Stephen Colbert

[lo_res_man]

quote]

True but the prime minister does have quite a bit of power.

[quote author=InCreator
And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Definitly Raggit. The right to disagree is the most importent right there is, IMO, but anyone is free to disagree with me

[Becky]

Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Can I ridicule and criticise the leader of my country that I personally did not vote for and does not represent my views?

[ildu]

In Finland no one makes fun or attacks people in the media, and I imagine it's the same with all Scandinavian and Slavic, as well as many of the central european nations.

Indeed. If any joker could walk up to our President and make a clown out of him, nobody would respect him anymore.
He's our elected image (not leader) and only one who should be treated with respect. After all, Parliament decides stuff, not him.
If I'd post a message on Internet saying that he's a moron, I should expect KAPO (our Defence Police, read "FBI" or "KGB") knocking at my door 30 minutes later. Recently, defence minister accepted a law which allows to punish people commenting in Internet... Of course, it just means serious money fine, not a dark cell for a lifetime.

And I don't think that's the system limiting my rights in any way or a lack of Democracy. Laughing at someone we elected to represent country and nation is laughing at the country and nation itsself.

Making fun of press and Parliament is way another thing, of course.

Wow, that is soooo not what I meant. You can critisize the President or whoever you want in Finland. I was just saying that we don't flame it out like the americans. The Finnish media and the people involved in it are very courteous. If someone critisizes another person, it is usually done in a calm and backing way. It has to do with the common Finnish timid, humble and respectful nature, rather than any government mandate. Simply put, we respect calmness, respectfulness and intelligence, so we expect that from people. If someone shouts out an outrageous flame without backing it up, it's usually not taken seriously. It's the code of respect and the nature of timidness rather than any government stranglehold, that's keeping down the flamewars.

I can't believe Estonia is as you described. That some secret police would come and get you for speaking your mind. You make it sound like you're living in a dictatorship. Finland is very proud of its grassroots-fair nature. If there was any suspicion of suppression of free speech or corruption here in terms of the goverment, the country would seriously be flabbergasted. So in this way, I'm very happy to have a respectful media.

But as I said, it's a good and a bad thing. Whilst in Finland the media is very dull as I described, and it has zero entertainment value, opposed to the US, it can also be a bit suppressive. For example, people really look down on those who say radical claims, when the image of the country is at risk. In this way, we kind of hold down people. There is no legal or byrocratical boundary for saying what you want, but rather a moral bind. For example, anyone could go around saying he's a terrorist and a traitor without any ramifications, but that person probably wouldn't get much airtime in the media. And just to be clear, it wouldn't be a matter of legality, but more of a matter of what the news executives think is proper or worthy news to report.

In the US, news, particularly cable news, are also for entertainment. Hence the studly and beautiful news anchors, the adorable pet news and all the fear mongering. People are always competing for viewers, so the most shocking things are rewarded. This is why flaming is so common in the states. They get the craziest pundits to battle each other out, until the public doesn't know what to think. So being like such, it isn't really a good representation of the general american public. My point in the beginning was that a fear-mongering, hate-spouting lunatic like Bill O'Reilly would simply not get any airtime in Finland, because such behaviour is looked down on, whereas in the states it can be recognized as a controversial viewer magnet.

There are two examples I'd like to mention about both good and bad representations of our media.

First of all, about the openness. The Prime Minister's father, a recognized and merited professor, said some time ago that black people don't have the as good of a capacity to learn than white men - that they're brains don't function the same way as ours. He was highly criticized, and the Prime Minister as well as the whole country were a bit embarrassed. Some controversy sprung with Nigeria threatning to end all relations with Finland, because they thought it was the Prime Minister himself who said it. Well, they apologized after hearing who had actually said it. But my point is, such a statement wasn't suppressed or covered up in any way. Neither was it bolted up as a national tragedy, which would definately happen in the US, if George Bush sr. would say something like it. People were embarrassed, but that was about it. Anyhow, after smacking my forehead in a general 'oh no he didn't' gesture, I was proud that a story such as that one was able to get published.

Now for the suppressiveness. The Danish cartoons sprung a global conflict. Shortly after the cartoons, a Finnish magazine decided to publish a cartoon ridiculing the President, the PM and the foreign minister about their timidness about the whole scandal. The cartoon portrayed the leaders burning a Danish flag. This critique meant that the famous Finnish neutrality and humility was kind of keeping us away from taking sides, when we should've taken the side of our Danish blood brothers. Anyways, the cartoonist and the guy who ran the story were both fired, and the main claim for it was that the cartoon had personally ridiculed the leaders to the level of a terrorist, and that such cartoons may well jeopardize national security. This was kind of an embarrassment for me, since I feel that even if the message is negative, publishers and cartoonists should be able to do whatever they wanted. But I guess it was more of risk management than a matter of free speech. A similar thing where risk management overlapped free speech was when a Finnish magazine was gonna publish the Danish cartoons and they were forbidden to do so in fear of Islamist retaliation.

[LGM]

I watched it all. Whereas it was balsy, I don't feel Colbert said very much. Personal attacks aside, his satire, though somewhat funny, didn't really get any points across. It just seemed like a very bad SNL sketch. Silly and obtuse (mainly his "audition" tape).

I think roasts can be a high form of flattery... But when it's not particularly expected, it can send some crazy hard feelings around.

Personally, I don't know what to feel about anything in politics these days, except apathy. I don't know who to listen to, who to believe, and therefore I can't form my own opinion because I have nothing to base it in.

What little Colbert actually said, though, I may have to agree with. But honestly, I think Bush deserves much more respect than he gets. We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*, and with all due respect I think the man has made some terrible horrible decisions. But who are we to judge? We, as a society, can never be pleased it seems. We seem to always have the answers, but nobody with enough say cares.

I think we are putting our blame on the wrong guy. It's the high corporate executives and corrupt senators, all hungry for money, who we should be looking at. They, it seems, have more power than even the president. When the issue of deciding where to buy a summer home with 18 rooms and 250,000 sqare feet of beach and garden is more important than the welfare of an entire society, I think taking pot shots at the country's leader should be the least of our concern.

But who am I to say. I know next to nothing about all of this...

[Tuomas]

Yeah, well don't take us for nazis or fascist because of what I said.  There's no such difference between people's PUBLIC opinions, but you know, the gap is the reason we are losing the so called nordic welfare that some societies so like about us.

[RickJ]

Well it was supposed to be a roast, it was supposed to be funny, and Mr. Colbert is supposed to be a professional comedian.  The audience was mostly composed of left leaning journalists who oppose most of Bush's policies and therefore not hostile to Colbert's comments.    As someone in this thread correctly noted there wasn't much response from the audience in the way of laughter, especially during his initial comments about Bush.   The audience's response improved slightly when he went on to other topics.   

Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouHJuSbuTlo

[DGMacphee]

I watched it all. Whereas it was balsy, I don't feel Colbert said very much. Personal attacks aside, his satire, though somewhat funny, didn't really get any points across. It just seemed like a very bad SNL sketch. Silly and obtuse (mainly his "audition" tape).

We watched the same video, right? There were plenty of points he got across.

But honestly, I think Bush deserves much more respect than he gets. We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*, and with all due respect I think the man has made some terrible horrible decisions. But who are we to judge? We, as a society, can never be pleased it seems. We seem to always have the answers, but nobody with enough say cares.

You're saying we should respect him based purely on the fact that we shouldn't judge him and can never be pleased? And despite all the, as you say, terrible horrible decisions he's made?

Yeah, THAT makes sense!

Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

Bush's thing was very safe. It just left me with a "So what?" kinda feeling.

Colbert's bit had more edge to it. Some of the stuff Colbert's bit made my jaw drop, making me go, "He really said THAT?? Wow... What balls!!" The camera even cut to a lady in the audience with the same reaction as I had.

[edmundito]

I still don't see why americans brag about freedom. There are other places with more freedom.

It's not really their fault. It's what movies, newspapers, and tv tells them. The media still acts like it's right after 1776 (american independence year) and the spanish, the british, and the french still control most of the American continent and Europe is full of monarchies. Unless they mean freedom to capitalize everything that exists including other countries like Iraq, then I guess they do have the freedom to do it.

I thought Colbert was alright, but I expected a lot more. It was extremely mild stuff, like he was feeling a bit awkward or the whitehouse edited his monologue. I like him much better when he's in comedy central and he can do whatever the hell he wants.

[DGMacphee]

I thought Colbert was alright, but I expected a lot more. It was extremely mild stuff, like he was feeling a bit awkward or the whitehouse edited his monologue.

I'm surprised people are expecting more from Colbert and calling his performance "mild". It was a huge sucker punch to everyone involved: Bush, the press corp, Scotty McLellan, practically everyone. It was a complete ass-whooping.

I also doubt the White House edited the monologue. If they actually did, it'd be cut down to something like 3 mins.


Here's a good Washinton Post article on the debate that has followed.

EDIT: Here's another.

[RickJ]

Quote from: RickJ on Today at 14:47
Here is a clip of Bush and an impersonator.   Objectively evaluate which was funnier to the audience.   It's hard to conclude that Colbert was funnier after watching both.

Bush's thing was very safe. It just left me with a "So what?" kinda feeling.

Colbert's bit had more edge to it. Some of the stuff Colbert's bit made my jaw drop, making me go, "He really said THAT?? Wow... What balls!!" The camera even cut to a lady in the audience with the same reaction as I had.

It's a roast for goodness sake, your supposed to insult the guest of honor, which in this case was the pres!  So why doe it take balls to do  that.  Do you not understand what a "Roast" is?  And you are avoiding my question "Who did the audience think was funnier?"

Also in a recent interview, Mr. Colbert stated that he doesn't allow his young children to watch his work because he "deals in insincerity" and that they would probably not understand why their father was being insincere.   Given that this is his work and he does it everyday, insult and make fun of famous people and by his own words in a hopefully funny and insincere way, why does that take balls?

I'm surprised people are expecting more from Colbert and calling his performance "mild".

Probably because you haven't seen his other work.  Comparatively speaking this act was pretty lame.   I did enjoy the Helen Thomas bit though.  Probably most of you non-americans don;t know who Helen and so didn't really get the joke.

[LGM]

I dunno, DG... Everyone makes mistakes. Why does Bush have to constantly be compared to monkeys and be referred to as the next Hitler? It's stuff like that, the blind accusations, that really irk me. The guy's not perfect, but it hurts to watch the flak Bush gets. Honestly, my wishy washy attitude about him goes back to the fact that I really don't know what to believe. How do I know for certain he lied about Iraq? How certain am I that his only worry is about oil? How do I know he avoided the war? And certainly, how do I really know if he is from Texas?

Much of the mainstream media has turned into a cesspool of squirming vermon, clawing their way to the next article that'll bring shock, conspiracy, scandal, and boat-loads of readers, viewrs, and cashola. I just refuse to listen to much of it. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, so hey... I must be the next Hitler too. (Okay, that was terrible. I'm sorry).

Honestly, I think Bush's intentions for America are good, and that the influence of his cabinet and advisors sways him to some decisions that just aren't good. At all.

In my opinion, if anyone is at the top spot for destroying America, it is most definitely Paris Hilton!

edit: A roast, eh? I guess White House Correspondents Dinner is code for roast these days.

[DGMacphee]

It's a roast for goodness sake, your supposed to insult the guest of honor, which in this case was the pres!  So why doe it take balls to do  that.

It wasn't so much the roasting, it was more the honesty of it. It was so blunt and truthful, that it gave everyone a good kick in the behind.

Do you not understand what a "Roast" is?  And you are avoiding my question "Who did the audience think was funnier?"

That's because I don't give a shit who the audience found funnier. I found Colbert funnier.

Also, I do stand-up comedy. I know for a fact that just because a comedian doesn't get big laughs at one gig, doesn't mean his routine is a failure. It's a well-known fact about stand-up comedy. I've bombed at some gigs and got huge laughs at others with the same material.

Was Colbert's stuff appropriate for the audience? My answer: Who cares? It slapped everyone in the face, and I think that's what was important.

It's attracted a lot of debate too, and I also feel that is important.

Also in a recent interview, Mr. Colbert stated that he doesn't allow his young children to watch his work because he "deals in insincerity" and that they would probably not understand why their father was being insincere.   Given that this is his work and he does it everyday, insult and make fun of famous people and by his own words in a hopefully funny and insincere way, why does that take balls?

It's not that he insulted him. It's more that he was so blunt in his speech. It's the first time anyone has been this blunt to Bush right in his face. It was a total arse-ripping. The only thing I think exceeds it is what happened at Coretta Scott King's funeral.

Probably because you haven't seen his other work.  Comparatively speaking this act was pretty lame.   I did enjoy the Helen Thomas bit though.  Probably most of you non-americans don;t know who Helen and so didn't really get the joke.

I have seen his other stuff. I watched him when he was on the Daily Show and I watch Colbert Report clips whenever I can. Hell, I even did my honours thesis on news satire. So, don't treat me like I don't know what I'm talking about.

And I disagree his act was lame. I consider it among his finest work.

I dunno, DG... Everyone makes mistakes. Why does Bush have to constantly be compared to monkeys and be referred to as the next Hitler?

Colbert said nothing about Hitler or monkey. Neither did I.

I agree that that kind of humour sucks, but mainly because it's been overdue and is a cheap way to get a laugh. What Colbert did exceeded the usual "bush=hitler lol".

The guy's not perfect, but it hurts to watch the flak Bush gets.

C'mon, he deserves it. Does it really wound you THAT much that people are saying mean things about the president?

How do I know for certain he lied about Iraq?

Because even his administration admitted so.

And certainly, how do I really know if he is from Texas?

You're right, he was actually built from parts of other presidents in order to create a Super President! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Much of the mainstream media has turned into a cesspool of squirming vermon, clawing their way to the next article that'll bring shock, conspiracy, scandal, and boat-loads of readers, viewrs, and cashola. I just refuse to listen to much of it. Maybe that's a mistake on my part, so hey... I must be the next Hitler too. (Okay, that was terrible. I'm sorry).

How coincidental! I read in last week's New York Times that they're specifically pointing to you, some guy they've never heard about, as the next Hitler for completely unknown reasons.

Honestly, I think Bush's intentions for America are good, and that the influence of his cabinet and advisors sways him to some decisions that just aren't good.

So you're saying the blind guy running the country is being lead by evil guys? Well, now I can rest easy!

In my opinion, if anyone is at the top spot for destroying America, it is most definitely Paris Hilton!

I'll tell Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate her ASAP.

[Scummbuddy]

Do you really call her "Scubachic" Scumbuddy?!?

Only in bed....

Nah, I just thought it would allow for some people here to know who I was talking about. 

[LGM]

It doesn't wound me that much. I just, you know, think the guy who runs our country wouldn't be treated as such a joke. And I understand Colbert took the humor beyond the cheap hits... I guess I just want to hear somthing nice and considerate about the president.

And what I meant about his cabinet "leading him" wasn't quite like you assumed. It's more like.. Hey, the president isn't the only one responsible... That sort of thing.

I dunno. I don't even know why I seem to care so much. If I want to argue further I'll actually study my country's politics, but I really have better things to do. Like.. Going to college and meeting the ladies..

[Kweepa]

We've had much worse presidents *cough*Nixon*cough*

Why was Nixon any worse than Bush?
Nixon didn't start Vietnam. Watergate was just about bugging the Democrats' campaign offices. If that had happened these days, people would just shrug. Wiretapping... Secret (and not so secret) prisons... Outing CIA agents... Cutting taxes for the rich... Largest deficit ever... the list just goes on.

I don't even know why I seem to care so much.

Err... because the future of your country is at stake?
If you want to hear nice things about Bush, listen to Faux news.

Who did the audience find funnier?

That's a very difficult question to answer. Certainly they laughed more at the Bush^2 routine. Cheap laughs. That's why people are saying Colbert's got big brass balls. It takes a brave person to even laugh at Colbert's jokes when Bush is sitting RIGHT THERE.

[Las Naranjas]

Warren J. Harding.

Worst. President. Ever.

William "I'm-so-fat-I-got-stuck-in-my-bathtub" Taft

Second. Worst. President. Ever


Also, disregarding the negative columns of respective presidents, Nixon had at least two achievements whereby he opened up relations with the PRC and ended Bretton-Woods, but the plus column for the current administration is lacking.

Come on guys, lets compare postives and look on the bright side of life

[DGMacphee]

Lincoln sold poisoned milk to school children.

[evenwolf]

Audience reaction -

I doubt very much that the audience had many microphones, so that we could feel confident in judging their actual reaction.

It could be that those moments where you do hear them laugh, microphones had been set up or that they simply were laughing loud enough to be heard from the ones onstage.

SNL and other comedy shows set up strategic mics in the audience, if they aren't simply using a laugh track.

[Timosity]

It didn't even look as though Bush understood what he was talking about, I'm sure he had it translated to him later. The crowd seemed a bit reluctant to laugh, I'd say they were a bit unsure whether they should, pretty emotionless crowds in political settings, they don't like giving anything away.

I think Colbert held back a bit more than he could have


An Indonesian paper printed this cartoon not long ago just after the Danish one, it's the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister as copulating dingos


The only reaction from the Australian public was a bit of laughter, and John Howard hiding the picture it was based on.

[2ma2]

I dunno, ballsy or not.. it is good satire but still, imo nothing outrageous. I have only read the transcript, the actual expression may do the difference between brass scrotum or simple plywood.