Update on Colbert's Indictment of Bush, DC Press Corps

Perhaps the reactions of major media -- from silence to catty dismisal -- reflect the fact that much of Steven Colbert's monologue on Saturday night took aim at the cozy relationship between the Beltway press corps and those the First Amendment watchdogs are supposed to ... well ... watch on behalf of the American citizen.

That portion of the blogosphere critical of Bush and/or media applauded (for the most part) the satire dished large. The conservative blogosphere, natch, said he bombed. But as Salon notes, mainstream media -- and five firms control 95 percent of what we see, hear or read -- have ignored or downplayed the event:

Colbert didn't get half the ink the [Washington Post] spilled on appearances by George Clooney and Morgan Fairchild and other celebrities at Bloomberg's after-party. The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller wrote almost 1,000 words on the annual dinner this year, but not one of them was 'Colbert.'

Outside US borders, headlines focus on Bush's "twin act" -- nothing on Colbert.

Glitz, Glitter and Schmooz
Al Eisele writes a mea culpa in his essay on why the White House Correspondents dinner should just "go the way of Linotype" because it proves to the "rest of the world that the Washington press corps is out of touch, out of synch and out to lunch."

And FOX News brings us this telling headline: White House Correspondents Dinner: Hobnobbing With the Stars.

After all, it was at this same event, in 2004, that gave many outside of the Beltway pause. That's when President Bush used it as a way to poke fun at the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as Chris Durang reminds us. That audience laughed.

Colbert Made The President Angry?
Over at CBS, they take Colbert to task for inserting seriousness into a light event (emphasis added):

The annual dinner is Washington’s prom, homecoming and Oscars all rolled into one night. It’s a night for elbow-rubbing between the press and the people they cover. Whether the idea of a newspaper publisher or network anchor dining and drinking with cabinet secretaries and senators is a good one is a topic for another time but this is, for better or worse, one way high-level connections are made in the nation’s capital....

Being just unfunny is one thing. A much more serious offense is to make the president angry.

Frankly, this reminds me quite of a bit of the DC insider dinner that got bloggers up in arms -- illustrating long before now that the Beltway press is out of touch with the rest of America, is too cozy with those they are supposed to investigate. Remember Trent Lott?

Mainstream media didn't bring you that story, either.

The Audience That Tittered
This year, the audience mostly tittered. Colbert got bellylaughs over his last global warming joke. The first one -- about an endless supply of black, armored SUVs blocking the entrance to the hotel -- drew nary a chuckle. The (Texas) mesquite powered car drew titters. Belly laughs were reserved for the glacier joke, delivered during a recap of the guest list:

Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview.

You can ask him anything, but he’s going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants.

It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.

One of the criticisms -- with some legitimacy -- has been that Colbert was heavy-handed. I've watched the video twice -- and grimaced a few times. Heck, I grimaced at the Bill Kristol interview on Thursday. (I'm even more convinced that was a warm-up event.)

But Billmon writes:

Colbert used satire the way it's used in more openly authoritarian societies: as a political weapon, a device for raising issues that can't be addressed directly. He dragged out all the unmentionables -- the Iraq lies, the secret prisons, the illegal spying, the neutered stupidity of the lapdog press -- and made it pretty clear that he wasn't really laughing at them, much less with them. It may have been comedy, but it also sounded like a bill of indictment, and everybody understood the charges.

Who Set This Up?
When I learned on Thursday's show that Colbert was going to be speaking on Saturday, I wondered aloud: who the heck made that decision? I've yet to read anything suggesting who's responsible. Probably a career ending move, that.

Watch the video; read the transcript. It's news, ladies and gentlemen, whether the "liberal" media report it or not.

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Bush, Colbert, Politics
gada.be tags: Bush, Colbert, Politics