Jon Stewart

Yes, Sarah Palin is still playing big in mainstream media headlines. But watch out, girl! There's a new hottie basking in the sunguns.

Christine O'Donnell.

Thank goodness for Jon Stewart!

My question is this: If Christine O'Donnell were not young and throwing out the cutes, would we be hearing so much about her?

Here we are in 2010, facing the same old crap coverage from the mainstream media. They obsess about certain candidates and then justify it by all the coverage being given. Hype-filled stenography. Blah.

Washington Post pontificator Richard Morin offers what I think is one of the most absurd theories I've seen yet coming from the mainstream media mind:

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.
Assumption #1: "hard news" programs actually contain "hard news" -- which is questionable for anyone who is willing to actually question whether the mainstream media emperor has any clothes.

Stewart has made his name poking fun of mainstream media, including the so-called "hard news" shows, and gained a big boost in 2004 when he said, literally, "I won't be your monkey!" to the CNN Crossfire twits.

But get a load of this logic that Morin seems to buy:

"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.
This is Bush-league logic, right along with notions that the real problem with Iraq is that the reporting is negative, not that the bad news is in fact really happening. Now that is what I would call cynicism!

I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that, just because many of our politicians are revealed to be, well, lunatics doesn't mean that hiding the fact will somehow improve democracy.

Besides, maybe cynicism isn't so bad. Ask Ambrose Bierce, who defines "cynic" as:

A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.*dons shatter-proof goggles*

Morin does report, however, a study that cuts right to the unacknowledged racism that exists in the so-called progressive population:

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."
One can rest assured that the "hard news" programs are not going to report on this. However, I could very easily see Jon Stewart poking some fun at this.

Bad for democracy? I suppose it depends upon your perspective.

That's the message from the mainstream media, members of which have been hitting back at, um, us. Dan Froomkin cites Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts' response:

"The reviews from the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner are in, and the consensus is that President Bush and Bush impersonator Steve Bridges stole Saturday's show -- and Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert's cutting satire fell flat because he ignored the cardinal rule of Washington humor: Make fun of yourself, not the other guy."Froomkin says that captures the sentiment of the Washington Post newsroom. Surprise! But for all the opinionating that has come from the blogosphere, it's the Washington reporters -- the butts of the jokes -- who wind up looking like asses.

Milbank: "I don't think he really crossed the line. I just think he wasn't terribly funny. And he had the misfortune of following Bush, who actually did put on one of the better performances of his presidency."
...which is an observation that reveals so much about how the DC press corps just love to chum it up with their Beltway colleagues. See, silly me for seeing the humor in Colbert's biting satire and not seeing humor in a negligent, incompetent and prevaricating president's clowning around for the press.

Frank James is quoted:

"But I also had the sense that Colbert's toughness on Bush made people squirm because it raised that age-old question that goes back to the republic's start. How do you criticize the president without disrespecting the presidency?"Easy: You make fun of the president, not the office of the president. (I even thought that up myself. Obviously I went to college. Me so proud!)

...that positions sharp-edged comedian Stephen Colbert's remarks to the White House Correspondents' Dinner as "unfunny" and "a bomb"?

What do you say, Stephen? Does this deserve a wag of the finger?

I think what turned a lot of the paid pundits off is that he was uncouth, impolitic, brash and shameless in his application of mockery through buffoonery. Personally, I found the clips of Colbert's remarks to be hysterical -- to a large extent because he didn't play nice.

Via Dru Blood who pointed to No gods, no masters. Thanks!

Amrita Rajan of Blogcritics captures the atmosphere:

George Clooney must have laughed heartily but he and Helen Thomas were probably the only two who did. The rest of the room decided to crawl into the valley of depression the President was by then inhabiting. Laura Bush, meanwhile, creditably portrayed Medusa. Alas for her, she was unable to turn Colbert into stone as he then acknowledged the great big elephant in the room. "Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnez. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife."

Had it been any other network, the camera would then have cut to Karl Rove's face. However, Steve Scully was probably standing with a knife at the cameraman's throat by then so all we saw was Valerie Plame throwing her head back to laugh.

Peter Daou takes issue with the press' dismissive coverage:

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.

However, in disagreeing with Dauo, Robert A George takes out the sharp knives, using phrases like "awful," "timing was off," "awful," "bombed," and so on. But then, Robert George also says,

I think Bill Maher has managed to keep himself funny while being explicitly political.

...which brings into question is sense of humor. (Bill has made the mistake of making his show all about himself, positioning the guests as the stooges. That's something that works for Colbert, but not for Maher's laid-back comedic sarcasm. Politically Incorrect: funny. Maher's HBO show now: unfunny.

George also makes the mistake of trying to compare Colbert to Jon Stewart and Johnny Carson. I've already noted how Stewart is much like Carson (and I also managed to misspell Jon's name). Every comic has a different style. The unique edge to Colbert's approach is that he doesn't let up, he stays in character, all the way down.

How else to spoof the shameless posturing of the right-wing media bimbos he emulates? Amrita says it so well:

But in a world obsessed with adapting oneself to the audience in a vain attempt to be loved by more and more people, Stephen Colbert stuck to his fake-pundit guns. He didn't pull his punches, he wasn't intimidated by a milieu that was far different from his own [or if he was, he kept it to himself] and he was exactly who he is on his show.

Put in a room with the President of the United States, administration officials, lawmakers and the men and women who bring you news of them, Stephen Colbert did something that should make every American proud.

He exercised the rights given to him by the Constitution of his country to speak his mind and to speak it freely even in the face of power. In those minutes I was reminded that in this country, in these United States, the citizen retains the ultimate power.

Mr. George disagrees:

But, the point is -- there has to be a foil, a "straight man"to help put the vacuous boorishness of the Colbert persona in context. Without the foil, the character isn't nearly as interesting.

Ah, but the point is that Bush and the press superstars in attendance were the foils. They were the stooges. And while they may have been cringing, it was funny to anyone who wasn't in the room and feels the mainstream media circus needs its collective balloon popped.

Peter Daou closes:

A final thought: Bush's clownish banter with reporters -- which is on constant display during press conferences -- stands in such stark contrast to his administration's destructive policies and to the gravity of the bloodbath in Iraq that it is deeply unsettling to watch. This may be impolitic, but wouldn't refraining from frat-style horseplay be appropriate for this man? Or at the least, can't reporters suppress their raucous laughter every time he blurts out another jibe... the way they did when Colbert put them in their place?

No kidding. But hey, we're not inside the bubble -- er, I mean Beltway. They're all chums in there.

On Wonkette, we get context:

The reason it went over so poorly is because, we we’ve mentioned before, Washingtonians have a bizarre sense of humor, and it’s only funny to eviscerate the press if you’re a member of the press. You can eviscerate the President, but only if the President knows who you are. Those are the rules.

Thank you, Stephen Colbert.

You know, part of me always thought that Bill O'Reilly was an entertainment goon -- someone who brays like an ass for showbiz value. You know, like Morton Downey.

Well, he put those illusions to rest tonight, dear readers. When I heard he was going to be on, I thought, Wow. Maybe we'll see what he's really like. Or maybe he'll put on a show for us?

Alas, no. What he did was glower and sneer. Stewart asked him, "Why so grumpy?" O'Reilly didn't even crack a smile. He glowered. And seethed.

And then he started going off on France. "France is the enemy!" he cried at one point. He insulted Stewart. He insulted the audience. It was like he was just soooo oppressed that he had to endure the presence of people.

And I note: None of this was with a wink to the audience. None of this was a show, as far as he was concerned. He is one pissed off dude, and he's pissed off at the weirdest things.

So why was he there? Because he's plugging a book. He didn't want to be there. That much was obvious. He had an opportunity to be civil -- or put on a show without the contempt for everyone else -- but he didn't want it. In fact, he seemed offended at the very idea that he should behave like a decent human being.

Oh, life is so hard for multi-millionaire television personalities. Pity Bill O'Reilly. He suffers so.

[Update: Crooks & Liars has the video. Check it out.]

[Update 2: Is O'Reilly quitting? (Wouldn't surprise me. This is a man who needs a lonnnnng vacation. Either that or some heavy doses of Prozac. C&L has video of Olbermann's reaction to the rumor.]