There's been quite a bit of blogosphere buzz about
Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner, which Colbert used as an opportunaty to present more of a roast than an assessment. In this, he played his right-wing parody character to the full hilt, basically giving the impression that all of the mistakes of this administration are really all by design or by adherance to strong belief, which should be more important than facts and reality. "We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Cohen, writing for the Post (or is he syndicated?) simply
didn't get it...in spite of insisting that he has a sense of humor.
The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
And how was this different from when Al Franken was in that spot? Or Dennis Miller (back in the Clinton days))? Or any other commedian?
But this comment is what really pissed me off:
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in.
[emph mine]
I love this. No, really. I just love how he implies that the ability to criticize the leadership of our country is something BAD. I love how he denegrates the 215 years of effort of the founding fathers and the people who have challenged religions, administrations, and congresses through getting the courts to recognise and enforce the constitution that they are supposed to be adhering to above all other factors (including God, believe it or not).
We have reached a true point of the enlightenment that the founders wanted all along - the ability to say ANYTHING about the government and not be punished (other than encouraging murder, which is treasonable). Anything goes - the ultimate in freedom of thought and speech.
And Cohen thinks this is a bad thing!
Freedom of speech is not freedom when it is not exercised. Self-censorship may be necessary in certain conditions (take the media's general view of the Dutch cartoons) for public safety, but self-censorship merely to avoid offense is NOT freedom of speech. The right to sit in a chair of government has with it the responsibility to actually take the slings and arrows of outrageous commentary. And this was strictly enforced by the Supreme Court in 1987.
In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others.
Here again, he misses the point he should have been making. No, Colbert didn't tell anybody anything new.
That's because there is nothing new to say. There is no way to look at this administration in any "new light" and see anything positive out of it. Colbert presented that which we already knew, in the same sarcastic light that we already think of it in, because there is no other way to describe the problems and disasters of this administration without feeling the urge to throw up. Colbert wasn't funny because this administration is almost so consistently bad you can't laugh at it anymore. It almost deserves pity, if it wasn't solely responsible for getting into its own mess.
Mr. Cohen:
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand.
Fine: if you really think you're so funny, say something funny about this president that we didn't already know or in a different light that we've already filtered him through.
You raised the gauntlet: I hand it back to you.
The rest of us, meanwhile, have to stare at another 2 years of nothing to laugh about...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
faireraven 's a tv watcher, or more a "tv just hanging in the background" person. I can't stand daytime tv, so I'd be on the marathon dvd viewings in a second if I actually had the time off...
