When I saw all the coverage of Stephen’s buzz cut on “the internets” yesterday, I got a bit curious and checked the Google Trends page to see what was what. If you click on the image to the left, you’ll see that Stephen’s hair (or newly shorn head, anyhow) got some major virtual ink yesterday; that boy’s noggin sure had people talking!
This got me thinking about an editorial I read this morning, one that bemoaned the lack of any non-entertainment news coverage from Iraq, but which nonetheless seemed to disparage Stephen’s trip. From the Baltimore Sun:
Colbert in Iraq: We only cover the amusing parts of war
As I watched Stephen Colbert’s first show from Iraq Monday night, here are some of the thoughts that ran through my head and found their way onto a notepad:
We in the media don’t cover the real war any more, but we will cover this fake news talkshow host going to Iraq like it’s the second coming. Is this more of us amusing ourselves to death? Exhibit A: Newsweek doing a cover on Colbert When was the last cover written by a full time Newsweek staffer in Iraq about the real war?
With the golf club and all the jokes about being a coward in his opening monologue, Colbert’s offering a post-post-post modern take on Bob Hope. But most of the jokes do not have a real point of view, because this gung-ho makebelieve character Colbert plays lacks a moral or emotional center. Are we ironic-izing (through a post-modern humor that is 99 percent irnony) ourselves into a kind of emotional death in which we can no longer feel the horror of war?
. . .
I found this editorial somewhat rich, as Stephen’s reason for editing the current Newsweek issue and going to Baghdad was that Iraq wasn’t getting coverage, and he wanted to do something for the troops and focus the spotlight back on that region. It seemed to me, anyway, that Mr. Zurawik’s editorial was a pretty clear illustration of Stephen’s whole point: that people are forgetting about Iraq unless someone puts it back into the news cycle. In this case, Stephen got people talking again, even if the “angle” for the Iraq story was an entertainer getting his head shaved. (Also, Mr. Zurawik works in the industry and has a column; shouldn’t he be doing more than just shaking his head over his colleagues’ lack of initiative, if he thinks there’s a story getting short shrift?)
Maybe I’m just dissatisfied with this editorial because Mr. Zurawik seems to imply that Stephen’s trip is part of this process of “ironic-izing … ourselves into a kind of emotional death” and fails to acknowledge the very real things Stephen is doing to support the troops. I can and do laugh at the irony and wit that Stephen and his show display night after night, but that doesn’t mean I can’t also recognize Stephen’s incredible generosity (via his Yellow Ribbon Fund and DonorsChoose.org work) and commitment — he’s in Iraq! — to the men and women in our war zones. I know that I, for one, have donated more to DonorsChoose.org because of Stephen’s promotion of it than I probably otherwise would have; I hadn’t even heard of that charity until he got involved.
What do you all think?
It looks like Stephen’s long-term goal in all of this is already taking shape. I’m very happy for him and for those in the war effort that his message has taken shape so immediately. May it spread farther and get people talking again.
Zurawik does seem to look past the true value of Stephen’s actions throughout this experience. The charities, being in Iraq, somewhat identifying with soldiers through basic training and flying with the Thunderbirds, shaving his head, and simply making the troops laugh all add up to an invaluable job Stephen has been doing over several months. I think, though, since his point was to compare the importance of a comedian with the importance of a war, he chose to overlook Stephen’s work’s details and look at the media’s big picture here.
Oh well. Leave it to the rest of us to appreciate his sacrifices =)
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
oh, it’s really cool that that search was trending! I didn’t even know about that Google trends site– it has a lot of good information! have bookmarked! :)
that’s an interesting article too, because I have to admit I’ve been watching this show very much from an “insider” perspective, as someone who already loves what Colbert does. it’s not surprising I don’t agree with the author. I guess some of that has to do with how comedy is used. I don’t feel like a subject is cheapened when it gets comedic treatment. this could just be my personal interpretation of it though.
I for one have seen way more images of soldiers, heard more of their statements, and therefore have been thinking about them more frequently than I would have otherwise. if it “takes” a famous visitor for me to do that, I guess that’s just how it is. I don’t seek out these stories otherwise. I’m thinking now of the contrast between the Newsweek articles. it makes me sound so detached, I realize this, but an in-depth article about something I really don’t understand is just not something I would read. this information could be used to make a generalization about how wrong society is, and if I am apathetic than I should be called that, but this is still a way to reach those of us who are out-of-touch.
I wonder if the author has seen any out-of-character interviews (like the one on GMA) where Stephen explains his motivation for going to Iraq. he’s an individual with a show that accepted an invitation, and he’s doing what he can to help soldiers and their families using the resources he has: a show, talent, the Colbert Nation wrapped around his finger. the whole event is getting news coverage because it is unusual, and I bet it will get more people thinking about our troops.
so while I still don’t see a problem, it’s obvious that I am not qualified to comment, and the man who wrote that article would beat me an argument in two seconds!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I don’t think he’s knocking what Stephen is doing so much (especially now that he has acknowledged that the General actually did cut hair when the razor was passed over the head) as much as he is criticizing the fact that the media is so anxious to cover this instead of the actual war. But he does seem a little snarky about the show.
But, as you said MsI, Zurawik is right in there with ‘em… I don’t know when the last time he mentioned the troops in Iraq, but all this buzz (pun intended) did get him to do it today.
And all the press is getting more people to watch the show and see the troops there – to me that is the greatest service Stephen is doing. The more they show the individual faces of the service men and women that are over there then the more they are humanized in our mind and become real people we should be caring about and thinking about throughout our day.
Yes, the media should not have waited for Operation Iraqi Stephen to mention Iraq – but don’t criticize the guy who inspired you to write the article pointing out that the media isn’t talking about it anymore!
ETA: I don’t get what he is saying about using the palace as a “comedy club” vs how we treated the “buildings and culture” of Europe… It does not appear that the palace is being harmed in any way and I believe Saddam threw a party or two there. Am I being insensitive? And didn’t we destroy a few landmarks in Europe ( let’s just take Dresden as an example).
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
It seems to me that Stephen is doing exactly what he said needs to be done. Bringing more focus back to Iraq because it’s getting lost in the media shuffle right now. I wish Zurawik would have done a bit more research on Stephen. He would have found out that for him supporting the troops isn’t simply lip service. Oh well. Hey, the more publicity this trip gets the better.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
If Stephen hadn’t done this the current news cycle would be about things FAR more trivial, not Iraq and certainly not the troops deployed there. If he can’t see the big-heartedness behind the irony that’s his problem.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I thought there was one spot-on comment from a serviceman, who took the author to task about being part of the media who’d rather cover car chases than global issues. No one complained that Bob Hope’s USO shows “undercut the life & death significance of war”.
Perhaps a little recognition and appreciation for the efforts of the entire TCR crew in bringing entertainment & attention to the troops might be in order, instead?
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Zurawik’s editorial says so clearly (to those able to read between his lines) that he too is a culprit behind the lack of initiative to focus some positive light back on the region. Seemingly blind to the fact that he too hasn’t produced recently any story for his column about the region to bring positive awareness of the sacrifice of these men and women, he finds it easier to wag his finger at his colleagues and then proceeds basically to denigrate Stephen’s efforts to get people talking again by bringing the spotlight back to the region in a humorous way.
Humor works. It makes people happy. It makes people open up and be receptive to ideas. It attracts, it gets attention – why perhaps so many viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are so informed about current issues and events. Spotlight’s back. Job done. And what and who got it done? Humor and Stephen Colbert. Even Zurawik’s talking about it, even if he’s too blind to see how that light came to him.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I like the screencap accompanying Google trends: “Stephen Colbert shaved head Hotness: On Fire.” Agreed!
As for the article, I feel like David Zurawik missed the point a little (or entirely). An LA Times blogger posted a similarly snotty piece, asking whether shaving his head for the troops was “funny, or tasteless?” 100% of the commenters on that post applaud Stephen for showing his solidarity. The piece is here: http://bit.ly/mozaR
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Oh yeah, I hated that LA times piece, too. The question itself reeks of snottiness.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
My major issue is with Mr. Zurawik’s comments about the Newsweek issue. The Newsweek issue addresses the complexities of the Iraq War. It’s not watered down or trivialized. What fascinates me is that Stephen is showing unbridled and emotional support for the troops. But in the Newsweek issue and even during TCR – we are still seeing the complexities of this war come to light.
Supporting the troops means more than just a bumper sticker or slogan. It means not only contributing to and volunteering for organizations who help veterans and active duty military. But, it also means a willingness to work through and analyze the challenging issues and political complexities of this war. Without this, the sacrifices made by our servicemen and women will still be in vain. Stephen isn’t just calling on us to feel. He’s not just calling on us to act. He’s also asking us to think. And it’s possible to do all these. How and when they get to go home maybe a partisan issue, but support for the troops should not. It is possible to come up with logical solutions and still make sure the soldiers are taken care of. But that can’t be done if no attention is given.
Besides, Mr. Zurawik should stop complaining and actually write some reports on Iraq (or encourage his colleagues to do so). He’s in the business right? This is one of the reasons why Stephen is doing this. To get the media to start reporting on this again.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Great points! I find that the week-long broadcasts are going to be a perfect balance for the Newsweek edition: Humor and humility, energy and empathy, reaction and reality, comedic and critical.
You are right when you say, “He’s asking us to think…it’s possible to do all these” Well stated!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I am feeling the limitations of a family-friendly blog. All I can say is I agree with you–if a columnist is lamenting about the lack of media focus on the Iraq War, then dagnabbit why doesn’t he write his column on it! I think he’s being the post-ironic meta hipster here, not Stephen.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Here’s a great response from a former Marine to Mr. Zurawik’s article. I agree with this guy on so many points its not even funny. And, his comments about news coverage in general in America I’ve witnessed firsthand while travelling aboard:
David,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I believe you are missing the point of the Colbert’s trip to Iraq entirely. Did you see who sponsored the Colbert Report in Iraq? It was the USO. Do you know what the USO does for the military? It brings entertainers to military bases all over the world. It builds recreation halls and places where military members can go eat, play games or call home. And what do servicemembers do on their down time? Do you think they want to read news about who died in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, they play cards, watch DVDs of Family Guy and Robot Chicken and try to distance themselves from the bad things they have to see or experience around them. I know, I served in the Marine Corps.
And I am concerned with your statement about turning one of Saddam’s many palaces and buildings into a “comedy club.” Are you really comparing a palace built on blood withinin the last 30 years to cathedrals and castles built in Europe hundreds and hundreds of years ago? Really? What is more important in Iraq? Looking “arrogant” by broadcasting a comedy show from a former Saddam palace? Or rebuilding schools and hospitals and the infrastructure of Iraq?
So what if the media wants to cover Colbert getting his hair cut? Its positive for the troops. It is entertaining the troops. And all that we have gone through by going into Iraq under false pretenses, losing friends to IEDs, snipers and suicide bombers, I think we deserve some humor over there.
You are part of the media that would rather cover the Octomom than cover the genocide in Africa. You are a member of the media that wants to show 15 minutes of highway car chases but ignores the rape and abuse of women and children in the Congo. When we first went into Iraq, every story was about who and how many were dying over there. But I didn’t see many, if any stories about the schools we were rebuilding. The rights women gained. Political prisoners being freed.
The majority of the coverage by U.S. media in Iraq has been pathetic at best. And I should know, I was a combat correspondent and handled public affairs.
Oh, and whether Gen. Odierno actually cut Colbert’s hair or not, you might want to look at some still photographs of the event. Any soldier or Marine worth their salt can give a military cut. Colbert just got a buzz, not a high and tight. That takes no “professional” to do. Any good reporter would know that.
But you are right, “we” don’t cover the “war.” If I want to know what is really going on in Iraq, I check in with my fellow Devil Dogs, or read news from the BBC and other foreign news organizations that actually report real news. (heck, I even read Al-Jazeera)
When I want to smile and not think about my fellow Devil Dogs dying in the sandbox, I want to see Colbert getting his head shaved. And so do the rest of the servicemembers.
CK
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Ah! He said it perfectly!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Great response! Thanks for posting this! When Mark Twain was asked (after Huck Finn) why he didn’t write more for the elites and why he used humor he said something like, “I’ve got bigger fish to fry, I want to influence the common man!” So there ya go.
Another Twain quote…
Humor is the great thing, the saving thing after all. The minute it crops up, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations, and resentments flit away, and a sunny spirit takes their place.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
A great response!! Kudos to that marine!
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
lol Zurawik misses what Stephen is trying to do while emphasizing what Stephen is trying to do at the same time. The “ironic-izing” is internalized!
I do think that there is a valid concern in that while Stephen has brought media attention with him to Iraq right now, once he leaves, the media attention will follow him right back to the US. But that remains to be seen.
Anyway, Zurawik basically puts forth the same argument as “omg, the Daily Show is making people not care about politics” that was rehashed over and over during the Bush years: blaming entertainment that can provide a mode of detachment rather than the people who actually use it as a mode of detachment.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I agree in part with the idea behind this article, but I think at the same time the author is really missing the point. (and why so snarky? I agree with the poster upthread who said the author’s the one being the post-ironic meta hipster here, not Stephen.) I know it’s cheap and easy to criticize someone else’s job unless you do what they do for a living … but I also found the article to be poorly written, w/ torturous phrases that were hard to follow and several typos.
I saw that comment from the former marine in the comments of the article too, and I agree that it’s a perfect response.
I’m not in the military and don’t have a window into their world, so I wouldn’t know if this is valuable to them or not. But over and over and over (already!) we have heard how much the troops appreciate Stephen and the show being there, they *really* appreciate the haircut, and it makes a difference in their lives. That’s goal #1 accomplished. And goal #2, to re-publicize the Iraq war and the troops there, seems to be well underway to being accomplished too.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
Thanks for mentioning the typos! I thought it was just my critical English major eye catching those. XD
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I haven’t read the article yet, but I can already say the man is wrong. I’m an avid long-time Colbert watcher, and I sent out so much publicity about this in hopes that his ratings this week will be the highest ever, that everyone will tune in to laugh, but also in that space they will be well informed. Did you notice how he did not interrupt the General at all during his interview, he let him make all his points to inform us as to what is actually happening, the good and the bad, in Iraq. I also bought the Newsweek yesterday and laughed at the intro, then tried to get through the actual articles. I ended up sobbing like a schoolgirl, which also happened during the show whenever they cut to the audience. It’s a true mixture of joy and sadness this week, as I reflect on how much these soldiers are sacrificing for us. If Stephen wants to shed light on that by shaving his head or doing cartwheels, that’s his choice. And it’s the USO for goodness’ sake, the whole point is to provide comic relief.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
I agree with many of the people here in thinking that the article was just a bit snotty. There was a definite hint of derision or something unfavorable in his tone. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but he doesn’t seem to like Stephen or what he’s doing. I really think he’s missing the point. Stephen is not merely trying to create a spectacle, he’s trying to re-direct the media’s attention to the long-ignored Iraq once more. And if shaving his head gets the media to sit up and take notice, then he’s going to do it! But I really don’t think the head shaving was mainly to get attention, I really think it was in solidarity with the troops and the troops certainly seemed to love it.
Stephen just wants to entertain the troops and give them a reprieve from their battle. I know he also wants to draw attention to the war, but he said his main objective is to give them a good time. I suppose that only members of the Nation, who really “get” what Stephen’s about, can understand the subtleties of his good deed.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0
And what of the NYT article? Schtick? What’s the matter with these people. Note to writers – try never to use the word meta in an article. Don’t, just don’t.
Shout Out (Hey!):
0