the whole colbert thing

[rone]

Amidst the fawning of the moonbats and the shrill criticism of the wingnuts over Colbert's performance, the point is lost that satire isn't necessarily funny.  I thought Colbert's speech was really well delivered and hit all the spots it wanted.  Chutzpah, yes.  Courage, no.  Biting satire, yes.  Funny, rarely.  To claim that Colbert "was hilarious" or "bombed" is to misunderstand what he was doing; it wasn't stand-up, it was put-down.

And while one person thinks that "it's a failing prospect to attempt to direct satire at those who are beyond it," i say that perhaps he's confused about who the satire is directed at.  While Bush and the media were the subjects of the satire, that doesn't mean that they're the targets.  The target is, as always, the American people.  (Yes, i know, "But they're beyond satire!"  I disagree.)

Comments

Re: That was my take on it, too.

[frosch.livejournal.com]

Nah. Tucker Carlson will be heir to the Swanson fortune, and Richard Carlson's son, for the rest of his life. Anderson Cooper will always be Gloria Vanderbilt's son. Soledad O'Brien will always have her Harvard diploma, and at the very least a lavish divorce settlement from the investment banker she's married to, unless she really fucks up in areas completely unrelated to her credibiity as a journalist. Dana Milbank will always be a Bonesman.

The press is not "beyond satire", not so full of themselves as to be oblivious. Like George Bush, they know when they're being skewered.

Like George Bush, most of them don't have to care.