http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Dan does the play by play on the skit, the media's initial pretense that it didn't happen, the wave of Blograge and the contention that Colbert was just....tut.....NOT FUNNY, as well as being gauche in the extreme, don'cha know.
I submit this diary (yet ANOTHER Colbert Affair diary!) because it points up how nice it is to have a Froomkin out there, especially after the Dana Milbanks of the world piss me off.
Money quotes:
Yes, it turns out Colbert has brought the White House and its press corps together at long last, creating a sense of solidarity rooted in something they have in common: Neither of them like being criticized.
My favorite mention was this quote from Chris Durang at Huffpo:
"The media's ignoring Colbert's effect at the White House Correspondents Dinner is a very clear example of what others have called the media's penchant for buying into the conservative/rightwing 'narrative.'
"In this instance, the 'narrative' is that President Bush, for all his missteps, has a darling sense of humor and is a real regular guy, able to poke delightful fun at himself and his penchant for mis-using and mispronouncing words.
"Who cares if he lied to start a war? (Or chose to ignore all contrary opinion, which as far as war-starting goes, is pretty crummy.) Who cares if he declares he's above the law, and according to the Boston Globe yesterday there are something like 750 laws he's decided don't apply to him as 'Commander-in-Chief'? . . .
"Colbert's was a brave and shocking performance. And for the media to pretend it isn't newsworthy is a total bafflement. And a symbol of how shoddy and suspect the media is."
Froomkin himself contributes some of the best commentary on the general relationship between the Corporate Media and the Bushies....
Once upon a time, I imagine, there was great value in throwing a party where journalists and politicians could mingle and shmooze and celebrate the things they have in common.
And indeed, if the press and this particular White House had an even moderately functional professional relationship, then a chance to build personal relationships would be a nice bonus.
But it's not a functional professional relationship. From the president down to the freshest press office intern, this White House seems to delight in not answering even our most basic questions.
So the last thing in the world we need is a big party where the only appropriate mode of communication is sucking up.
My only addition to what Dan had to say is this:
We as a society are as utterly divided as the French were during the Dreyfus Affair, when your point of view on Dreyfus said everything that a person needed to know about you.
Today, I do not willingly communicate with people who support Bush, I truly believe that they are either stupid, evil or criminally ignorant. The idea that ANYONE should ever hold their fire "in deference to the office of the Presidency" is disgusting and near treasonous to me. I have become an Anti-Bushard (as have many or most Kossacks).
Froomkin is the first media type (as opposed to commentator - such as Paul K et. al.) that I've seen who totally speaks for us and understands us in our utter disgust for the Corporate Media approach. He is a precious resource to us Anti-Bushards.