   Stephen Colbert: Truthiness Strikes!
  Stephen Colbert, the second biggest name in fake journalism [The biggest name in fake journalism being Jon Stewart, who covered the oscars], was invited to the Whitehouse Correspondent's Dinner to give a speech.Stephen Colbert didn't go with the usual back slapping and president loving. Instead he decided to use this time, a few feet from the President, to skewer him and the press. He did this in his usual fake-conservatism manner and IMHO mission accomplished.">Part 1 and ">Part 2.So after skewering the president, how does the media report on this gutsy effort? 'How dare he?'?, 'Hooray for guts'?It was twice the fun for members of the White House Correspondents' Association and guests Saturday night when President Bush and a look-alike, sound-alike sidekick poked fun at the president and fellow politicians.It was twice the fun for members of the White House Correspondents' Association and guests Saturday night when President Bush and a look-alike, sound-alike sidekick poked fun at the president and fellow politicians.Any mention of Colbert? Only in passing in few stories.Even BoingBoing covered it.Stephen Colbert was right.Quote:Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction.I realise this isn't a conspiracy to coverup Colbert's speech. It's about what sells. Bush making fun of himself is an easy thing to sell. 'Our President, isn't he so dreamy' is more of a money-maker than 'Our President, Crucified before the press'. And the AP/Reuters wires really have made journalists lazy.This isn't the only story that the press has ignored until it's become commercially viable and it's not the worst story that they've done it with.I was just a little annoyed that they ignored the man behind the word of the year - Truthiness.   
  I love Stephen Colbert and his style of humor, and I'm really glad you brought this to my attention, than you froztbyte. I find it extremely bizzare no one has mentioned Colbert's beautiful criticisms and attacks on the president. If or anyone who reads this finds some mainstream press about colbert's speech, please post here :)   ;Quote:Original post by FroZtByteStephen Colbert was right.Quote:Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction.reporter = a person whose job is to discover information about news events and describe them for a newspaper or magazine or for radio or television  Cambridge DictionaryThe primary job of a reporter is not to stand up to the president. That's what are politicians for. There's a thing called Separation of Powers. Usually there are three of them: Legislative, Judicial and Administrative. Press is neither of them.I'm also a Law student so you can trust me on this one.Besides Bush still has 40% of US population on his side. Criticizing him is  same as arguing DirecX vs OpenGL. The forces are almost equal and there's little chance of anyone give in.  Personally I'm a Bush supporter, I think my remark is objective though.   ;Quote:Original post by CalinBesides Bush still has 40% of US population on his side.last i knew it was 33 or 32% and probably still dropping. he's getting close to breaking nixon's record.   ;Quote:Original post by gumpy macdrunkenQuote:Original post by CalinBesides Bush still has 40% of US population on his side.last i knew it was 33 or 32% and probably still dropping. he's getting close to breaking nixon's record.Nixon bottomed out at 27%, and resigned a month later.   ;Quote:Original post by CalinQuote:Original post by FroZtByteStephen Colbert was right.Quote:Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction.reporter = a person whose job is to discover information about news events and describe them for a newspaper or magazine or for radio or television  Cambridge DictionaryThe primary job of a reporter is not to stand up to the president. That's what are politicians for. There's a thing called Separation of Powers. Usually there are three of them: Legislative, Judicial and Administrative. Press is neither of them.I'm also a Law student so you can trust me on this one.Besides Bush still has 40% of US population on his side. Criticizing him is  same as arguing DirecX vs OpenGL. The forces are almost equal and there's little chance of anyone give in.  Personally I'm a Bush supporter, I think my remark is objective though.Last I checked, Journalists were there not just to write what is given to them, but to investigate what's said and find out the truth. Then report on the truth.Otherwise we would have never found out about Watergate and Nixon would never have resigned. We would have never found out about the NSA illegally wiretapping US citizens or the FBI illegally breaching the privacy of US citizens. We would have never know about illegal CIA flights over Europe, of which EU investigators have found thousands of examples. We would have never have found out about the massive scale of the torture of Iraqis, Afghanis and people in Gitmo. We would never have found out that the US is actually in $46 trillion in debt and according to the GAO, never able to pay it off. We would never have known there were no WMDs and we as a people would not be informed.If the press just reitterates what it's told and doesn't challenge it, Doesn't stand up to the president to cut through the BS and find the truth, how will people stay informed?Having the press not question, especially now when there is a consolidation of power into the executive, when the legislative is only given half the truth and is often in bed with the president and when the judicial is being packed with people who support the consolidation of power, would be exactly what would let them consolidate it even more.Edmund Burke, Member of Parliament who supported Americans against their oppression by King George and supported the French revolution said it better than I -Quote: Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth estate more important far than they all.The Virginia Declaration of Rights proclaimed that "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments."And Thomas 'I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm only the third president of the united states' Jefferson had this to say -Quote: The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them....Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it....I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents....No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions....Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light....I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.The arguement that the press should just report on what they're told is bogus.The press should stand up to the president/whoever if the president/VP/congressman/whoever isn't telling the truth because that is their job. If you just want things reported - put Fox News in charge of the AP and Reuters wires and make every newspaper print the same, because after all, reporters are there to report and not to investigate.   ;  I saw this speech thing last night. I don't think it's nearly as good as his usual material, but it was the look on the president's face and the silence of the crowd that made it hillarious.   ;Quote:Original post by FroZtByte*too much stuff to quote*i have no idea what to say other than that post rocks.   ;  This has been making the rounds on various blogs, but I doubt you'll see it on the evening news. Nevertheless, I was amused. I read one account that everyone in the room was incredibly uncomfortable. I can believe that, and it amuses me more.   ;Quote:Original post by CalinQuote:Original post by FroZtByteStephen Colbert was right.Quote:Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know--fiction.reporter = a person whose job is to discover information about news events and describe them for a newspaper or magazine or for radio or television  Cambridge DictionaryThe primary job of a reporter is not to stand up to the president. That's what are politicians for. There's a thing called Separation of Powers. Usually there are three of them: Legislative, Judicial and Administrative. Press is neither of them.I'm also a Law student so you can trust me on this one.Besides Bush still has 40% of US population on his side. Criticizing him is  same as arguing DirecX vs OpenGL. The forces are almost equal and there's little chance of anyone give in.  Personally I'm a Bush supporter, I think my remark is objective though.Actually it's in the low 30's, making it very close to having twice as many people disapprove as those who approve. And it's everyone's job to stand up and say something if they think something is being done wrong, be it a reporter, politician or anyone else.