Let the Wagons be Uncircled

From an otherwise excellent profile in the NY Times Magazine:

It wasn’t, in truth, Colbert’s funniest hour

This fascinates me, the ongoing refusal of the beltway media to acknowledge the hit they took. It really is an article of faith to these people that Colbert embarrassed himself that night.

Now look, I’m certainly amenable to the idea that political humor is often unfunny, even when effective. Next time someone brings up Lenny Bruce as a counterpoint to whatever comic they find guilty of “punching down,” go listen to one of his famous routines—are you laughing? If so, get out of the house, there’s a gas leak. That said, we’re not talking about someone like George Carlin who has many many styles won’t you take your pick, and yeah, you can easily make the case that the White House Correspondent’s Dinner was Colbert’s funniest hour. I’m a Cheating Death guy m’self but I’m saying it’s possible.

“In truth?” Two things about that: one, how wonderful it is that it should be employed against the man who coined “truthiness,” and two, though I’m of the mind that comedy’s vaunted subjectivity is massively overstated—yes, subjective experiences and reactions differ from person to person, but certain things, many jokes included, are objectively funny, and the fact that we can’t all agree on them only reinforces that, seeing as how “sense of humor” is the one thing less equally-distributed than wealth—it’s just a darned odd bit of phrasing, but exactly what you’d expect from someone who instinctively understands he was targeted for comic assassination along with the president.

Oh, and a third thing: Your eye first read that as “finest hour,” didn’t it? That’s because it was supposed to.

Interestingly, the preceding paragraph quotes some of the night’s best jabs (“he stands ON things,” “no matter what happened Tuesday”), so we’re not talking about a Milbank-type insider selectively memory-holing the laughs in favor of spotlighting the clunkers; the author’s just internalized his profession’s CW on the matter. As an aside, remember how the Post, the Times, and presumably others tried to pretend Colbert’s speech never happened? They didn’t merely ignore the evening’s events, they wrote it up as though the toothless Bush* impersonator was the sole entertainment—I felt an actual, physical chill reading their after-action reports, because that’s when my suspicion that the media, like all institutions, exist primarily to serve their own interests proved well-founded. A shame, being a cynical poser was a lot more fun when I thought I was full of shit.

Admittedly, this is nothing new. You hear a lot of revisionist happy-crap from the kind of folks who needed to see their country lied into war in order for their political awakening to take place; “oh, such-and-such editorial would make Katherine Graham roll over in her grave,” that sorta stuff. But look, Woodward and Bernstein weren’t golden boys of the journalistic establishment in their own time, they were a huge pain in their employers’ collective ass. Mencken? Well-loved by his readers, sure, but I doubt he was the inspiration to his contemporaries that he is to today’s unaligned cub reporters. Newspapers have always been part of the system, and the system’s always been something to be on guard against and periodically move against, that’s why it’s the system. Cue new-media triumphalists talkin’ crazy shit they’ll regret saying soon enough.

If I could, I would gladly expunge the phrase “speaking truth to power” from the language, and anything referencing “The Emperor’s New Clothes” would likewise be introduced to the business end of my Expunginator 3000. That said, hell, if either one ever applied, y’know? Not sure where I’d get the data to support my hypothesis—and probably wouldn’t be able to read it anyway—but it’s my strong sense that Colbert’s WHCD speech was the crack in the dam that led to the flood of anti-Bush public opinion, as though the country had been saying to itself for a good long while “gee, I sorta think maybe this guy sucks, but he’s treated as 100% legit, so I dunno,” and lo, along came someone who said “naw, it ain’t just you—he sucks big time.” For it to really work, though, Colbert had to take out the Hans Brinkers. They’ll never forgive him for it, and I can’t really expect them to, but I wish they’d at least realize they’re all engaging in a psychologically defensive cover-up; something so obvious to everyone but them, it’s frankly terrifying that they remain defiantly blind to it, considering their chosen trade.

Anyway, like I said, it’s a good piece worth reading (starts off with a certain air of “how dare he” in regards to the super PAC, but I think that’s just for arc’s sake). That part just jumped out at me, because in the words of John Rogers of Crazification Factor fame, we honor our own.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Stephen Colbert’s at the top of my “I’m Not Gay But” list. If you’re a man who read that sentence and said “ew, gross,” I feel compelled to break it to you gently that you’re trying way too hard to convince yourself of your own heterosexuality and should throw off your shackles post-haste. Or maybe you’re just hung up on ear symmetry.

*grow up

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/05/12 at 03:12 PM • Permalink

PS: Here’s a link to the vid in case anyone missed it.

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.