.

They supported dis-reality. Colbert came in the back door and exposed truth and reality (without the dis) and he did it from the world of comedy and the underground world and he did it right to their face - and with a twist that made it go over the heads of some.

Yes, he told the truth about Bush which was the truth about them. If they praised him, they would be crazy - they need their jobs just the way they are to pay mortgages - and their work just the may it is - all propaganda.

Certain journalists are excepted, of course - they were the ones who laughed.

[TheVirginian]

9. How much press do these dinners usually generate?

Not much, or am I mistaken?

[90-percent]

10. MSM

My take is ALL THE PEOPLE including the anchor's and star reporters that create what consists of "the news" are nothing more than working stiffs who answer to the corporate edicts passed down "from the home office in Dubuque, Iowa".

In short, they are subject to the exact sames forces as the rest of us in working America, and you do what the boss wants or loose your job.

In their case, the "boss" wants favorable and slanted coverage of this Admin. Go outside this box and you'll enjoy your "grounds for dismissal".

There were probably some there that worried if they laughed out loud and got caught on camera that they would loose their jobs.

-85% Jimmy

[TheVirginian]

11. Really?

If they wanted favorable coverage of this administration, they're sure as hell not getting it. I haven't read a favorable piece concerning this administration in the Washington Post or New York Times in months now.

[Dr Fate]

16. "In months"- Exactly what Colbert accused them of.

In case you did not notice, Bush has been in office for going on 6 years- not for "months."

Colbert made the point that up until a few months ago, they were mere spell-checkers, ignoring stories about the WMDs hoax, adverse tax cuts, etc.

For a handful of newspaper writers to finally state the obvious after the fact is not enough- Colbert made that point clearly.

[TheVirginian]

18. Yes, but that still doesn't support what you initially said

You initially said that the reason no one in the media has said anything about Colbert's appearance is because they're being pressured to by corporate execs to not say anything negative about the administration. But you just confirmed that in the last year, the press has been saying bad stuff about the administration. Why, then, would they be scared to cover Colbert?

[Dr Fate]

19. First off, I never said any of that.

And I never said the press has been saying "bad stuff" about Bush- I'll concede that they are printing a handful of FACTUAL stories that happen to make Bush look bad, now that they can no longer ignore certain facts.

They have yet to apologize or admit that much of the stories they printed in the past 5 years were out-right lies.

If you need evidence that the press is ignoring Colbert, just look at the coverage the "twins" skit got or the Imus/Clinton coverage and compare it to the TV coverage of the Colbert skit- which is one of the most popular downloads on the internet.

I dont know if they wont cover him because they are scared, or b/c he embarassed them, or becuase they are biased- I just know they are not covering it like they have other Press Dinner skits.

If they had reason to be frightened of him in the past 6 years, i would imagine they still have reasons now, despite a few factual newspaper stories from recent months.

[Dr Fate]

15. The clip of Imus tearing into Clinton was played over and over.

Same exact event and context.

I did not even know who Imus was at the time-and I was not paying attention to news as much as I do now either- but I remember seeing the clip over and over.

The Bush "twins" clip from this current dinner got tons of coverage too.