creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Brent Bozell
L. Brent Bozell
25 May 2012
Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut

In Ottawa, the nation's capital of Canada, the Museum of Science and Technology has decided to provide school … Read More.

23 May 2012
Shameless Bias by Omission

You'd think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major … Read More.

18 May 2012
NBC Revives Howard Stern

Howard Stern has not been missed since he took his smutty shtick off the airwaves and onto the unregulated … Read More.

Colbert's Egotism Isn't Fake

Share Comment

Late-night comedians historically have relished the opportunity to poke fun at politicians. Sometimes they savage them. In the Obama era, they haven't been so enthusiastic about any of it. A recent study of political jokes on three late-night shows (Letterman, Leno and Jimmy Fallon) by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Barack Obama's joke count is "substantially lower than any other president."

Some of the Obama jokes are actually bipartisan slams. Jimmy Fallon joked, "Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton are more mature than President Obama and John Boehner." This is the classic comedian's pose, and the safe one that all the politicians are ridiculous, squabbling poseurs. Still, it's every bit as much pandering to the public as the politicians are.

But some self-aggrandizing comedians are constantly stepping off the sidelines and attempting to participate in, not just ridicule but political campaigns, too. At least once a year, Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert professes to get serious about politics. He portrays himself as a pompous Bill O'Reilly clone. The pomposity is not just an act. He's engaged in a series of egotistical stunts to promote his own Nielsen ratings. Now he's thrown his hat into the Republican primary ring to be elected "President of South Carolina."

This is nothing new. In 1928, Will Rogers ran as the "bunkless candidate" of the Anti-Bunk Party. His only campaign promise was that, if elected, he would resign. When his name was seriously considered by voters, he wrote, "Now when that is done as a joke it is all right. But when it's done seriously, it's just pathetic."

Stephen Colbert is just pathetic.

Of course, Colbert isn't seriously running for president, any more than he was seriously testifying on migrant workers in that fiasco in front of the House Judiciary Committee in 2010. What, then, gives him the right to pontificate as if he were demanding that level of respect?

What makes these celebrities such bores is their pomposity. Witness Colbert and his comedic partner Jon Stewart holding a "Rally for Sanity" on the Saturday before the 2010 election, asking politicians and pundits to "take it down a notch for America." A series of protest signs were proposed such as "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."

In 2012, Colbert-for-President began with a satirical ad suggesting that if corporations were people then "Mitt Romney is a serial killer." The ad asked voters to "stop Mitt the Ripper before he kills again."

Naturally, Colbert would say he's just satirizing what super PACs do.

But that's not true. He's aiming to do to Romney what Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin — presenting the candidate as a politically toxic cartoon.

Ostensibly, Colbert and Stewart are exposing the glaring loopholes in federal (under) regulation of campaign ads. These Comedy Central hacks think there should be a government crackdown on negative political speech. In a skit on "The Daily Show," Colbert mocked the "no coordination with candidates" rules: "Nation, I am calling on the super PAC not to run vicious character assassination ads that impugn and borderline slander any candidate — if in any way those ads can be traced back to me."

How rich. Colbert should be granted an exception for his own PAC, since he works for a media company by the name of Viacom — a corporation that despises the very notion of federal regulation of anything it wants aired on TV. Comedy Central very much reserves the right to engage in vicious character assassination and borderline slander, and it does so virtually daily, regularly mocking God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary and Santa Claus, as they write laugh lines about the Devil ordering up "unbaptized baby-arm soup."

Colbert, the critic of political viciousness himself, declared on his show, "Sarah Palin is a (bleeping) retard." But he has spent the last week being honored by ABC, CBS and NBC with glowing interviews that present their opinion that he's both very funny and very correct about the flaws in our under-regulated, under-civilized campaign-finance system. "That's a debate that is worth having, and Stephen Colbert is having it," declared Dean Reynolds on CBS. "He's a great American," oozed NBC weatherman Al Roker.

The media conglomerates have a glaring double standard when it comes to freedom of speech. Regulating political dissent from the super PACs of the super rich is the finest defense of democracy. But any imposition of content regulation on media companies is capricious tyranny.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
If Colbert is pissing off guys like Bozell, then he is doing his job. I thought the super PAC skit was hilarious.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:35 AM
Re: Chris McCoy: I disagree, he he. Let's regulate comedy to protect innocent victims like Bozell and those he supports.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:09 PM
Mr. Bozell,

You look smart. You seem smart, but for all of your "intelligence" you clearly have missed the point. When candidates (on either side) refuse to see in shades of gray, they should be taken to task and made fun of. Life is not clear cut with definitive answers one way or the other... Accepting that your opponent/opposite point of view could be making a valid argument is the first step towards true knowledge and understanding. Completely shutting off other viewpoints is ignorant and immature.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tim O'Connor
Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:57 AM
Mr Bozell as usual misses the point and comes off looking quite jealous of Colbert's success and the attention that he garners. Perhaps Mr. Bozell if your essays could be a little more interesting instead of repeating the popular conservative rhetoric people would take notice of you. Of course this will require some creativity on your part which could prove to be difficult. Good luck!
Comment: #4
Posted by: Dave Burton
Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:29 AM
See the issue here is essentially Stephen Colbert is being criticized by Bozell because he clearly does not understand what Stephen Colbert is about. He is a satirical character that is based off of everything that is wrong about the Republican party and conservative folk.

The issue of today seems to be the inequality between the haves and the have nots. The middle class is shrinking, undeniably, and yet Republicans themselves believe that the issue is that we are sniping the rich due to their "success". As a nation we should not ask the rich to do just as any other American does, which is pay a fair share of taxes. Just what the "legal amount" is. Not only that, but we see corporations rake in billions in profits, and yet those who DO the work to see those profits, are not rewarded. The lower and middle class, in case the Republicans forgot, built this country. Not the rich. The rich may have backstabbed and manipulated their way to the top, but the lower and middle class broke their backs to build this country.

So my question to you, Mr. Bozell, is how can you sit there and criticize the success of Stephen Colbert for gaining money for doing what he does? Isn't that the Republican way to support success and ensure those who are successful stay successful by any means? Also, if the Republican party wishes to support those who are successful, why is Romney being attacked for his own success by other members of the Republican party that are running for President? Surely Romney is the Alpha dog, shouldn't Newt and the rest fall in line?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Cody Hutton
Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:32 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
L. Brent Bozell
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 25 May 2012
Mona Charen
Mona CharenUpdated 25 May 2012
Patrick Buchanan
Pat BuchananUpdated 25 May 2012

17 Jun 2009 Cheering For a Massive Deficit?

10 Oct 2008 Fox's Lying, Slacker Jesus

22 Feb 2012 The Bill Press Hate Machine