‘The Colbert Report’ featured in another new book on the media
By
Looking for something new to read? Theodore Hamm has a new book (out today) discussing progressive politics and the rise of voices outside of the mainstream media. From the book’s “Editorial Review” on Amazon.com:
The New Blue Media: How Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, Jon Stewart and Company Are Transforming Progressive Politics
by Theodore Hamm (Author)
The penetrating—and entertaining—story of the rise of a new generation of liberal media figures, from Jon Stewart and Michael Moore to MoveOn and the blue blogosphere.The last decade brought a sea change in the American media landscape: while mainstream news outlets generally endorsed the Bush/Cheney worldview and later the administration’s line on the Iraq War and the war on terror, an astonishing number of Americans—millions and millions, in fact—began getting their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report instead.
With a combination of technological savvy, irreverent humor, and acerbic critique, a handful of media personalities, blogs, outlets, and politically based organizations—from The Onion to Jon Stewart to the Daily Kos—are transforming American politics and culture, and the stories of where these outlets came from and how they got so powerful are just as entertaining as watching them in action …
Check out the Amazon site and additional reader reviews here
Related posts
23 Comments
May 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Jon looks cool, but I don’t much care for that Colbert caricature… he looks a little like John Chancellor.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I guess that’s somewhat appropriate, given that Stephen frequently says that as a child he wanted to sound like Chancellor.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I wasn’t aware Stephen was so wrinkled…
May 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
why can’t anyone draw stephen properly? he has more interesting facial features than one arched eyebrow
May 13th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You know what my biggest problem with the Stephen caricature is? That they’ve given him a caricatured “Ed Sullivan” posture.
The book looks like a decent read, though. It’s not heading to the top of my too-crowded “to read” list, but it looks interesting.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Yeah, the “Ed Sullivan” posture is the most annoying element. Doesn’t capture the boundless energy of Stephen!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I’d hate to think that Jon and Stephen are lumped in with Michael Moore…
May 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
At least they have their backs to him. :D
May 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I agree. Michael moore has an incredibly heavy bias and often muddles the truth as much as the other side does, especially by failing to fully explain topics in their entirety.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
You’re right, that looks more like Stephen at about 70 (eek what a thought). Jon comes off a lot better … Still want to check out the book, though, and I think it’s cool that they’re on the cover together!
May 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Ugh, why did they have to put Stephen and Jon with Michael Moore? Douche.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
not a flattering pic of Stephen, I must say.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
They made Stephen look more like Larry King, ugh!
May 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I lovelovelove what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do…but Michael Moore, I don’t like him and his stuff at all. they do not at all seem the same to me, not a bit.
also, in critiquing the caricature, I think it’s at least good that the wonky ear is where it ought to be.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
To be fair, I don’t think the book is saying that Jon and Stephen do the same thing that Michael Moore does. I think it’s focused on progressive politics and the ways in which alternate outlets have emerged to fill the void left by the mainstream media and its failure to adequately cover/champion those politics. So Jon and Stephen, Michael Moore, DailyKos, MoveOn.org and other examples in the book are discussed as alternates to the MSM, but not necessarily as being related to one another.
To the extent that I’m familiar with Moore’s work and commentary (which isn’t saying a lot), I find a substantial portion of it to be abrasive. But in substance, I find that I have agreed with a good deal of it, too.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Yes the caricature is like maybe worse than the kind you could get done at one of those crappy like county fairs or theme parks and such (I mean no offense to the artist.. it just looks incorrect)
but Im really on to say:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEEEEEAAAAARRRR STEEEPHEEENNNN!!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!!
Okay Im glad I got that done.
Does anyone else agree with me that there IS no replacement for the Happy Birthday Song? I mean like, “Put Another Candle on your Birthday Cake” is just an excuse that you don’t even know the words. And I mean, its not like everyone can fit there age in candles (44?… might like the studio afire)
And even the “Hoppie Birdie two ewe!” is just like bears reinforcing themselves with other animals to take over the American tradition of singing a copyrighted song every year.
I mean really.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I wouldn’t consider Michael Moore to be part of “this generation”, in the media sense. Doesn’t he predate that “void left by the mainstream media?” Roger & Me was out a full 7 years before FoxNews Channel launched, and then there was TV Nation, and so forth. He’s a grandfather of a medium that should consider taking a nap.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I’m definitely not liking the lumping of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert with the likes of Michael Moore.
I do think from watching hours and hours of their shows that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hold more progressive values. But labeling them as liberals is a premature oversimplification. Comedians are also very anti-establishment, and both of these shows came to prominence under a Republican establishment. If we can see how they react under a Democratic administration, we can get a picture of whether or not their comedy is truly ideologically driven or simply anti-establishment.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
adding on to the previous post, michael moore tends to be a lot more ideologically driven, and he’s actively promoting a progressive stance.
watching Jon in interviews (the key ones are the interview with Charlie Rose, bill moyers, and the c-span American Perspectives interviews), i’m very convinced that Jon is a lot more centrist/nonpartisan than the media would suggest.
stephen, on the other hand, tends to talk a lot less about politics in out-of-character interviews.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
My issue is with the article itself, continuing the mischaracterization of the purpose of the Daily Show and Colbert Report as liberal news shows. You know, the bit about “an astonishing number of Americans—millions and millions, in fact—began getting their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report instead.” I think they’ve each addressed this several times – they are comedians, and if you’re trying to get your news from them, you’re missing the joke.
Add to that the relatively poor quality of Stephen’s caricature next to a rather accurate Michael Moore, and the implied association between Moore and our two, and I’d say the author hired the wrong cover artist and PR person. Doesn’t make the book itself bad, just poor marketing (especially if they’re going to try to sell the book on TDS/TCR).
May 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Instead of judging the book by its cover, I actually read it, and it’s very good. The author makes it clear that Moore is not at all the same as Colbert or Stewart. Moore swings a sledgehammer, while Colbert is satirical. But they are on the same side–fighting back against O’Reilly and the other right-wing attack dogs. The author is more sympathetic to Colbert and Stewart than Moore, but he does a good job of showing how they are all changing political media for the better. So read it…and enjoy!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I am just flabbergasted that there are still serious people that do not see that Jon and Stephen (Steven in the UK) are media-critics more than political commentators, pundits or activists, like Moore and Kos.
Now since the regular media are to vain to be capable any serious self-criticism, I don’t expect them to note this, but you would expect that outsiders could see this. Apparently Hamm missed the point.
J&S have found a format in which they at least can ask the questions that the regular press should be getting answers too. The fallacy these days is that the press claims “to be asking tough questions”. While that’s debatable to begin with, the premiss non-sense. The press is not there to “ask questions”. The press exists to *get (true) answers*. And obviously you’re not going to get the truth by asking someone that has ‘media relations’ on their business card. J&S don’t get answers either, but at least they sometimes get an uncomfortable silence, when asking the question.
And while they are tagged as left wing, I haven’t seen anybody in the press corps ask Howard Dean something like: “There’s an unpopular war, gas prices are skyrocketing, there’s a financial meltdown, there’s no way the democrats can loose the presidential election. How are you going to do it this time?”.
That’s filling the gap left by the press, not being a left-wing surrogate.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Hey, gang,
I’m going to go ahead and shut down comments to this post. I don’t mind a little bit of topic drift, but since so many of the comments here are dealing with Michael Moore instead of the book (and, since it was just released, I’m guessing almost none of us has actually read the book), this seems like a good time to close them out.
Once people who so desire have had a chance to read the book, I may consider reopening the comments; in the meantime, thanks for all your input. It’s just not possible for me to be an effective moderator of all of these OT comments without neglecting my real life job; I appreciate your understanding.