Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner

...It appears Mash's misgivings about press coverage are well-placed. The AP's first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble, and funny. Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media. The story could just as well have been Bush and Laura's discomfort and the crowd's semi-hostile reaction to Colbert's razor-sharp barbs. In fact, I would guess that from the perspective of newsworthiness and public interest, Bush-the-playful-president is far less compelling than a comedy sketch gone awry, a pissed-off prez, and a shell-shocked audience.

This is the power of the media to choose the news, to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission can be just as bad as sins of commission. And speaking of a sycophantic media establishment bending over backwards to accommodate this White House and to regurgitate pro-GOP and anti-Dem spin, I urge readers to pick up a copy of Eric Boehlert's new book, Lapdogs. It's a powerful indictment of the media's timidity during the Bush presidency. Boehlert rips away the facade of a "liberal media" and exposes the invertebrates masquerading as journalists who have allowed and enabled the Bush administration's many transgressions to go unchecked, under-reported, or unquestioned.

Ignoring Colbert, Part Two
READ MORE: Washington Post, Patrick Fitzgerald, New York Times, 2008, Valerie Plame, Global Warming, George W. Bush, Iraq, 2006, Fox News, Scott McClellan
Peter Daou has already addressed this issue today in his excellent piece on the Huffington Post called "Ignoring Colbert: A Small Taste of the Media's Power to Choose the News."

However, I woke enraged on this topic before I read Daou's piece, so I wanted to add my two cents. (And I include a full transcript of Colbert's remarks at the bottom of this entry, so scroll down if you want to see it right away.)


Stephen Colbert was the star attraction at the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday night, and his performance was thrilling or insulting or uncomfortable, depending on your point of view. Apparently, according to Editor and Publisher.com, President and Mrs. Bush looked very uncomfortable, and quickly left right afterward.

But the mainstream media is apparently ignoring this part of the evening, and instead is covering the early entertainment where Bush and a look-alike imitator do a "he says this, he's really thinking this" routine. Moderately amusing, but very mild.

This, by the way, is the same Washington event where Bush previously charmed many (and horrified others) by pretending to have trouble finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (after we'd started to realize they weren't in Iraq), and wandered the room looking under tables. Really cute, huh? They should send videos of that to the families of soldiers killed.

The media's ignoring Colbert's effect at the White House Correspondents Dinner is a very clear example of what others have called the media's penchant for buying into the conservative/rightwing "narrative."

In this instance, the "narrative" is that President Bush, for all his missteps, has a darling sense of humor and is a real regular guy, able to poke delightful fun at himself and his penchant for mis-using and mispronouncing words.

Who cares if he lied to start a war? (Or chose to ignore all contrary opinion, which as far as war-starting goes, is pretty crummy.) Who cares if he declares he's above the law, and according to the Boston Globe yesterday there are something like 750 laws he's decided don't apply to him as "Commander-in-Chief"?

The Globe article's first sentence: "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."

If the President doesn't obey the law, what the heck is he? He's a dictator in a coup, I think -- but no matter, according to the media, he's A-DOR-ABLE!

Meanwhile, at this Correspondents White House Dinner, the star attraction of the evening -- the last person to perform (of a small group) and whose act went on for about 20 minutes -- is Stephen Colbert. Yesterday the blogs were a-buzz with how shocking his remarks were. In his comic persona of Bush Supporter Nonpareil, Colbert stood on the dais near the President and kept making eye contact with him as he said truly biting comic remarks.

I found two sites that showed clips from Colbert's performance. This one (at Crooks and Liars) has most of the act, though it's missing the beginning.

It's insane journalism not to write about Colbert's appearance. It's the main event. Like it or hate it, it's the thing to talk about. You have to CHOOSE to focus on the lightweight entertainment that preceded it.

The right wing blogs are saying Colbert bombed, and in some ways that's not wrong, the gathered audience wanted and expected something lighter - but that's what makes the appearance so startling. It's very witty when you read the text; but actuality as Colbert says these things to the President's face, it's very uncomfortable. Watching it, It's like Hamlet forcing King Claudius to watch the play that accuses him of murder. Or it's like a man asked to be Court Jester who shows up and tells the king exactly what's wrong with him, and gets out of the building before they can behead him. (Why do I keep having "king" examples, lol. No reason, I'm sure.)

Colbert's was a brave and shocking performance. And for the media to pretend it isn't newsworthy is a total bafflement. And a symbol of how shoddy and suspect the media is.

(And a truly interesting news question - who chose the biting Colbert to be the entertainment? And are they now in trouble?)

This morning, Katie Couric and Matt Lauer giggled and got all warm about the cutesy performance of Bush and the Twin look-alike imitator. Really funsy. Colbert was not mentioned.

I'm old enough to remember when Eartha Kitt told off Lady Byrd Johnson for her husband's policies in Vietnam at some innocent luncheon... the news media reported that, they didn't only report on the chicken salad sandwiches.

Yesterday the New York Times had no coverage of the event, except buried in its Washington section was a small, uninteresting blurb picked up from Reuters.

This morning, lo and behold, they have more... a fawning piece by someone named Elizabeth Bumiller called "At Award Correspondents' Dinner, A Set of Bush Twins Steal the Show."

Like Katie and Matt's briefer piece, this article too finds the President absolutely adorable. And makes the judgment call that the President's darling sense of humor is the true story of the event.

And the Colbert appearance -- which chilled the room, attacking journalists as well as Bush -- is literally not worth reporting. Back before blogs and C-Span, we wouldn't even know about it.

The Times piece also has a video clip, which features Bush and the Twin, but at the tail end includes Colbert, saying he was biting, but then quotes one of his milder jabs (making fun of the Iraqis' troubles putting together a government). (To find you must click on "video report" under "Washington Letter.")

I suppose I can be dismissed as a conspiracy type, but if Ohio was stolen in the last election (which I think it was), and if more and more computer voting is put into place with NO PAPER RECORD (Democrats, wake up on this one please, please, please), and if Matt and Katie and other media people keep feeding us the Conservative Narrative on and on, then our democracy is over. (Some say it's already over.) McCain has been taken over like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" -- he too now finds Bush adorable. I keep having hopes for Arlen Specter, he seems truly upset by Bush breaking the law to allow warrantless wiretapping. But will he have the courage and stamina to keep fighting?

Well I'm talking myself into a gloomy corner, so let me stop, and reprint the full Colbert speech, which I found at this link...

Media touted Bush's routine at Correspondents' dinner, ignored Colbert's skewering
Following the White House Correspondents' dinner, numerous news outlets trumpeted President Bush's performance at the event, but entirely ignored the scathing routine delivered by the night's featured entertainer, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert. The media's non-coverage of the Colbert routine stands in stark contrast to the broad coverage given Don Imus, who, at a 1996 Correspondent's dinner, delivered harsh barbs at President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

I suspect, nimh, that your response (lack of any belly-laughs) really is a consequence of a slightly different cultural context (plus some lack of familiarity with Colbert's schtick).

blatham wrote:

I suspect, nimh, that your response (lack of any belly-laughs) really is a consequence of a slightly different cultural context (plus some lack of familiarity with Colbert's schtick).

Probably - just recently, I started a thread about how I - and other non-Americans - are nonplussed about why so many AMericans think David Letterman is funny, for example. Although Colbert was obviously miles better, his performance was still very slow-paced, too obvious - and in this case, understandably, too sincerely upset (rather than sardonic) - to be funny like English comedians are.

Then again, tho, I did actually think the other videos I found of Colbert's regular shtick (see the links I gave) were funny - so perhaps it was also the sheer stress (and boldness) of the situation he was in..

Bush glowered. Laura looked confused. Scott McClellan was like a dead deer caught in the headlights. Many of the journalists, celebs, ranking generals and other 'notables' at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner laughed openly, albeit uncomfortably, as Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report" just made himself about 500 times more of a national treasure and cemented himself as one of the most fearless satirists of this generation...