Let me offer a contrary opinion on the media's coverage of Colbert...

[Writer]

I have read several posts complaining of the media ignoring Colbert. No, he didn't receive a lot of coverage, but quite frankly, the event itself isn't that important and Colbert himself is a rising star among LIBERALS who receive COMEDY CENTRAL (not as large a group as you think), but not the public at large.

That said, I'm going to toss out a missive. I don't think we necessarily want more media coverage of Colbert. I think it's that we want Colbert's skewering to be the agenda of the day - the topic priori - for placement before the public. We care about it, so we believe the rest of the public should care about it. In our minds that's OUR agenda, and we want to put it forth as the preeminent discussion - above today's long-planned immigration boycott, above extremely high gas prices, above raising interest rates.

Also... since we all believe in this grand conspiracy that the media are all "whores" who apparently have collectively adopted conservative values... have you asked yourself why, in the last 48 hours, Rush Limbaugh's arrest due to prescription fraud has garnered so much media attention? Is that conservative "media whore" bias in your mind?

It is not the media - but our high, personal expectations of our media - that serves as the impetus for our disatisfaction with the news media.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

1. How do you explain saturation coverage of Imus'

performance during Clinton's time, then?

[NYCGirl]

4. Because the WH tried to stop C-SPAN from showing the re-airing of the

show. I'd say that was more newsworthy than the show itself.


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." ABC's Cokie Roberts, an Imus regular, said, "He always separates his raunchiness from the political part of his show. I thought he would have sense enough to do the same here. Now none of us can go on his show again."

[ShortnFiery]

8. Well gee, I think we all can survive without the superstar "Cokie Roberts"

:puke:

BTW when are they going to post this video on C-SPAN?

[NYCGirl]

17. What does Cokie Roberts have to do with it?

The link to the WHCD is right on their front page.

www.c-span.org

[ShortnFiery]

21. She was commenting in 1996 to the effect that a comedian

should always "lighten up" on the President. Not true. :(

[NYCGirl]

26. OK, but that's not the point I was making. Imus' routine was big news

because the WH tried to stop C-SPAN from showing the reruns.

[Julius Civitatus]

20. Good point. WTF?

Why is the video of Colbert not yet on CSPAN's online?

[NYCGirl]

23. It's on the front page of C-Span.

www.c-span.org

[ShortnFiery]

31. Cool! It's there - Tks eom

[ShortnFiery]

25. I don't know ... and also

on their schedule, there was to be "open phones" between 8 AM and 9 AM for a 15 minute slot. The commentator INSISTED that we keep with the same "infighting" that the ruling class loves us to do on Immigration.

I think many people would have brought this up on open phones.

What is making OUR PRESS so chicken-shit over this Administration. Is there any Media Outlet that can speak to the American People without going through Rove-Co. first?

[Writer]

5. The first question I have is... why do you believe there was...

"saturation coverage?" I used to work in television and I don't recall any such "saturation coverage." In fact, I don't even recall Imus ever speaking at one of these dinners. But you remember it because it stuck with you more than others.

It's what we as viewers bring to the table that makes as much, if not more of a difference, to how we perceive bias in our news media.

[blm]

39. I was in LA then and there was coverage for MONTHS on the controversy

surrounding Imus's jabs at both Clintons. And those jabs were SO sophomoric - not at all insightful or witty like Colbert's parody.

[incapsulated]

44. You didn't have to be in LA!

It was all over the fucking tv for weeks! And on and on about how "humiliated" the Clintons were! :mad:

[DS1]

2. He gets as many viewers as Larry King

[Writer]

7. And how many viewers does the WH correspondents dinner get?

On CSPAN? Only those paying close attention to this really give a damn.

[ShortnFiery]

3. I disagree ...

We don't hear a lot about Rush Limbaugh.

The Main Stream Media is AFRAID, CONNED or BOTH.

No, there's been tons of coverage re: Bush Twins.

WE live in parallel universes. :hi:

[Writer]

11. We don't hear a lot about Rush Limbaugh... right.

That's why there's a link to his arrest on the front page of msnbc...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[ShortnFiery]

16. Like burried among the mess ...

You're gonna have to do better than that Writer. :(

[Writer]

18. Would you prefer that msnbc shove aside the headline of today's

Latino protests and place Limbaugh, front and center, with picture, on their website? Is that your priority for our nation?

[papau]

35. Media gives no comparison of this deal and prior offer-or to "dealing" law

that was ignored.

This is media attention to a GOP embarrassment? Get real.

12000 pills over 3 or 4 months seems to exceed the laws limit of a max of 20 pills in most states before your excessive pills qualify the addict for "dealer treatment".

NOT EVEN ONE COMMENT ON RUSH NOT BEING CHARGED AS A DEALER MAKES IT INTO THE MEDIA!!!

And Rush is crowing about their is not even a probation.

And ABC's Charley Gibson on the Morning Show today is repeating over and over that Rush was "vindicated" - the DA had no real crime - etc.

And this is standard media treatment????

Again - get real - please

:toast:

[Dora]

6. Very good point.

I'm not a television watcher (we don't own one), so I've been fascinated by the various opinions on Colbert's turn at the podium. I've watched the clips, and I personally thought his work was brilliant.

It's brilliance, however, doesn't mean that it was earth-moving. We can hope that it has a ripple effect - that others will follow in his lead. I hope that he poked some of the lapdog media into remembering they have teeth.

[opihimoimoi]

22. I agree, it was brilliant...the results, if any, I think, will be lower

Poll Numbers for Bush/Pubs

Bush has been a joke for many Americans for a long time now...to the point of attracting more people to give up the "fight" and making the "switch" to join in the laughter....

Bush is PISSED because he is finding this out...that AMERICA is LAUGHING at HIM..he has turned into a joke larger than he had ever imagined...

[blm]

9. Limbaugh committed a CRIME - and his deal is hardly making a blip.

And when it does, they practically fall over themselves as if he's been vindicated.

[Writer]

13. That's your perception.

There's a link to the article on the front page of msnbc...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[ShortnFiery]

19. Oh, Limpball will face Random Drug Tests ...

And just like his millions bought him 18 months of parole, then no citation AT ALL ... he'll have his own "set up" on drug tests.

He's using now, I'd bet money on it!

He's about washed up ... a doper who's obsessed and will TANK within 5 years at most.

[blm]

27. Friday Broadcast MSNBC subject line said - Limbaugh No Longer In Limbo

Yeah - no spin there.

And a report that's exclusive to their internet site is rarely an indicator of the way their BROADCAST MEDIA handles the coverage.

[w4rma]

47. "Random tests for Limbaugh" SOLs? exams? No mention of drugs in headline

Rush Limbaugh random drug tests agreement dismiss conservative commentator

continue treatment acknowledged addiction cannot own a gun.

agreement not admit guilt pleaded not guilty

common sense resolution appropriate treat admitted voluntarily treatment

Prosecutors launched Limbaugh’s housekeeper alleged He entered rehabilitation blamed addiction severe back pain

doctor exceptionally strong recovery committed to continued treatment drug free for 2 1/2 years.

Office may revoke modify violates agreement.

blasted investigation “fishing” expedition maintained he innocent.

Prosecutors accused illegally deceiving multiple doctors overlapping prescriptions practice doctor shopping. seizing medical records, received up to 2,000 painkillers, prescribed four doctors six months.

single charge alleges illegally obtained 40 pills elaborate explain prosecutors scaled back case.

agreement is standard deal for first-time, nonviolent drug offenders.

The language looks very kind and sympathetic to Limbaugh to me. Harsh towards attorneys and procecutors.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. You make good points .... but ......

(you hadda know there'd be a 'but', right? :) )

.... but .... while what you say about Colbert, specifically, is true, what you postulate about he larger media issue (a RW bias or not) isn't as true.

There is a definite rightward bias in the media. Perhaps not with this particular person or that particular publication, but absolutley in an overall sense. The term 'corporate media' is well deserved. They try to walk a very fine line between being as obvious as Fox and being honest in the old time. Walter Cronkite way. But when one looks at it more critically, one sees the bais as plain as the nose on ... well .... Rush's face in his mugshot.

You need only check MediaMatters.com to see what's up.

[Writer]

15. Here's what you have done...

You have:

1) Implied that you know for a fact that there's RW bias in the media... but for every person who says there's RW bias there's someone else in America that claims the opposite.

2) You have cited a source that actively seeks to expose this RW bias... but there are sites that do the same work to prove that there's LW bias... so who's correct here?

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Well, consider this ........

Why do actual talking head show guest counts (RW vs LW) differ so dramatically?

[blm]

29. Ever compare the FACTS behind a MediaMatters article and a Media Research

Center article? If you think they have the same credibility, then that says more about your perception than anything else.

[incapsulated]

34. Ah, the two sides make it equal argument

The media loves this one. "Both sides say we are biased, therefore we must be just right".

Rubbish. Sometimes one side is right and the other is full of shit. The right has been using the "liberal media bias" excuse for thirty YEARS. Only when there was a undeniable corporate takeover and consolidation of the media did liberals begin to notice a very real bias developing and comment upon it.

[papau]

36. Dear WRITER - Media Matters uses actual clips -The so called LW bias study

always use a word count that is always shown to be bogus.

AND YOU WANT TO EQUATE THE TWO "studies"? :-(

Go to Media Matters and watch the clips - they are total clips so as to be "in context"

I do not believe that after you watch the clips you will come back and state that the media is not RW biased.

I am sorry but you can not find clips of the LW is bias data - it does not exist. Take transcripts and edit out of context and claim LW bias is so 90's - but on Fox they still do this.

[Dr Fate]

41. The difference is those RW claims of media bias are dishonest.

Just becuase they claim there is a Liberal bias does not make it so.

Usually when they claim bias, it is over a TRUTHFUL report about them.

When we claim bias, usually it is about an outright LIE (WMDs, Saddam caused 9-11, Swiftboats, Abramoff gave money to DEMs, etc) or omission of an important fact (DSM, dissenting views on whether Saddam has WMDs, etc).

[Aaaargh]

46. Well, I say there's a BLATANT MARXIST-LENINIST bias in the MSM!

Therefore, our 'perception index' must be shifted even further in the direction of leftwing bias in the MSM.

In fact, the leftwing bias of the MSM has been so widely and frequently asserted (especially by representatives of the MSM itself) that it must be considered very highly factesque. If we're going to be FAIR, that is...

[Us vs Them]

12. I agree. Plus, this is not something that can be boiled down into

little soundbites, and is best when consumed in whole. The cutaways, the increasing frustration of the "President," et al. Plus, if this, for whatever reason, managed to BLOW UP in regard to media coverage, it would almost be working against the underlying message of Colbert's original point. The fact that the media sat there silent, and continues to do so when faced with the biting truth is best witnessed and distributed through alternative marketing means. As a result, this video is all over the internet today, and continues to spread to all corners - I personally can't seem to escape it.

Viva Colbert, and if this event was important to you, simply spread the love around!

[wtmusic]

14. The Limbaugh schtick is old news

and serves as a handy distraction from someone speaking truth to not only power, but media cowards as well, who were well-represented there.

[incapsulated]

24. Wrong, wrong, wrong

If you are making the argument that media bias is a figment of our imaginations, based on "high, personal expectations", I could not disagree with you more. Have you even been watching the media for the last 10 years? Rush Limbaugh is a celebrity and we are a celebrity obsessed culture. Hence, he will get coverage, along with Clooney. Make your argument about something other than celebs and comedians. Show me evidence of balanced coverage of say, most of the Iraq war until even the media couldn't fight the polls and reality. Or any of the numerous criminal acts in which this administration have indulged themselves during the past six years. Or the 2004 election, with the media giving the SwiftLiars an open platform to spew their slander as if it were legitimate criticism. And on and on and on....

[FrenchieCat]

30. You neglect to mention HOW the Limbaugh news is being covered....

As though he has repented and is now vindicated by closing this chapter behind him......

They are whores through and through......mostly all of them!

[ShortnFiery]

32. Limbaugh shows no signs of "being in recovery"

He's actively using and if there's a God in Heaven, I hope that someone turns on him. If he blows this parole, it's TRUE jail time. He's not out of trouble yet, and he's NOT CLEAN. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

33. I know....but that's how they are reporting it......

it's called hoe "spin".

[papau]

37. True - that is even ABC's out loud Charley Gibson repeated quote today

vindicated

:-(

How the hell is he "vindicated "?????

[endarkenment]

38. yeah we are just making up judy miller and editorial decisions at the NYT

to run her bullshit page 1 and tombstone all contrary reporting. We are just making up the fact that with the exception of Helen Thomas and Knight Ridder, the entire media stenographed white house propaganda on the Iraq war for about two years. We are just making up the massively skewed coverage of both Kerry and Gore vs Bush in both campaigns, and the massively differential treatment of scandal after scandal in the bush administration vs the obsession with false scandals and a sexual misadventure in the Clinton administration. Yeah it is just our misconception. got it.

[Dr Fate]

40. Republicans get mad when the media tells the truth about them...

...Liberals get upset when they lie or exaggerate against our favor- which is almost daily.

The media lied to us about WMDs, Saddam-9/11 & Swiftboats and about a hundred other things. A five minute check on "google" at the time should have called 90% of their pre-Iraq or election coverage into question.

Telling the truth about Rush balances the those billions dollar lies they told about everything else? No sir.

Conservatives ultimately define Liberal Media as
"relevant facts that happen to make us look bad."

When Liberals look at media bias, we note the fact that they lie about us and they lie to help Bush.

This business that "both sides claim bias" does not clear up anything- Repubs cry "bias" when the media tells the truth avout them- Liberals cry "bias" when they lie about us or lie to help Bush.

In sum, when Repubs cry "bias"- it is usually because someone is telling the truth about them for a change. When we claim bias, we can list hundreds of examples of them lying.

[Bandit]

42. the media's coverage of Colbert...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

43. The media chose a specific segment of the dinner to comment on.

I think the point is that they chose the most flattering to Junior, purposely.

Colbert's bit was noteworthy and he received ZERO acknowledgment from the media.

Yes he has been elevated to rock star status within the liberal community, deservedly so for his brilliant commentary, but the media ignoring his performance was purposeful because it wasn't flattering to the chimp. I think it is that that most object to and are really, really getting tired of.

[Generator]

45. I get your drift on Colbert

Who's to say? The truth is not that funny anyway. And Colbert tells the truthiness in his Swifie way. I personally have preferred Colbert for some time to Stewart. So our agenda is the media. We don't want more coverage of Colbert. We want the media to change. We have our fantasies.

But your point on Limbaugh is irritating. The fact that they cover the heh look over here-he TAKES DRUGS part of the story instead of the real story-that he is a outright propagandist and liar and says vile things (plus is on Armed Services Radio-he's still there isn't he?) and along with the likes of say, Ann Coulter, would be shamed and bankrupt in any decent society that actually gave a WHIT about anything resembling facts or decency-well they don't discuss that do they? They discuss the non-story as always, the blow job, and not the screwing over of the whole country.

The media will discuss some nuance, some tabloid fact about the immigration march. The non-English anthem, for instance. They can spend five minutes on the real story, and mucho tiempo on the pretty distractions.

I don't give a shit that Limbaugh uses drugs. I give a shit that he tells lies and with him being on armed forces radio-it's nothing more than government approved propaganda. I find that's my "agenda."