Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Stephen Colbert: New American Hero
Also in Top Stories
Moyers: 'Democracy in America Is a Series of Narrow Escapes, and We May Be Running Out of Luck'
Bill Moyers, Doubleday
Hillary Revealed That Women Can Be Nasty, Deceptive Candidates Too
Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com
Howard Zinn: Anarchism Shouldn't Be a Dirty Word
Ziga Vodovnik, CounterPunch
Sex And The American Mom: 1 In 3 Report Having Affairs on the Side
Colleen Dealy, Taylor Baldwin, Huffington Post
The Poblano Effect: Obama Could Score Huge Electoral Victory over McCain
Josh Kalven, Progress Illinois
U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"
Karin Zeitvogel, Middle East Online
Myanmar's Junta Gets a Pass from Powerful Neighbors
Andrew Lam, New American Media
Toxic Chemicals Are Maiming Thousands Around the World
Aquene Freechild, Environmental Health Fund
Virtually overnight, Stephen Colbert became a hero to countless Americans, following his April 30 performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.
Since then, millions of people have either watched the video or read the transcript of his skewering of both the president and the press corps, and have discussed it avidly. Tens of thousands of people have gone to the website ThankYouStephenColbert.com and written letters of appreciation. Talk about water-cooler chatter; the event crashed internet servers across the land. It truly was one of those moments of media shock and delight.
And then, an odd but revealing thing happened. Some of the chattering class commentators, mainstream media writers and columnists, and Democratic officials didn't get it: Not very funny, rude, not respectful of the president, and so on. Are they kidding? How could they not understand they were witnessing one of the bravest, most subversive performances in memory, which thrilled and gave hope to untold viewers and readers, and will be a huge marker when people look back on the Bush era?
Colbert's speech had a huge impact for two reasons: First, he spoke truth to power right to the face of the president, in front of the entire news media. No one could miss, sidestep or deny it. It wasn't a scene from a movie, book or talk show -- it was live. It reminded me of Edward R. Murrow's famous address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (recently depicted in the film "Good Night and Good Luck"). It gave me goose bumps. Colbert's performance shamed every Democrat or columnist who has been too afraid, too timid, or just too worried about losing his or her own power and access to go out on a limb and tell the truth that this administration is a disaster beyond our wildest nightmares. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove have gotten away with murder … and worse. And many of the people in that room that night who squirmed in their seats -- it was in part because of the internal indictment they were feeling for not doing what they should have done, countless times, long before. Maybe now they will do the right thing, but I won't be holding my breath.
The second reason Colbert made such a huge splash is the rapid advance of video on the web. Almost overnight, the media world has irrevocably changed as video is increasingly becoming as important as print and still images on the web. When, in a matter of hours, dozens of websites can post or link to a video and get the word out about a spectacular event, the role of the gatekeepers and the corporate media shrinks big-time. And it doesn't matter if the networks or CNN or Fox decides that they don't want you to see it -- they can't stop it. The people's network is now in working order. Progressives now have a television capacity; still rudimentary, perhaps, but powerfully effective.
The press leaks
The press coverage of the Colbert performance was illuminating, as reported by the popular blog, democratic underground:
"Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media. This demonstrates powerfully the ability of the media to choose the news, and to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission can be just as bad as sins of commission.
"The AP's first stab at it, as well as Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, tell us everything we need to know: In these reports, Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized, while President Bush is depicted as lighthearted, humble and witty."
Salon's Joan Walsh points out, "Colbert's deadly performance did more than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works. It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes. Colbert refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents' dinner -- an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired. For that, he had to be marginalized. Voilà: 'He wasn't funny.'"
Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »