Nora Ephron framed the dilemma perfectly when she asked, “Is it possible for a comedian to utterly kill and bomb at the same time?”

To which I say, Absolutely. This was Dylan plugging in at Newport in 1965. The crowd may have booed, but the music world had forever shifted.

(ASIDE: Chris, I know you’ll appreciate the Dylan analogy, having done a whole show of about that moment back in ‘01, if I remember correctly.)

Ephron’s got it: he killed and bombed. How is that possible? Then the lightbulb went on:

He was booked to provide comedy. Instead he gave them satire.

As satire it was a work of pure genius — deep cutting, scalpel sharp, with blood everywhere.

As comedy… well, it kinda stunk.

I enjoy the program and will stick with it. Discussions like the Colbert show are great for sparking ideas and criticisms. It’s just what you do with the ideas and information that counts.

Now how do we get the rest of the planet to pay attention???

This morning on Meet the Press I watched the *other* comedian of the event, Steve Bridges, the Bush impressionist. And you know what? He was still pretty funny. And furthermore? A little search through Technorati finds that somebody, somewhere is peeved that Russert skipped mention of Colbert.

How many of us bother to read the various investigative reports in newspapers or magazines?
And when we do, how many of us thereafter organize political dissent?

Top off our inexcusable national somnolence with the sad truth that any given government, or any given corporate cabal puppeteering any given government, in the Two Party State is effectively unaccountable to the People, and you get the degenerating Republic we now enjoy.

The press’s worst failing, I am increasingly coming to comprehend, is its institutional unwilling to speak frankly of the Constitution shackling us to the unresponsive, anti-democratic governmental legacy of a long-gone century.

Unfortunately, this critique applies equally to my favorite media source: ROS.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/29.html#a8104

As of today, May 5, 2006.

For that, we must recognize Colbert’s effort. Because the goal of any hard-hitting investigative journalism is social change…and we all know that Bush is the decider.

The “cumulative effect” of these “moments” will only mean something if the Dems put up a viable alternative. Otherwise this was only the jester’s turn to perform. Reminds me of Bob Dylan’s recent film “Masked and Anonymous” where the Government put on concerts of “rebellious” music (like the Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”) to make the kid’s feel rebellious, thus keeping them subdued. Bob (Jake Fate) didn’t cooperate, neither did Colbert. Jake went back to prison at the end of the film.

There was a price for both moves. For Bush the price was the disconnect between what he was saying and what was in the news pages day after day. The ultimate expression of which was Katrina. For the press the price was failing completely in its watchdog role, and normalizing an extraordinary situation until it’s not even visible any more.

Colbert was there to talk about that price. Neither side liked it.

And here’s what host Chris Lydon said on the air just before he began to interview us: “How did Stephen Colebrt get into a ballroom that didn’t quite get or want to get what he was up to? Was it funny? Was it true? Did it work?�

This is something of a cockfight between Jay and Noam. Interesting to a point. I did listen again to that part of the show. It seemed to me first off that Chris got the whole thing right in his introductory with questions. I agree with Jay Rosen’s interpretation but you Jay were coming on hard at Noam and he took his marbles, went home and got back at you on The Plank. I think he was at the dinner, maybe taking part in the self-congratulatory mood of the evening. Perhaps Noam Scheiber was therefore defensive. Colbert was the real contrarian. He busted the party. Who could have left that night without some unease somewhere inside?

So THE reason, or A reason, that it was not funny to the press was because ( as someone said on this thread or elsewhere) the White House Press and the Administration have a kind of protective solidarity between them. Could the press laugh jokes aimed at the hand that feeds them? Could they laugh again at the seriousness of the underlying criticism that that they, the WH press, are not there working for the people?

But Colbert was.

Noam, you are such a contrarian! But it can get out of hand. I count five errors in 659 words, some not so important, others quite important.

1.) “I had a truly bizarre experience appearing opposite NYU media critic Jay Rosen on an NPR program called ‘Open Source last night.” Nope. It’s not an NPR program, it’s a public radio program, a co-production of Chris Lydon’s operation, the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, and WGBH in Boston. Not distributed by NPR but by Public Radio International. Small error, but you are a journalist, right? You could have checked.

2.) “The ostensible reason for having us on was to debate the humor value of Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner performance.” Wrong again. This one’s a little more serious. You have misstated by a mile what the program was about. No wonder you were such a one-note on the air.

According to the Open Source blog, in a posting that was up all day before the show, the questions were these: “Is this a work of comedy or agitprop? Can only the court jester can tell the truth? Is the White House press corps already on the case and does it not need a New York-based comedian to speak truth to their power? Is a video clip on the web the only way to understand Washington? Do you lose something by actually being there in the room with the administration? And why has the press in general been so reluctant to cover the Colbert moment, and the blogosphere so eager?”

And here’s what host Chris Lydon said on the air just before he began to interview us: “How did Stephen Colebrt get into a ballroom that didn’t quite get or want to get what he was up to? Was it funny? Was it true? Did it work?”

His first question to me was not the one question you came to answer– the humor value of Colbert’s performance. He asked me, “What kind of event was this?” So I answered him: social criticism, I said.

So you’re being contrarian, Noam, but your statement is contrary to facts you could have looked up, but didn’t. You’re a journalist, right?

3. “Come to think of it, the Colbert line that most impressed Rosen was something right out of a Frank Rich column: ‘[N]o matter what happens to America, she will always rebound–with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.’”

Nope again, Noam. I’m sorry. I guess this fact checking thing isn’t your thing. I didn’t say anything about that line. You did, however (a lot) and Chris Lydon did, but I never mentioned it. Do contrarians get to make stuff up like that? I didn’t think so, but seeing as this too is easy to check (just listen to the show) and you didn’t check it, one starts to wonder.

4-5. “Rosen is actually pretty fast and loose with the facts himself. For example, he kept claiming that the journalists in the audience weren’t laughing because they were the object of Colbert’s withering critique.” Uh, no. Contrary again to what happened.

First, Noam (you should listen to the show before you write this stuff…) I went out of my way to say the opposite. Here is me on the air: “It’s true, by the way, that they weren’t laughing because they didn’t think it was funny. I would agree with you on that. They did not think it was funny.”

This is what’s so hilarious about contrarians like you, Noam. You try to agree with them and they block it out so they can remain contrary.

Second, I didn’t say the journalists weren’t laughing because they were the object of Colbert’s withering critique. My point was that they were implicated in his critique, from start to finish. When Colbert was zinging Bush for ignoring facts and not letting events intrude he was (implicitly) mocking the notion of a watchdog press that’s supposed bark at things like that and wake people up.

You heard what you wanted to hear, you answered the question you wanted the show to ask, and you wrote the posts you felt like writing– regardless of what actually happened.

But… everyone knows what a contrarian you are now, Noam.

I thought that the show fell a little flat, because I don’t believe that Ann Althouse had much to contribute. I just wanted her to shut up. She was hardly the best representative of the blogosphere.

Perhaps, in future, you could read–with permission–soem of the best comments from other people’s blogs. I say that, because I wonder whether some of the psudonymous writers would want to talk.

Here are the posts and people I would recommend.

From the mainstream media, you should have (and may have) invited Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.

In that column Froomkin links to Billmon who is a real genius of the medium. His comments were worth reading on the air.

In fact, you should read him all the time. He’s smart and biting and juxtaposes quotations with aplomb in a way that sends chills down your spine.

One thing that I didn’t hear mentioned on the show, and it’s why I felt that the show fell flat, was that there are different traditions of satire. A White Bear had a fabulous post placing Colbert’s speech within the Juvenalian tradition. She argues that everyone was expecting him to follow the Horatian model which someone like Jon Stewart does seem to follow. Instead Colbert’s satire works by “ironically realigning the subject position to the object’s and describing things from that point of view in such a way that the object of satire becomes truly despicable. Instead of ridiculing some other party not present, this kind of satire invites the audience to apply their contempt (symbolically) to the speaker and then to the satirized object.”

In a kingdom, the jester is part of the court and given the role of relieving peoples’ anger at their powerlessness. In a democracy (or would-be democracy) the people are suppose to be in charge, and Colbert was playing to the wishes of his masters. This is where many in the press and in politics have failed. But unlike the jester, who makes light, their role is vital to sustaining our rights. Unfortunately, most do the bidding of their corporate bosses, all the time denying it, which clearly shows that the corporations and not the public run the nation. This is a real tragicomedy that is hard to laugh about and is one thing Colbert failed to mention.

Althouse throws the Times a roundhouse for dissing the bloggers!

take it to the streets!

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-tell-jokes.html

Also- maybe Colbert made a point that Frank Rich made first- but Colbert did it to the President’s face- which made all the difference in the world. Colbert’s performance was of a court jester saying things that other could not or woulld not on the one hand and on the other hand scolding the subservient White House press who were there to congratulate and celebrate themselves. Steve Colbert was there for us– as many have said here on this thread.

Neil Conan who was at the dinner said on the radio today that Colbert’s performance was anticlimactic because it came at the end of the evening and after the president’s schtick. he was also surprised at the response out here.

So he didn’t get it. Okay. Many didn’t I guess.