Comments on: Atrios and Digby on Cox on Colbert

By: Jon Swift

Jon Swift — Thu, 11 May 2006 12:03:17 +0000

The liberal media is attacking Colbert by saying he's unfunny because they are offended by his conservative views: http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/05/liberal-media-attacks-stephen-colbert.html

By: Mel Walker

Mel Walker — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:30:09 +0000

I think Colbert wasn’t “funny” so much as “meta-funny,” i.e. funny on a higher level.
For example, him telling the press that their job was to be scribes for White House talking points wasn’t particularly funny.
The press, having been extremely offended by that joke, left the dinner, went back to work, and dutifully wrote out the WH talking points.
Now that’s funny.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 09 May 2006 12:31:45 +0000

Kathy;
NO, they didn’t prevail over Franco. Franco died, and he misjudged his appointed successor, the current king of Spain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco#Spain_after_Franco
There seems to be a general misunderstanding that people will “have what’s coming for them” in the end. No, it isn’t like that.
The only way is if we do something and give them what’s coming for them.

By: SombreroFallout

SombreroFallout — Tue, 09 May 2006 12:01:20 +0000

This is mostly not a bad explication, EXCEPT THAT …
…OF COURSE Great Satire is not all hoots and giggles, overflowing with actual laugh-out-loud hilarity. The discomfort that comes from skewering a sacred cow or two, from political purpose, tends to step on the yuks.
But that DOESN’T mean Stephen Colbert wasn’t actually funny. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Satire isn’t a license for the audience to deny the humor at hand, but the compulsion to do so on the part of the Serious Person knows no political loyalty.
The Sense of Propriety of Serious Liberals is just as prickly and offended by, actual, functioning jokes, as is the nominal target. And that’s always been a problem, and it always will be.
You can’t tell someone something was funny — even though it was. The Serious Person will deny this, even as they’re put into their own grave.
LAck of actual laughs doesn’t make someone “not funny.” Which is a point continually overlooked. Stephen Colbert was funny — and daring. The jokes made people laugh — and smile. By turns hilarious and pointedly topical, actual laughs depend not only on political position, but on High Seriousness and the balance of humor and bloody reality contained in any one joke. To deny they were funny is to Cling to Denial more tightly than ever, like a life preserver on the Hindenberg.
I actually read someone complain that that joke was a mixed metaphor. “It’s not even a good metaphor.”
And Denial is the point. Stephen Colbert insists on having people — both Bush and the Press — listen to themselves. For many, the Social Niceties of the day are far more important than the blood spilling under the door from any one of dozens of the Issues of the Day.
One mustn’t Cause a Scene. And so denying that Colbert was funny is a proxy for the impossible, for denying the import and truth of his pointed, inescapable and substantive barbs. It won’t work, because it can’t work.
Colbert was funny and he was deadly serious all at the same time, subversively so — and that can’t be appropriated, owned, or laughed off. Which is the problem. Those who take themselves seriously will never be able to actually take seriously the bloody seriousness of the issues they actively sweep under the rug. Mustn’t cause a scene, you know. Must laugh at Bush’s video as he looks under the couch for those missing WMDs! Now that’s funny.
Ana Marie Cox’s column was plainly very poorly thought out. There’s nothing sadder than a socialite who presumes a sense of humor shown up by a Great Satirist in a social setting. Cox was shown up. That coulda, shoulda been Cox up there, laying into her Fellow Travelers: but even with an endless supply of priceless fodder, Colbert got there first.
And took down the house. The Nation was laughing — and that’s the problem for many. The American People came to that party and got their say in — and then laughed their asses off as Colbert gave the assembled deniers and dissemblers a taste of their own medicine. He owned that microphone.
The dinner guests were so spoiled and precious that what they objected to was that the American public was invited to the tea party and that, this time, the jokes were actually funny.
It didn’t hurt the humor-meter that the joke was on them. That was half the fun.

By: ArC

ArC — Tue, 09 May 2006 09:29:42 +0000

Poster Toaster: *laugh*. Sure, if the capitalization was a typo, then I’d withdraw my quibble. AMC certainly does have well-established ‘blue’ credentials.

By: I know what wanker mean

I know what wanker mean — Tue, 09 May 2006 05:35:10 +0000

I know what “wanker” means. But just to prove that Atrios and I both do, here is what dictionary.com has to say about this word:
1. A person who masturbates.
2. A detestable person.
I dare say that Ana Marie Cox is both of these. Exactly what about Atrios’ usage of the term do you find to be incorrect?

By: spacemonkey

spacemonkey — Tue, 09 May 2006 04:06:42 +0000

“BUSH LIED, COLBERT’S RIGHTFULLY EARNED LAUGHTER WAS NULLIFIED!!!”
Hah! Now finally some humor out of all this. Nice one Jim.

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:52:59 +0000

“Well, the AH dictionary sez it ‘bomb’ can have the slang meaning of ‘dismal failure or complete fiasco’ – that’s a good description of the Bush presidency (unless Bush really is being paid by the Iranian Secret Service) but Colbert’s act was a triumph.”
Ah, Triumph! He would have been funny.

By: Barbar

Barbar — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:30:36 +0000

The press corps weren’t Colbert’s audience, they were his props.

By: citizen k

citizen k — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:29:06 +0000

Well, the AH dictionary sez it “bomb” can have the slang meaning of “dismal failure or complete fiasco” – that’s a good description of the Bush presidency (unless Bush really is being paid by the Iranian Secret Service) but Colbert’s act was a triumph. The straight man is nor required to laugh after he slips and falls.
You may think of the Washington press and pols as the arbiters and audience, the rest of us just laugh.

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:07:56 +0000

“Jim Treacher: are y’all running a course on sad envy?”
I’m not even sure what that means, so I’ll say no.
“Colbert generated so much public demand that CSPAN had to let google video offer it. (see http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/05/update_on_colbert_vi.html) and his TV viewership is up dramatically. That’s called a HIT. Colbert’s act was a HIT with the wide audience, no matter what the humiliated press corp has to say.”
That’s great. Unfortunately, none of those people were within earshot that night.
I mean, if your point is “It doesn’t matter that he bombed,” or “Bombing was his whole point,” okay, you’ve got a leg to stand on. But to just flat-out deny that he bombed? All that means is you don’t know the definition of the word.
Or, wait. Maybe…
BUSH LIED, COLBERT’S RIGHTFULLY EARNED LAUGHTER WAS NULLIFIED!!!

By: citizen k

citizen k — Tue, 09 May 2006 02:00:07 +0000

Jim Treacher: are y'all running a course on sad envy? Colbert generated so much public demand that CSPAN had to let google video offer it. (see http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/05/update_on_colbert_vi.html) and his TV viewership is up dramatically. That's called a HIT. Colbert's act was a HIT with the wide audience, no matter what the humiliated press corp has to say.

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Tue, 09 May 2006 01:37:52 +0000

“Had I written Cox’s column, I would have said some of that, in order to defend Colbert from the silly charge of having ‘bombed’ when a routine not primarily designed to cause people to laugh did not, in fact, cause them to laugh.”
Colbert is a comedian. He told jokes in front of an audience. The audience laughed sporadically and hesitantly, if at all. That’s what “bombing” means.
How about a counterexample: Let’s say I’m watching a Dane Cook routine for some reason. I’m not laughing, of course, because it’s Dane Cook. The crowd is rolling in the aisles, though. Now, is he bombing just because I don’t like it? Of course not. Well, Colbert didn’t somehow NOT bomb just because people who weren’t within earshot at the time now think he was hilarious.

By: Avedon

Avedon — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:26:52 +0000

People use “wanker” over here pretty much exactly the way people use “jerk” (as a noun) back home. Which isn’t surprising, since their literal meaning is much the same.
It’s never been regarded as sexist to call a woman a jerk. It’s just that these days people usually skip straight to “bitch” instead.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:51:49 +0000

Sorry, here's the Gilliard link: http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/04/dear-ms-cox.html

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:35:36 +0000

I think I’ll stick to the Investiture Conflict (advt.)

By: Roland

Roland — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:26:29 +0000

I’m not here to hurl abuse at you. Not warranted. However, I’ve read both you and Atrios for a long time, and I wonder what drove you, seemingly out of the blue, to throw any rocks at all at Atrios?
For one thing, no, I don’t think Atrios is always “mad” at someone. He has lots of comments & observations, many snarky, but I only rarely have got the feeling he’s “mad” at someone.
You may believe that Atrios tries to provoke people and reactions. I don’t know if this is just his nature or a blog strategy, but so what? You posts are often provocative as well.
I guess my point, if I have one, is this: why throw rocks at Atrios, who I see as a member of the reality-based community, when there are so many other targets on the other side? I’ve never really seen your blog as a place I would go to find criticism of other blogs on the reality-preferent side of the fence.
Not helpful. And, yes, OF COURSE he’s going to throw them back.
You guys are both good guys, and if you have differences, work them out in private. Otherwise, stop it, please.

By: Poster Toaster

Poster Toaster — Mon, 08 May 2006 20:15:42 +0000

Ms. Cox has “blue” credentials? I think you may want to check the definition of “blue” … or ask her husband. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

By: Max Renn

Max Renn — Mon, 08 May 2006 19:58:11 +0000

AMC is defending her witless and artless husband as much as anything else. It’s insider nonsense and you bought it, Mark.
You also used it as an opportunity to attack Atrios and Digby, which I find . . . interesting to say the least.

By: Applied Dynamics

Applied Dynamics — Mon, 08 May 2006 19:31:16 +0000

Citizen K is correct.
A bootlicking media corps that makes a critic of Bush into a nonperson is pretty much classic Stalinism.
Bloggers getting mad about it is not Stalinism, by any stretch of the imagination.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 08 May 2006 19:28:22 +0000

“This is why the Left will never hold power–there is no Left. Just a bunch of internecine squabbles.”
Wha-? Ana Marie Cox does not represent “the Left.” She represents herself, and nothing else. She’s built a career out of petty, crude, and thoroughly uncivil snark, much of it at the expense of Democrats. At best she’s a pale imitation of Maureen Dowd, but with even less maturity or serious political commentary.
Atrios’ takedown of her was long overdue and richly deserved.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:39:17 +0000

M.A.R.K. was evidently a little itchy on the trigger finger, as has happened before, both Atrios-connected and not. Perhaps better to take a breather before waxing indignant … have a drink … who knows, wank a bit? (If anyone could be expected to be a proud, unrepentant wanker, it’s Ana Marie Cox. In the more literal sense at least.)
Anyway, as someone who reads Kleiman and Atrios daily, and who read Wonkette back in the AMC days, I would suggest that all & sundry lighten up. (Though I do wish Atrios hadn’t dumped quite so hard on her book: ouch.)

By: citizen k

citizen k — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:21:33 +0000

There are three salient points in this discussion.
1. Press coverage of the dinner to a Pravda like extent, pretended that Colbert was not there. The MSM covered the dinner, depicted Bush as a humorous regular guy- the Friend of all Regular Guys as it would have been stated in the Soviet Press, and gave details about the Bush imitator. But during an unpopular and controversial war, a commedian stood in front of the press and President and took them savagely to task for lying the nation into war and mocked the press for “typing” rather than reporting. What Dau, Atrios, and others noted was that for whatever reason, “reporters” decided to keep their readers in ignorance of this fact.
2. Cox published a work of dishonest hackery in which she falsely claimed that complaints about the Press censorship were actually complaints that Colbert’s act was not acknoledged as funny. She presented this story using a rhetorical device common to totalitarian regimes of ridiculing the “whining” of dissidents from the official line.
3. Mark’s response (a) contained very dubious assertions such as an assertion that Cox had good credentials as a serious liberal political writer when she is actually only known as a writer of snide X-rated gossip and (b) followed the party line that dissidents are obviously irrationally angry.
I think that sums it up. Everyone back out to Hate Week where we discuss Emmanuel Goldstein’s irrational hatred of our Way of Life and Leader.

By: Dr. Pedant

Dr. Pedant — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:13:41 +0000

Jaysus Mark, what’d'you do, forget the payment to the Duncan Black retirement party? And just WTF got into him? There aren’t enough real enemies on the other side?
This is why the Left will never hold power–there is no Left. Just a bunch of internecine squabbles.

By: the truth

the truth — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:10:46 +0000

Cox directly benefitted (and still benefits) from the adoration of misogynists with her dirty girl shtick
(see Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler).
And what evidence do you have–you present none–of her liberal credentials? All she did as Wonkette was entertain the
chattering classes with a** f***ing stories.

By: Mr.Murder

Mr.Murder — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:38:10 +0000

Nobody ever dared question Caesar. But when Caligula roamed the streets he found the groveling bawdy lower class carried out sketches and plays on his desire to f*** sister.
Colbert could have been dirty and given Bush the kind of treatment he really deserved, forgive him for being civil and not lowerinbg self to Rove’s level.
As noted, the bull-jerk jokeoff references of AWOL’s equistrian massage tactics when noticed by wifey were not above the pale. Neither were the no WMDs chuckles that have no doubt had people at Bethesda, Walter reed and Landstuhl literally rolling in the aisles and Lieberman in stitches of his own.
Nothing to see here, move along. Someone who married up and obsessed a**f***ing thinks it wasn’t funny at all.
A few self pronounced left pundits agree, eager to try and get their shot at a paying gig.
Lighten up. Try some lubricant. Alcohol based or otherwise. Apply it liberally to areas of need.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:32:34 +0000

umm – wanker is Brit slang, not to be taken any more literally than a Yank suggesting that a m***erf***er actually has intercourse with his, well . . . I think even one as thick as you can take it from there.

By: Ducktape

Ducktape — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:20:28 +0000

JR: “Too bad that he thereby becomes the victim of unwarranted left-wing criticism.
Well Mark, there are some of us liberals out there who agree with you.”
ROFLMAO! Trolling for Dummies, page 13:
“It is easier to direct opinion by ‘pushing from behind’ than by trying to stand in its way. So a basic technique is to pretend to be on the same side while offering up criticisms. Otherwise, the people who normally agree with your targets will perceive you as an antagonist and will filter out your comments.”
The “the victim of unwarranted left-wing criticism” coupled with “us liberals” is a dead giveaway.
Don’t you guys ever get beyond the first chapter in that book?

By: Sundog

Sundog — Mon, 08 May 2006 17:19:57 +0000

Scream MISOGYNY!
Shame on you.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:20:21 +0000

Also, one thing to add in response to the “they didn’t publish it” outcry. While I believe that they didn’t do it because they were ashamed, Kevin Drum brought up a good point: how much coverage did it get last year? Was it that much more than Colbert? Are they really doing something different or is this just standard behavior?
It doesn’t mean the behavior isn’t wrong, but it would mean there doesn’t have to be a conspiracy about it.