The ‘NY Times’ covers Stephen’s ‘Meet the Press’ appearance . . . and campaigning in general
By
Today’s New York Times has a story about Stephen’s appearance with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and, for once, I’m pleasantly surprised to see that a mainstream media outlet gets the focus right: the absurdity of the campaign process that Stephen’s candidacy is casting into high relief. I’ve read a number of complaints about Stephen’s run that suggest he’s cheapening the political process. I suppose I understand the underlying sentiment, but to focus on Stephen’s candidacy misses the point; it’s the process itself, not the presence of an entertainer, that we should be worried about. This story covers Stephen’s appearance, but manages to keep the big picture in view. From the New York Times:
The Gospel According to Mr. Colbert
By DAVID CARR
Published: October 22, 2007Have you heard the one about the actor working as a comedian who plays a talk show host who is pretending to run for president?
Tim Russert, the host of “Meet the Press” has, and he thinks it’s pretty funny, enough for 15 minutes on Sunday morning.
. . .
On “Meet the Press,” Mr. Colbert’s agenda was prosaic: He was trying to leverage his show and a faux candidacy in support of a new book. For Mr. Russert and other mainstream media types (Maureen Dowd of The New York Times got in on the fun even before he announced by turning over a column to Mr. Colbert), the transaction is more nuanced. Mr. Russert demonstrated that he could not only take a joke, but also that he was in on it, and could create a spicy point of entry for a demographic that network news almost never touches — anyone under 50.
But the message I draw from Mr. Colbert is not that members of the media-political complex need to laugh at themselves, but that they need to take a hard look. The incipient generation of news consumers has made it clear that it does not want to see a bunch of guys with really nice neckware standing on the White House lawn talking about what they did not learn in the press room behind them and then flick at “sources” who suggest that “one thing is clear.”
One thing is, in fact, clear, from the plummeting numbers for network news: the jig is up. Consumers have decided that network news and talk shows are every bit as fake and not nearly as funny as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.”
“Why shouldn’t a comedic fake newscaster feel right at home in a news format that itself verges on fakery?” said Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University. “After all, these shows aren’t all that different from televised wrestling, with the shouts and grunts that simulate combat during what is really a fixed fight, followed by everyone involved in the charade going out for drinks afterward.”
On television, and on the campaign, everybody is playing someone else; Mr. Colbert is just a bit more upfront about it.
. . .
Bravo to Mr. Carr for keeping the spotlight where it belongs: on our Byzantine political apparatus. Too many people are attacking the satirists, rather than examining whether the true focus of their ire ought to be the process that’s being satirized. (This is the same criticism that gets me riled up when I see it hurled at Jon Stewart and The Daily Show: “Oh, the show makes fun of politicians/government, ergo, it must be bad.” What a handy lament this is, as it deflects attention away from the much more difficult question of whether there is something in our political system/government that embraces and rewards ridiculous, counterproductive and/or hypocritical behavior.) If Stephen’s run manages to wake people up to the comically worrisome pitfalls of our electoral system while simultaneously making us laugh ourselves silly about it, then I’d say he’s won, regardless of how many votes he gets.
Related posts
