Isn't It Ironic? Doncha Think?

The Report on Colbert

It seems a little silly to focus so much on the words of and reaction to a comedian, especially on this May 1 (which finds thousands upon thousands of people protesting the draconian legislative bills on the dockets for dealing with illegal immigrants/undocumented workers, and is the third anniversary of the President's Mission Accomplished moment. But Stephen Colbert's big night out at the White House Correspondents' Dinner has become a pop culture moment--vociferously derided on the Right and impassionately celebrated on the Left (complete with its own Thank You site--a la the Thank You Harry Taylor message site).

It was a gutsy, edgy comedic performance (with an emphasis on performance, rather than schtick) that made the folks at the tables go all buggy-eyed with disbelief that, under layers of finely honed irony, pulled back the facade that is this administration rather than just poked fun of it. But even more (which is why its become such a cause célèbre), it was an amazing moment of speaking and revealing truthiness at its core. Truthiness is the term first coined by Colbert on his premiere show, and it's become part of the pop culture/politcal lexicon. Colbert, in an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday (see it over at Crooks & Liars), defined it thusly:

Truthiness is what you want the facts to be as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support. [...] I don't think it's a new thing that I'm describing. But I think we're getting better at it.

If you read the main stories in the Washington Post or the New York Times or saw the AP newswire story, you wouldn't know what all the ruckus was all about. The WaPo barely mentioned him, while the NYT completely ignored him with no mention in the article at all--focusing instead on the Bush doppelganger played by Steve Bridges, which played more to the humor tradition of the occasion. Here's part of that act via Dan Froomkin over at the WaPo:

The boozy bonhomie of the annual event is intended to serve as a balm for the often tense relationship between the White House and the reporters who cover it.
[...]
From the Bush part of the evening, Bridges (as Bush): "Here I am at another one of these dang press dinners. Could be home asleep, little Barney curled up at my feet. But noooo, I gotta pretend I like being here. The media really ticks me off, the way they try to embarrass me by not editing what I say. . . . "

Bush: "I am absolutely delighted to be here, as is Laura."

Bridges: "She's hot. Muy caliente."

But then came Colbert (transcript via Daily Kos diarist Frederick):

[M]y name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it's my privilege to celebrate this president. We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut.
[...]
I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.
[...]
I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite-powered car!

Biting remarks, but nothing too below-the-belt. But here's where things started getting itchy for the assembled media horde--connecting their complicity in forwarding the BushCo Gang's truthiness these past five years:

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!

It's not just the material, as transcribed above, that was so devastatingly on target. It was the performance that made this such a nervy ordeal. Colbert punctuated his script with loads of white space that made the material sink in even deeper than if it had just been standard issue staccato riffing. It reminded me of a night back in college (at St. Olaf in southern Minnesota--which has nothing to do with the Golden Girls, so don't even bring that up) when I attended the course final of a student's independent project, in which he was studying stand-up comedy. His material just wasn't that good and everyone's nerves were fraying at the table where I was sitting--to the point that one of my tablemates snapped her eyeglasses in two as she held them in her hand. After watching the video (you can find it over at Crooks & Liars, Salon's Video Dog, and YouTube), I had a distinct sense of deja vu back to that night. Colbert's material was certainly vastly superior to Noslo's, but it was the full-bore ironic performance more than the material that was equally riveting and shocking.

But even more unnerving was the video segment that was offered. Salon's War Room has the goods on that:

As Colbert made clear in a videotaped sketch, the White House press corps -- while showing some signs of life of late -- has, over time, been more than complicit in the Imagineering that surrounds this president. It helped sell his case on Iraq. It covered up for him on the outing of Valerie Plame. It laughs at his jokes when it should be shining a light on an administration that went to war on a lie, turned a massive surplus into a massive dedicit, and stood by idly as a great American city faced death.

In the video, Colbert fantasized that he was the new White House press secretary, forced again and again to confront the question of why the administration invaded Iraq. Bush used to think that was a pretty funny one; at the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush narrated a slide show of himself searching for those wascally WMD all around the Oval Office and under the cushions of a White House sofa. Some 2,400 dead Americans later, it's not really har-de-har-har humor anymore.

On the flip, I'll cover some of the reaction...

: : : : : : : : : :

Christopher Durang (over at HuffPo) complains about the media's ignoring of the centerpiece of Saturday night's gala:

The right wing blogs are saying Colbert bombed, and in some ways that's not wrong, the gathered audience wanted and expected something lighter - but that's what makes the appearance so startling. It's very witty when you read the text; but actuality as Colbert says these things to the President's face, it's very uncomfortable. Watching it, It's like Hamlet forcing King Claudius to watch the play that accuses him of murder. Or it's like a man asked to be Court Jester who shows up and tells the king exactly what's wrong with him, and gets out of the building before they can behead him. (Why do I keep having "king" examples, lol. No reason, I'm sure.)

Colbert's was a brave and shocking performance. And for the media to pretend it isn't newsworthy is a total bafflement. And a symbol of how shoddy and suspect the media is.

(And a truly interesting news question - who chose the biting Colbert to be the entertainment? And are they now in trouble?)

This morning, Katie Couric and Matt Lauer giggled and got all warm about the cutesy performance of Bush and the Twin look-alike imitator. Really funsy. Colbert was not mentioned.

Noted Daily Kos irregular Georgia10 comments on the intersection between Colbert and Harry Taylor:

However, the context of Colbert's critique should not be minimized because of the environment in which it was delivered. Like Taylor, Colbert demonstrated an extraordinary amount of courage when he bluntly voiced dissent while standing just feet away from the Leader of the Free World. Like Taylor, Colbert was faced with a largely unsympathetic crowd (where Taylor received boos, Colbert's critique was met with the scattered, nervous laughter of a audience uncomfortable with a clear exposition of the truth). So why did the Harry Taylor moment get more media play?

The answer perhaps can be found in the President's response. The clips of Taylor included the President's jokes which minimized the importance of Taylor's dissent. They also included the President's "tough guy" response to Taylor--"I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program...[Y]ou said, would I apologize for that? The answer -- answer is, absolutely not." The media line then was that Taylor challenged the President, who responsed with a tough defense of his policy. Taylor: 1, Bush: 1, no net gain. It's safe to report on a wash for the President.

But the President's response to Colbert was nothing more than pursed lips, red face, and a cold shoulder goodbye. The result was that Colbert's painfully truthful analysis of the Bush administration had none of that faux balance the media loves to employ as a substitute for actual journalism. Add to the mix that the critique included attacks on the media establishment as well, and it's not surprising that Colbert's Harry Taylor moment has been brushed off as the shtick of a comedian rather than the dissent of an American citizen.

Also over at Daily Kos, diarist dday (who has some experience with stand up) offers his take on the performance:

What Stephen Colbert did the other night is a textbook example of "playing to the back of the room." It's all the more courageous because there actually wasn't a back of the room there; they were all at home, a few of them watching on C-SPAN, others finding the Quicktime later. I know he was quoted as saying that the whole thing was "just for laughs," but he clearly made a conscious effort that he was not going to change his act to satisfy the audience. He wasn't going to the audience, he was going to let them come to him. And if they didn't, oh well. I remember Joel Hodgson of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" fame (who I had the pleasure of meeting recently) once say "We don't wonder 'will people get this,' we say 'The right people will get this.'"

Michael Scherer over at Salon comments on the use of irony:

His imitation of the quintessential GOP talking head -- Bill O'Reilly meets Scott McClellan -- uncovered the inner workings of the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate. He reversed and flattened the meaning of the words he spoke. It's a tactic that the cultural critic Greil Marcus once called the "critical negation that would make it self-evident to everyone that the world is not as it seems." Colbert's jokes attacked not just Bush's policies, but the whole drama and language of American politics, the phony demonstration of strength, unity and vision.

[...]

In the late 1960s, the Situationists in France called such ironic mockery "détournement," a word that roughly translates to "abduction" or "embezzlement." It was considered a revolutionary act, helping to channel the frustration of the Paris student riots of 1968. They co-opted and altered famous paintings, newspapers, books and documentary films, seeking subversive ideas in the found objects of popular culture. "Plagiarism is necessary," wrote Guy Debord, the famed Situationist, referring to his strategy of mockery and semiotic inversion. "Progress demands it. Staying close to an author's phrasing, plagiarism exploits his expressions, erases false ideas, replaces them with correct ideas."

But nearly half a century later, the ideas of the French, as evidenced by our "Freedom fries," have not found a welcome reception in Washington. The city is still not ready for Colbert. The depth of his attack caused bewilderment on the face of the president and some of the press, who, like myopic fish, are used to ignoring the water that sustains them. Laura Bush did not shake his hand.

Political Washington is accustomed to more direct attacks that follow the rules. We tend to like the bland buffoonery of Jay Leno or insider jokes that drop lots of names and enforce everyone's clubby self-satisfaction. (Did you hear the one about John Boehner at the tanning salon or Duke Cunningham playing poker at the Watergate?) Similarly, White House spinmeisters are used to frontal assaults on their policies, which can be rebutted with a similar set of talking points. But there is no easy answer for the ironist. "Irony, entertaining as it is, serves an almost exclusively negative function," wrote David Foster Wallace, in his seminal 1993 essay "E Unibus Pluram." "It's critical and destructive, a ground clearing."