NY Times Screws Colbert
Notice most ALL print media - even the liberal Media is not making fanfare of this according to the guys below - but the net has robbed the media of a lot of thier former power eh?
18K thank yous and growing:
thankyoustephencolbert.org
Colbert on last years Correspondence Dinner
videosift.com
In which he says it is:
"a night of genial detance for the press and the white house - where they agree deep down we are both entrenched oligarchies with a stake in the survival of the status quo - enjoy your scrod"
Here was Colbert on 60 minutes for those that missed it.
thepoliticalpitbull.com
The boys at slashdot had this to say:
In Shakespeare's King Lear, it is the jester who, through his jokes and impersonations, proves to be the wisest character in the play, the best of the king's advisors, and the only one who can tell the King what he really thinks of his actions. Colbert should be named Bush's court jester.
politics.slashdot.org
NY Times(Score:5, Insightful)
by caitsith01 (606117) on Monday May 01, @03:27AM (#15235393)
(Last Journal: Thursday March 11, @06:32AM)
Surprisingly enough, the article, which appears on the font of the NY Times website, doesn't even mention Colbert's name or make any reference to his performance. Instead it rambles about the Bush impersonator bit for the entire article.
The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy - so one must conclude that Colbert has pissed off the media establishment, rather than the conservative political establishment. Wait, I mean "as well as" the conservative political establishment.
When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.
What I find most interesting...(Score:5, Interesting)
by DeadPrez (129998) on Monday May 01, @02:00AM (#15235168)
(http://www.lordsofdeath.com/)
Is that the mainstream press coverage has mostly covered the Bush lookalike and not the pure political embrassment Bush suffered at the hands of Colbert. Perhaps the educated guess for this strange disconnect would be that the press hosts the event and it would be less noteworthy if the President stopped attending.
It wasn't just embarassing for Bush(Score:5, Insightful)
by DoctaWatson (38667) on Monday May 01, @02:03AM (#15235181)
Colbert skewered the press pretty strongly too. I'm thinking the news blackout has more to do with the mainstream media's own shame than any courtesy to the President.
The best part about this(Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @02:00AM (#15235172)
The best part about this is that the funnier and more incisive he gets, the quieter and quietier and quieter the laughter gets.
Too bad that nobody will hear about this except the people who read Slashdot, the people who watch Comedy Central, and the people who watch C-SPAN on saturday night. In other words, the exact people who are most likely to already agree with what Colbert is saying. Everybody else, well, everybody else will just hear about that part the BBC covered-- you know, the bit where Bush demonstrated what a down-to-earth, wouldn't-you-just-love-to-have-a-beer-with-me kind of guy he was by getting up on stage with a body double and deliberately mispronouncing words.
Which means Colbert's little song and dance here doesn't really matter. All right, so somebody criticized the president to his face for the first time in four years. (No, Kerry at the 2004 debates doesn't particularly count.) Okay, so what? The 32% who still approve of Bush's job-- who are, after all, the only people who matter-- won't hear about this, and if they hear about it, they won't listen. The 2006 elections still will go to the Republicans, because even if everyone gets pissed off at Mr. Bush, they still won't like the incompetent, spineless democrats any better.
The Republicans will continue to hold congress after 2006; nobody will ever investigate any of the laws Bush has broken; Bush will quietly leave office in 2008, Iraq will someday eventually get electricity and running water, and talk show hosts and revisionists will nostalgically talk about what a great leader Bush was until nobody remembers him as anything other than a second Reagan. (And how well do you remember the Reagan administration? Yup, that's what I thought.) Nobody will remember that freakish, depressing third half of the Bush presidency where major american cities were destroyed and the President was admitting to impeachable offenses on national television and nobody did anything about it. Everyone will just remember that first, inspiring part of the Bush presidency after september 11, when Bush said that God told him how to lead the country, and everyone believed him
Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At(Score:4, Insightful)
by rolfwind (528248) on Monday May 01, @04:25AM (#15235526)
Who care if the Republican are voted in again. Your answer seems to be the Democrats.
Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.
In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
usinfo.state.gov /49.htm [state.gov]
Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.
Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?
Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.
Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.
Why can't we vote more people like him in?
Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson
politics.slashdot.org
It also amuses me that there is a large overlap between those who express fear of government power and abuse, but don't believe in the peoples' rights to own military-grade weapons.
courage?(Score:3, Insightful)
by bkirkby (133683) on Monday May 01, @12:04PM (#15237584)
(http://www.drats.org/)
why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.
you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.
i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle. |
