The Colbert Controversy: Just a case of indigestion

[Autonomy]

It's funny. All week the pundocracy and the blogosphere have been at loggerheads over a comedy routine. With the multitude of constitutional crises leaking like sewage from a septic White House, retired generals and high-ranking intelligence officers lining up around the corner to bash their former bosses, gas now at second-mortgage-on-the-house prices, a foreign occupation in Iraq going so poorly that the native replacements are running, not walking, off the job en masse... one would think the pundiblogistas would have something better to wrangle about.

But Stephen Colbert seems to have tapped a nerve with surgical precision. There's one thing both sides agree on: nervous chittering aside, Colbert's jokes went over like Don Rumsfeld jumping out of a cake at Hugo Chavez's birthday party. So what's with all the hubbub? It's not like Colbert said anything we all haven't already heard on late night TV, award-winning Hollywood films of every genre, and even prime-time sitcoms.

The crux of the issue seems to rest on whether Stephen did his job properly. One side says that Colbert failed miserably if only because his audience didn't laugh (much). That's what they say, but here's what they mean: Stephen didn't play ball like a nice boy. Criticism of Bush, they say, is relegated to the free-speech zones of mass media, where it can be peremptorily ignored. Facts, like Bush's Hindenburg-like poll numbers, can be trutherially spun by Sunday morning cartoon characters, but Stephen had to go and pull the tail of the elephant in the living room. In front of everyone. And that's plain rude.

The other side says that Stephen didn't flop because he told the truth. But he wasn't hired to tell the truth; he was hired to make the press and the prez feel fuzzy and warm over their abject failures. Assuming Colbert cashed his paycheck, they're right to fault him. He didn't do his job. And that fact, more than Colbert's pointed barbs and scalpel-like cuts, is why the press is vilifying him as devoutly as the bloggers are canonizing him. Colbert reminded them that they've been cashing their paychecks for at least six years without actually doing their jobs. This time they couldn't spin it, fake it, fudge it, plagiarize it, or ignore it. They had to sit there and and be reminded of the fact that they've been paid for a job not done for too long.

They were just sitting there eating their veal and foie gras, and some comedian comes in and reminds them that their jobs are not all that secure. There's a new breed of hungry truthiness-seekers out there, ready to take their seats at next year's event, and that would give anyone a week-long case of indigestion.

[ray of light]

1. cheers!!!!

[chookie]

2. Great analysis

That's one of the most insightful takes on his performance that I have read. You're a darn good writer. :hi:

[MrModerate]

3. With regard to that paycheck . . .

I think Jon Stewart said it best (paraphrase): "apparently they were surprised he did the same thing he does on TV four nights a week."

The Correspondents club didn't know what they were buying. They didn't give Colbert the memo about making it all warm and fuzzy, like a Lion's Club roast after the second case of champagne.

So he did his thing. Tough shit for them, and tough shit for Bush.

I've watched the audience reactions. They weren't suffering through an unfunny comedic performance (except for the "audition tape" -- that was kinda lame and overlong) -- they were squirming in their seats. They couldn't laugh because it's really uncomfortable when someone is tearing you a new one.

Colbert earned his money fair and square.

[oasis]

4. "Next year's event". This I gotta see.

:wow: