Others chided the so-called mainstream media, including The New York Times, which ignored Mr. Colbert's remarks while writing about the opening act, a self-deprecating bit Mr. Bush did with a Bush impersonator.Others? Some? Who are these mysterious bloggers? The article does quote a piece Noam Scheiber wrote on the New Republic's blog (again, without a link!). So one blog is quoted. Then the article collects some quotes from Al Franken (who's performed at one of these correspondents dinners), Mary Matalin, and Scott McClellan -- not bloggers.
Some, though, saw nothing more sinister in the silence of news organizations than a decision to ignore a routine that, to them, just was not funny.
Why isn't this article alive with the quotes of bloggers? And some links, damn it! Cluelessly, the article is dotted with links for various names that appear in the article. These links all take you to pages within the NYT site. There are no links that take you to the blogosphere chatter that the story is about, only links to stale bios and old articles.
The NYT wants to be hip by talking about bloggers, but they are deathly afraid of links that send readers away from their site, and that desperation is horribly unhip.
***
NOTE: I was on on Open Source Radio last night blabbing about the Colbert affair with various pundits. Stream it here.
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
Walt, how many times are you going to repost the same comments? So, the media is a tool of the Bush Administration and it took Steve Colbert to get it to ask questions? Wild. This Colbert thing has gone from being a forgettable, unfunny (for Colbert) performance to being the most annoying, over-hyped, over-lauded feeding frenzy in recent memory. Steve Colbert is not a hero. He's a comedian that did a prestigious turn at the Correspondent's Dinner and ended up demonstrating his weaknesses rather than his strengths as an actor and comedian.
The amazing thing about the Bill Kristol interview - It aired the Thursday before the dinner. Colbert set the pundit up beautifully.
Yes, Bill Kristol really comes off well in that interview. It's rather obvious that he cares a lot about people throughout the world. No surprise that he was one of the first to call for action in Darfur, several years ago.
One can certainly disagree about when and where it's plausible to intervene, but Kristol certainly shatters the stereotypes of uncaring conservatives who just want war. He also certainly gave the lie to the idea that he and the other neocons are blind cheerleaders.
It's very sad to see so much of the Left slide into cynicism of not caring about the poor in the world, or opposing intervening anywhere because we can't intervene everywhere, of having nothing more to offer than the moral superiority of favoring intervening whereever we aren't, but blasting us whenever we do.
Anyone who seriously thinks that that was some kind of terrible takedown of Kristol is a sad, cynical human being.
I don't think you can call his act anything but annoying for all involved.
Yes, it's so "annoying" to you that he wants to save the poor people of Darfur for being slaughtered. So "annoying" that it might take the Marines, and a ground war, and people actually getting killed to stop it.
Please, feel free to continue washing your hands.
I guess I'm a raving warmongering neo-con because I was in favor of taking out Saddam in '91. Of course that's because I was there as a troop on the ground, following the ground offensive helped to gather crimes against humanity evidence relating to the attempted genocide in Kuwait, and then in the pre-treaty period got to help handle the refugee flow out of Iraq. You only need to meet so many little kids with their hands shot off for their brothers/fathers battlefield capture, or so many men with their tongues wrenched out for questioning the regime or talking back to the security services, before you develop a pretty strong opinion about such things. It seemed to me at the time the right thing to do was to take Saddam out, put the country under a UN protectorate, and then let the people rebuild for a while. We had a chance to oversee a relatively peaceful rebuilding of that country, and the nature of that regime. The fact that it appeared they'd stop at nothing to get their way and to keep power, made me believe we'd be back within a decade, if not due to another Iraqi invasion then due to some other mischief that a relatively wealthy, violent, dehumanizing and tyrannical government can wreak. It also struck me that in leaving Saddam in place, we hurt him, but left a dangerous enemy in alive to fight us another day, a really hazardous choice.
Talk all you want about knocking Bill Kristol down a peg, or showing them durned neo-cons a thing or two, sticking it to the Bush voters who are "complicit" and all that. It's great sport, and I'm sure the men without tongues wouldn't speak a word of disagreement with you, Walt.
Just listened to the Open Source stream, and I think you hit it dead on, Ann. Colbert is an actor in character and part of what makes his schtick work so wonderfully is his set and audience at the Report. It's a well oiled machine, and the effect is different outside of that box. Still funny and quite biting, but different. Also, watching the event knowing that Bush was nearby even made me a bit uncomfortable. I can't imagine what Colbert was feeling.
And, as to why the press wasn't laughing? I think Helen Thomas's view has some merit (not wanting to laugh in front of the President) but moreso, I simply think that the truth hurts. Possibly the pretentious press cannot laugh at their own expense?
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth -- but I've got oven mitts. [wikiquote]
For anybody that's interested, Ann's part starts about 21:50 of the Open Source stream.
Yes, I must admit I'm a little bored with the meme that Colbert is some kind of "hero" - which says more about the self-referential narcissism of the American media-entertainment complex :) than anything else.
May 3 is World Press Freedom Day. Pop along to http://www.worldpressfreedomday.org/ and see some real profiles in courage. in 2005, 58 journalists were killed and 788 imprisoned for doing their jobs - and the consequences are a little more seriously than getting a bit of stink-eye from Mr and Mrs Dubya over the pudding plates.
A fashionable political satirist taking easy shots at an unpopular target in a well-guarded ballroom before a friendly audience doesn't even being to compare...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा