Comparing media coverage of Colbert/Bush 2006 to Imus/Clinton 1996.

[Karmadillo]

Not that I have the links to prove my point, but if I recollect rightly, Imus' fairly harsh criticism of Clinton at the 1996 Correspondents' Dinner was widely covered and frequently repeated well into the following week. Not only did the coverage allow for the usual anti-Clinton snarkiness among the mainstream media, it gave Imus' career a significant boost. While this Colbert deal is hardly as important as kids dying of malaria or starving to death etc., it is yet more proof (as if we need it at this point) the media is on the side of the people who own the country, not the rest of us. I don't have a full coverage link of the Imus incident, but here's a clip from the NY Times archive:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/i/don_imus/index.html?offset=30&

Don Imus, the radio talk show host, is reaping the rewards of rudeness. Since his remarks about President and Mrs. Clinton, made to their faces at the Radio and Television Correspondents annual dinner last month, the "Imus in the Morning" show has been picked up by 10 additional stations. With those 10, Mr. Imus is now heard on 80 stations around the country and has about 10 million listeners each week, said Bob Bartolomeo, director of affiliate sales for Westwood One, which syndicates the Imus show. The largest of the 10 new stations is WISN-AM, Milwaukee; the others are in Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

April 22, 1996 Business News

[Captain Hilts]

1. EXCELLENT point!!!!! nt

[liberal N proud]

2. And they still have the gaul to claim the media is LIBERAL

[RobertSeattle]

23. The media isn't liberal - it is "Librul"

:evilgrin:

[ixion]

3. just like the 'Dean Scream'

or the character assassination of Al Gore.


The so-called 'liberal' media is no friend to the the truth, nor to the progressives.

[YDogg]

4. Early this morning Imus was very critical of Colbert ...

... and said his stuff wasn't even funny. IMHO, it was funny as can be, and the only reason Imus wouldn't acknowledge the inherent humor in Colbert's appearance is that Imus takes his marching orders from the right, or right-leaning bosses. Imus's schtick is carefully targeted, and has been for some time.

As much as Imus rails against Cheney and Bush, he always seems to get back to kissing up to them, and idiots like McCain and JD Heyworth. And Imus periodically reminds listeners that GHW Bush and his wife listen to his show ...

[bluerum]

6. Hey IMUS - Colbert is funny - YOU are not. So stfu! nt

[Zen Democrat]

7. And Imus loves Santorum.

[madokie]

10. fuck the funny anus, I like the truth to power.

believe I'll have to listen to Colbert again, be a good way to start the day.

[bluerum]

5. Media anti-liberal bias is real.

"the media is on the side of the people who own the country, not the rest of us. "

Yes of course - big media is owned by the land owners - they cannot be trusted to represent the workers - ever. If it sometimes appears that they do, there is a well orchestrated reason for it.

There are many alternative news markets (print, radio, internet, - shut off the tv) that deperately need the support of people. Imus is just another example of a bag of hot air willing to sell out principles for a comfy li(f)estyle.

on edit: sp. :dunce:

[Captain Hilts]

8. Tony Kornheiser, a good liberal, also was critical of Colbert.

He said he just wasn't funny.

[walldude]

12. I agree, it wasn't funny at all... Brilliant, genius, ballsy but not very

funny. Unless you consider a president who's administration has single handedly ruined the greatest country on earth hilarious.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. If one thinks about it ......

...... honestly, it wasn't **supposed** to be funny.

It was John Stewart's "I won't be your monkey" .... on steroids!

[dogday]

9. The M$M

has an obvious liberal bias :sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

11. Time to ramp up the emails to the gutless news stations! n/t

[Nite Owl]

13. Someone brought up that

point yesterday at a party. They hadn't even heard of what Colbert did yet and they said that Imus got such big coverage during Clinton so you are remembering correctly.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. How about media coverage of...

the other dinners?

This is 2 out of 10 since '96, and what about those before '96?

The Imus thing was only because of Monica, so that leaves us with NO real coverage of these dinners except for a few quick mentions that they happened.

None

Nada

Zilch

So, why all the whining that poor whiddle Stevie gets no respect? Anybody remember the featured speaker and the great coverage at the '98 dinner?

'05?

ANY of them?

I didn't think so.

[Pathwalker]

19. You don't remember Bill Maher calling Hillary a BITCH?

I do.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. And if Colbert called Laura a bitch...

that might have made the news, too.

Otherwise, just another typical fun night in DC and not particualrly newsworthy.

[VolcanoJen]

25. The media wouldn't stop talking about how hilarious Laura Bush was...

... at last year's Correspondents Dinner.

Remember? Something about the President jerking off a horse. I thought I'd never hear the end of it.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Was that the media, or just DU and some bloggers...

making a big deal over it?

[VolcanoJen]

28. It was a year ago, but her "bit" was all over the news.

They kept replaying it over and over. OH, the First Lady is so funny!! Look at her, playfully ribbing her Emperor-husband. Adorable!!

Laura Bush: First Lady of Comedy?

Laura Bush Talks Naughty

Laura Bush Steals Show From President

Also, wasn't it 2004 when Bush thought it would be hilarious to do a skit showing him "looking for WMD"?

Sigh... what a difference a few years makes. Har, har, har. :-)

[Radio_Guy]

15. You make a great point

Imus needed his appearance at the RTC dinner to boost his career. Colbert, OTOH, didn't need the RTC appearance to boost his. He did it so he could bitchslap Bush around. But he can gain fame on his own without the RTC appearance.

[NYCGirl]

16. The big difference was that the Clinton administration expressed

their dislike of Imus' performance, even going so far as asking C-SPAN not to re-air it.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9604/01/carlson.shtml

The press asked for what it got. Just like the White House Correspondents' Dinner later in the spring, this affair seeks out performers to act as surrogates to tweak, if not debase, people in power. But for the first time, the correspondents' association sent a formal letter of apology to the President. "What did the organization think they were getting when they invited Imus? I fault them," said Tom Brokaw. ABC's Jackie Judd, one of the dinner's organizers, said, "We wanted some discomfort, but not that much." After the show, White House press secretary Michael McCurry called C-SPAN to ask that it not re-air the event. In a press release C-SPAN countered that the public had a right to see "what all this fuss is about." ABC's Cokie Roberts, an Imus regular, said, "He always separates his raunchiness from the political part of his show. I thought he would have sense enough to do the same here. Now none of us can go on his show again."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imus_in_the_Morning#Controversies

Imus was a Bill Clinton supporter, but managed to offend the White House with off-color remarks in front of the Clintons during a 1996 Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner speech.

[Karmadillo]

31. I'm not sure that's enough to explain the difference in coverage.

The liberal media seemed more than willing to publicize harsh criticism of Clinton in a number of instances. It seems much more unwilling to give Bush, a much worse President, the same treatment.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Coverage? What coverage?

As I type this, MSNBC is in the second segment dedicated to showing reruns of the impersonator guy's routine. Now they have Rich Little on critiqueing it.

Obviously, if no one covers Colbert, it doesn't exist.

And that's the essential difference between Imus then and Colbert now. There was much cluck clucking of Imus, but what it did is allow everyone to show it over and over and over and over ...... cuz it suited their purposes to show Clinton being bashed and all the while give them cover to say "but, we're just reporting ....."

Not so with Colbert. There is obviously a total media blackout on any coverage.

Liberal media my ass.

[NYCGirl]

20. Re: my post above. The Clinton WH tried to get C-SPAN to cancel the

reairing of the Imus appearance. That may have been why it received so much attention.

[Johonny]

22. I agree

The only low lights I've seen or heard of this event are Bush yucking it up with the impersonator.

[ComerPerro]

21. It was not only ok, but socially and publicly acceptable to hate Clinton

not dislike, not oppose, but to actually hate. And actively say you hate him.

[Junkdrawer]

24. "Librul Media" my ass...

Good Work. :thumbsup:

[cyberpj]

29. COLBERT SHOULD MAKE HIS WHOLE SHOW THE REPLAY! nt

[NYCGirl]

30. He would have to get permission of the WHCA.

http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/whca/