WP's Froomkin on WHCD and Colbert: All Kidding Aside

[Pirate Smile]

All Kidding Aside

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, May 1, 2006; 2:21 PM

-snip-
Colbert was merciless, reserving his most potent zingers for the people in spitting distance: The president who took the nation to war on false pretenses and the press corps that let him do it.

The boozy bonhomie of the annual event is intended to serve as a balm for the often tense relationship between the White House and the reporters who cover it.
Bush largely delivered on his side of the bargain. Colbert delivered something else entirely.

-snip-
Colbert stayed in character as the bombastic, over-the-top, right-wing cable TV host he plays on the Colbert Report.
"Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us; we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . .

-snip-
So was the biggest news of the night that Bush so effectively and humorously poked fun at himself? Or that a captive president -- and, to a lesser degree, the press corps -- had so sit and watch as they were subjected to devastating, vitriolic satire?

Possibly because they themselves were targets, most reporters chose to downplay the Colbert part of the evening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. more

Video Dog writes in Salon: "The real sign of Stephen Colbert's success at the White House Correspondents' Dinner wasn't his jokes -- which, from beginning to end, were spot-on . . . from Bush's handling of the war ('I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.'), his low-30s approval rating ('I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68 percent approve of the job he's not doing?'), to sidelong whacks at John McCain, Fox News and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. And no, it wasn't the grim-looking handshake he received from the President or the icy glare he received from Laura Bush that let us know that he hit his targets. . . .

"The proof of his accuracy lies in how badly the . . . Washington press corps reacted. After all, this wasn't the usual baby-soft slapstick they usually get at the correspondents' dinner . . . or the most part the press sat on their hands -- while just moments before, they were laughing uproariously at President Bush's incredibly lame skit with a Bush impressionist. That was Colbert's real feat: Showing us the real Washington media world, where everyone worries so much about offending someone, anyone , that the least bit of frank talk turns them into obedient little church mice."

-snip-
I'll have more in tomorrow's column about my own personal experiences on Saturday night. Short version: I met Karl Rove, but I didn't feel good about it.

[FormerDittoHead]

2. Hate to say it, but don't forget about Clinton / Imus at the same event nt

[Dr Fate]

3. Except the "Liberal media" repeated the clip over and over in that case.

I saw the Imus clip plenty of times- I have yet to even see the Colbert clips on TV.

[NYCGirl]

5. That was mostly because the WH objected to Imus' routine. NT

[Dr Fate]

9. Are we saying the WH did NOT object to Colbert's routine?

Of course they objected to it.

The difference is the media "forgot" to report the routine & subsequent objection this time.

The media always has an excuse for their pro Bush bias, dont they?

"Oh- we covered Imus becuase Clinton objected to it- we did not Colbert because, well, er, because they did NOT object to it like Clinton objected Imus! Yeah- thats it!!!

[NYCGirl]

11. In the case of Imus, the WH tried to get C-Span to CANCEL the reshowings

And the WHCA had to send out an apology.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9604 /...

The press asked for what it got. Just like the White House Correspondents' Dinner later in the spring, this affair seeks out performers to act as surrogates to tweak, if not debase, people in power. But for the first time, the correspondents' association sent a formal letter of apology to the President. "What did the organization think they were getting when they invited Imus? I fault them," said Tom Brokaw. ABC's Jackie Judd, one of the dinner's organizers, said, "We wanted some discomfort, but not that much." After the show, White House press secretary Michael McCurry called C-SPAN to ask that it not re-air the event. In a press release C-SPAN countered that the public had a right to see "what all this fuss is about."

[incapsulated]

13. In the case of the Bush WH...

They don't even have to bother to ask. Total blackout.

[NYCGirl]

15. C-Span has it on their site, and they're also selling copies. NT

[incapsulated]

16. Imus was all over the media, CNN, everywhere

I didn't want to see it and I was bombarded. I didn't have to buy it on c-span, that's for damn sure.

[NYCGirl]

18. Yes, because they were reporting that the WH was pissed! NT

[incapsulated]

19. You think the WH isn't pissed, now?

Look, the Clinton's might have fucked up the way they handled the Imus incident, but I've already seen this event covered and all it has been is how cute and funny Bush was with his double. Colbert, who was the "headliner" and went on for a half hour, nada.

[Dr Fate]

21. Of course they are- but unlike during Clinton, the media wont say so.

The difference is that the media REPORTED that Clinton was upset.

That is the only difference.

[Dr Fate]

20. How do you know the current WH did not do the same?

The only difference is no one is TELLING YOU so.

I guess that is why the media covered the Swift-boat guys so much too- because Kerry objected to it. Yeah, right.

The media always seem to have an excuse for their bias.

"Oh- we HAD to cover the Clinton scandals- because scandalous stories are good for ratings"

"Jeff Gannon- who? Nah- that story is too boring. Who would watch a show about a Male Prostitute being invited tot he WH over ahundred times."

Uh-huhhhhh.

[NYCGirl]

22. Well, then it's a good thing that the WH is keeping it so quiet. Because

if they weren't that Colbert clip would be ALL OVER THE PLACE!

The media loves when anyone makes a big noise. They're like children with shiny things.

And, in case you haven't noticed, the media is covering lots of scandals, although being Republicans, the scandals are involving money and not sex. (They wish it would be sex, because viewers would pay lots more attention to that.)

[Dr Fate]

23. But first the media had to TELL YOU that Clinton opposed the clip

And thus they used it as an excuse to repeat the clip and CREATE an anti-Clinton story.

Rove opposed these clips too, but the media did not TELL YOU that Rove told them not to show it.

The media loves anyone making a big noise? Really? Then why no Colbert clips?

And you are right, I have NOT noticed a SINGLE Bush scandal getting anything even close to the 24/7 coverage of "Monica."

[NYCGirl]

24. But first C-Span had to tell the media. NT

[Dr Fate]

25. Rove can go straight to the networks and give them his orders.

Just like he did with WMDs, "Saddam caused 9-11" "Swifboats", "Dan Rather is the real liar" "Abramoff gave to Democrats", etc, etc.

No need for Rove to tell CSPAN anything- no one watches it anyway.

That is the whole idea behind the networks repeating the Clinton clip but not repeating the Colbert Clip- because they know no one watches CSPAN.

[Doctor_J]

30. Uh, the Repubs are up to their saggy, pasty necks in sex scandals

The networks don't report on them because Rove tells them not to.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

[deutsey]

31. I don't recall Imus's speech being as satirically pointed as Colbert's

Wasn't Imus just more personally insulting? Not that I'm saying Clinton didn't deserve to be insulted personally, but I don't recall Imus' comments lacerating Clinton's politics the way Colbert did.

And there is a distinction between satire and "personal insult."

[otohara]

32. Not The Same Event

it was a radio broadcasters event vs the White House Press Assoc. Radio types are even grosser -

[FormerDittoHead]

33. Ok, let's get it right: Radio/*TV* Correspondents Assoc. Annual Dinner

Not just radio people... Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, etc.

Transcript: http://www.underamountain.com/news/index.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Well at least one person at WP

doesn't drink Kool-aide.

Bravo!

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes, there may be an objective reporter or two at the WP n/t

[grasswire]

7. support Dan Froomkin

Click on his site every day. It's the best WH coverage you're going to get. Give him support; there are many people who would like to get rid of him.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Thank God! Some sanity resides somewhere in the print world

afterall!

I gave up on the TeeVee long ago....but glad to see that there is a shred of hope still left in the ruling Class of journalistic Whores out there in America.

I feel much better!

[incapsulated]

10. Go Dan!

:bounce:

"I'll have more in tomorrow's column about my own personal experiences on Saturday night. Short version: I met Karl Rove, but I didn't feel good about it."

:D

[NYCGirl]

14. Here's some pics from the event courtesy Wonkette:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/whcd/wonkette-party-crash-whcd-part-one-170660.php

Including this very odd couple:


And this shot of Coulter's legs with appropriate caption:


We instructed Liz to get a photo of Ann’s legs, which creeped out everyone involved, but this still doesn’t do justice to how insect-like they are. To be fair, the rest of her looks much more normal in reality. Sort of a Chertoffian situation.

[incapsulated]

17. It's like a mob wedding

Half the people there would like/may have tried to whack the other half..

[Tuesday_Morning]

12. Colbert's Smart Bomb

I like this take on Colbert from Video Dog at Salon

The real sign of Stephen Colbert's success at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner wasn't his jokes -- which, from beginning to end, were spot-on, from Bush's handling of the war ("I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq") and his low-30s approval rating ("I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68 percent approve of the job he's not doing?") to sidelong whacks at John McCain, Fox News and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. And no, it wasn't the grim-looking handshake he received from the president or the icy glare he received from Laura Bush that let us know that Colbert hit his targets. The proof of his accuracy lies in how badly the Tracy Flicks of the Washington press corps reacted. After all, this wasn't the baby-soft slapstick they usually get at the correspondents' dinner. (Anyone else remember when Darrell Hammond got all gushy from meeting Bush in person in 2001? Yeesh.) Sure, C-SPAN's cameras captured a few journalists tittering at each other like naughty schoolgirls, but for the most part journalists sat on their hands –- while just moments before, they were laughing uproariously at President Bush's incredibly lame skit with a Bush impressionist. That was Colbert's real feat: Showing us the real Washington media world, where everyone worries so much about offending someone, anyone, that the least bit of frank talk turns them into obedient little church mice.

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/politics/2006/04/30/colbert_press/index.html

[Cha]

26. Pretty good wrapup by

Dan Froomkin. "elizabeth bumiller didn't even mention Colbert"..I could have predicted that.

The Truth Hurts and Colbert was shelling them with Truthiness bullets.

[madmark]

27. if the press was doing its job the other 364 days of the year, there would

be no need to tee off on the president and his synchophantic press corp at this event. But that hasn't been the case for the past five years has it.

[Doctor_J]

28. "often tense relationship between the White House and the reporters"

What - they're sucking too hard?

[AX10]

29. Support Froomkin.