The
White House Correspondents' Association Dinner was televised on C-Span
Saturday evening. Featured entertainer Stephen Colbert delivered a biting rebuke
of George W. Bush and the lily-livered press corps. He did it to Bush's
face, unflinching and unbowed by the audience's muted, humorless
response. Democratic Underground members commented in real time (here, here, and here).
TMV posted a wrap-up.
On Colbert's gutsy delivery, watertiger
writes, "Stephen Colbert displayed more guts in ten minute of
performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner than the entire
Bush family. He, along with the ever-feisty Helen Thomas, deftly
exposed the "truthiness" to the world (or at least those who were
watching) that Bush AND the D.C. press corps are indeed a naked emperor
and his gutless courtiers."
Mash at dKos
says, "Standing at the podium only a few feet from President Bush,
Colbert launched an all out assault on the policies of this
Administration. It was remarkable, though painful at times, to watch.
It may also have been the first time that anyone has been this blunt
with this President. By the end of Colbert's routine, Bush was visibly
uncomfortable. Colbert ended with a video featuring Helen Thomas
repeatedly asking why we invaded Iraq. That is a question President
Bush has yet to answer to the American public. I am not sure what kind
of review Stephen Colbert's performance will get in the press. One
thing is however certain -- his performance was important and will
reverberate."
It appears Mash's misgivings about press coverage are well-placed. The AP's first stab at itReuters and the Chicago Tribune
tell us everything we need to know: Colbert's performance is
sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted,
humble, and funny. Expect nothing less from the cowardly American
media. The story could just as well have been Bush and Laura's
discomfort and the crowd's semi-hostile reaction to Colbert's
razor-sharp barbs. In fact, I would guess that from the perspective of
newsworthiness and public interest, Bush-the-playful-president is far
less compelling than a comedy sketch gone awry, a pissed-off prez, and
a shell-shocked audience.
and pieces from
This is the power of the media to choose the news, to decide when
and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission can be
just as bad as sins of commission. And speaking of a sycophantic media
establishment bending over backwards to accommodate this White House and to regurgitate pro-GOP and anti-Dem spin, I urge readers to pick up a copy of Eric Boehlert's new book, Lapdogs.
It's a powerful indictment of the media's timidity during the Bush
presidency. Boehlert rips away the facade of a "liberal media" and
exposes the invertebrates masquerading as journalists who have allowed
and enabled the Bush administration's many transgressions to go
unchecked, under-reported, or unquestioned.
A final thought: Bush's clownish banter with reporters -- which is
on constant display during press conferences -- stands in such stark
contrast to his administration's destructive policies and to the
gravity of the bloodbath in Iraq that it is deeply unsettling to watch.
This may be impolitic, but wouldn't refraining from frat-style
horseplay be appropriate for this man? Or at the least, can't reporters
suppress their raucous laughter every time he blurts out another
jibe... the way they did when Colbert put them in their place?
