One last post on Colbert and then I swear I'll drop the subject. Via Atrios' wanker award I was led to this article by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Cohen makes the typical "Colbert just wasn't funny" argument and goes on to argue that Colbert also wasn't really all that brave because he didn't face execution or being thrown in a dungeon or something and people insult the President all the time without repercussion. It's a fascinating redefinition of what speaking truth to power has meant in the history of this country that completely discards the insular nature of wealth and power.Here he hammers that home:
On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness.
See- the President is a regular guy who is set-upon all the time by guys that insult him but Colbert is out of touch because of the hand-picked audience that does nothing but suck-up to his greatness.
Cohen, being rich and powerful, can't conceive that he himself is out of touch so how could we expect him to conceive that the most powerful man in the world is oblivious to the greater world around him?
Wanker indeed.
Posts
