The Gospel according to Colbert
Apropos Colbert’s appearance on Meet the Press, David Carr has a lengthy reflection in today’s Times.
Here is part of what he writes:
[T]he message I draw from Mr. Colbert is not that members of the
media-political complex need to laugh at themselves, but that they need
to take a hard look. The incipient generation of news consumers has
made it clear that it does not want to see a bunch of guys with really
nice neckware standing on the White House lawn talking about what they
did not learn in the press room behind them and then flick at “sources”
who suggest that “one thing is clear.”
One thing is, in fact,
clear, from the plummeting numbers for network news: the jig is up.
Consumers have decided that network news and talk shows are every bit
as fake and not nearly as funny as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert
Report.”
“Why shouldn’t a comedic fake newscaster feel right at
home in a news format that itself verges on fakery?” said Mark
Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University.
“After all, these shows aren’t all that different from televised
wrestling, with the shouts and grunts that simulate combat during what
is really a fixed fight, followed by everyone involved in the charade
going out for drinks afterward.”
On television, and on the campaign, everybody is playing someone else; Mr. Colbert is just a bit more upfront about it.
All the more reason to tune into the Newhour on PBS, the only serious news program on television.
Still and all, can one really put Tim Russert alongside John McLaughlin and friends and not see a difference?
I would agree that there are qualitative differences between the different Sunday morning shows, but not enough of a difference to matter. I think the problem stems from the mutually parasitic relationship between these shows and their guests. Russert needs these people to come on his show, and they need him for publicity and name recognition. Stewart and Colbert have a raison d’etre that is independent of their political guests: comedy. This means that they can interrupt talking points, openly mock mis-information campaigns, and simply call their guests on all sorts of nonsense whereas Russert and friends can only criticize in the most polite and “objective” way possible. Of course “objective” simply means that they have been cowered into thinking that any criticism of one side without an equal and opposite criticism of the other (and we all know from the format that there are only two sides) is “biased” or “unfair,” etc.
What frustrates Stewart and Colbert, I think, is the press’s willingness to report, again and again, not news so much as rumors of news, the equivalent of “he said, she said” on national affairs. They both think that a critical filter should be part of the process, and the press should provide that critical filter before, not after, they print or proclaim a story, possible story, speculation on a possible story, etc. They are suggesting that simply because a Senator or President or “official sources” says something does not make their statement news. The price for getting your jabbering into the newspapers and cable channels should be higher. In this sense, they are siding with Socrates against he Sophists: they want good speech that strives for truth, not merely speech in a provocative form.
Certainly the idiocies of political life make better targets for satire than subjects for serious analysis. It is also true that investigative reporting is more costly to fund and requires more effort than tedious speculation as to who will finally be the nominee of one of our grand old parties.
Amen to that Joseph. Strategy is often the topic rather than policy or substance.