CE Week #11: “Colbert consumes media”
Eric Boehlert
Media Matters for America
November 6, 2007
Did you notice the contrasting media responses to comedian Stephen Colbert’s short-lived plan to get his factually challenged TV namesake on the ballot for the South Carolina presidential primary? The mainstream Beltway press could barely contain its glee as it cheered on the stunt, lavishing all sorts of media attention on Colbert and basking in the entertainment glow that his act brought to the White House campaign trail.
By contrast, it was mostly left to nontraditional online outlets, such as The Huffington Post and Gawker, to strike a skeptical chord, to suggest that perhaps this wasn’t the best idea since Colbert’s publicity stunt might pose a distraction at a time when the campaign should be focusing on big issues.
That’s a fair point. But consider this: The Colbert candidacy only became a distraction because the press allowed it to, because the press literally drives itself to distraction on the campaign trail. That’s not an unfortunate side effect of the process. That’s the goal.
I’m almost relieved that Democratic officials in South Carolina squashed the Colbert stunt by denying his attempt to get on the ballot. That’s the only way the press was going to drop the story.
Think of the political press corps as that fat kid from “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” Augustus Gloop. For too many journalists, the lure of the Colbert candidacy is akin to Wonka’s river of chocolate, the one that lured the candy-loving Gloop into the deep end and got him stuck inside the tubes. The press already seems to do everything it can to avoid covering campaign substance. Instead, it pursues trivia such as John Edwards’ haircut, or Hillary Clinton’s laugh and her cleavage. The allure of a saccharine story like Colbert’s running gag was simply too tempting.
That’s because the press has decided to cover presidential candidates as celebrities, as personalities. The media phenomena became enshrined during the 2000 contest when the press announced that presidential campaigns were no longer about how candidates might function as presidents, what they might actually do as commander in chief. Instead, campaigns were about personalities – which candidate was fun to be around and which one was authentic.
The approach is thriving today. Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: “Just 12 percent of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election,” according to Editor & Publisher magazine. “And just 1 percent of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance.”
The obvious media reaction to the Colbert candidacy should have been to note it as the book-selling publicity stunt that it was, have a chuckle, and move on. Instead, the press lingered, giving the story way too much attention, and often at the expense of more pressing topics.
For instance, ABC’s “Nightline” found time to cover the Colbert candidacy. Yet “Nightline” has not found time during the past six weeks to cover the war from Iraq.
Colbert’s race did momentarily seem to gain newsworthiness last week when a Rasmussen poll showed the “Comedy Central” host grabbing an impressive 13 percent when positioned as an independent candidate.
None of the news reports I saw about the polling results mentioned it, but what exactly is the point of conducting a national poll since Colbert is only trying to get on the ballot in one state? Meaning, of the 1,200 people Rasmussen polled, it’s likely that, based on census data, maybe 10 or 20 of the respondents were actually from South Carolina. It’s like running a national poll on whom Americans would prefer to be the next senator from New York; it’s a perfectly pointless exercise except, of course, that in the case of Colbert it’s fun and entertaining.
Nonetheless, on Oct. 29, “Good Morning America” host Diane Sawyer, in an apparent reference to the Rasmussen poll, suggested that, “If (Colbert) keeps gaining at the rate he’s gaining, by the end of November he could be the leading candidate.”
Question: In the history of modern-day American presidential campaigns, has a new candidate ever entered the race polling at roughly 10 percent and then proceeded to pick up an additional 10 percent each week for four weeks running? Ever? Why would anybody suggest that a late-night comedian might be able to accomplish what no other candidate has ever done in American politics? What would prompt somebody to suggest that Colbert, by next month, might soon be garnering 40 percent and be the leading candidate for president?
Answer: Because it’s fun.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/07/ce-week-11-colbert-consumes-media/trackback/
I think this article hits it right on the money. It shows how ignorant the media is and how the media is only out to try and show the trick of the day even though it might not be as important as other things going on in the world. The fact that “nightline” found time in their 60 minute, 40 minutes of show, to include a segment about Stephen Colbert and his gag to run for president. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the Colbert Report (even though The Daily Show is better), its just that the article also said that “nightline” hadn’t mentioned anything about the War in Iraq in the last six months. Now I am not an avid supporter of the war but this is ridiculous. That means not since the middle of September has “nightline” even talked about the war in Iraq where Americans are dying everyday. It is just ridiculous.
Also the fact that “good morning america’s” Diane Sawyer also had time to say that if Stephen Colbert kept gaining like he did then he’d be the next President. This is just stupid. It is a sheer waste of time and energy and everybody watching that show is now dumber for having seen it. I mean its just hard to put into words what a joke some of these “professionals” get paid for.
Awww, I wanted Colbert to run, I think he would have done a great job, and would probably make a pretty good president if hell froze over. This article ask a lot of questions about the integrity of the media when it comes to elections, saying that the media cares less about the politics of it all and more about the little trivia facts and quirks about the candidates. To that I have to say; can you blame them? Let’s face it, we live in a country where most people don’t care about politics, the weekly happenings of Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson interest us more than Hilary Clintons view on abortion. So what’s the media to do? I mean they have to sell magazines and get good ratings right? So why should they bother covering real politics when it’s just going to bore their readers? Bored readers leads to drop in sales. That’s why they flocked to Colbert, his show is already hugely popular for “spicing” up politics, more people are interested in their favorite TV personality than they are about Barack Obama. Its simply human nature, we are dumb, we hate being bored, we like little tidbits and we like sensational stories.
Ha ha… Stephen Colbert as President. Or even a candidate. That is funny. Almost as funny as he is. I remember a controversial blog topic that Stephanie Semb posted this summer asking others’ opinions on the storyline behind the movie “Man of the Year.” Everyone contemplated the idea of a political comedian in the White House and emotions were mixed… But recently, this actually became a reality. Well, almost. Stephen Colbert attempted to get on the ticket in South Carolina and paid the initial fee; however, he did not pay another $35,000 to actually get on the ballot, not to mention the Democratic officials in S.C. basically squashed his “aspirations.” But of course, not before the press had its fun. This goes right along with the theme of the staph infection article… the media doesn’t just cover some things… it “stalks” them and keeps them alive forever! Either the media tries to scare us or just entertain us with meaningless crap. Yeah, it was interesting that Stephen Colbert ran… but not THAT interesting. Presidential campaigns today do not focus as much on the issues as they need to. Like the article said, it is more about the personality of a candidate and his or her “authenticity” and “likability” factor (I think I made that word up). And as for the claim that Colbert would be the leading candidate after 5 weeks… well, not so much. Now all we can do is wait and see what the next big ‘08 campaign joke is.
I think that Mr. Boehlert makes a perfectly valid point. The only reason that the media covered Colbert’s short stint as a potential candidate is because he is something entertaining that Americans can latch on to, a comedian that many already watch on a daily basis anyway. It IS just like he said, the media would rather focus on the trivial pieces of information about a candidate, the information that will hold the American public’s gold-fish like attention, in a world of a million TV channels and the internet. It is what makes media channel ratings go up, because more people are willing to spend their time watching comedy than important facts about candidates that will end up impacting our country.
There are more to people than their physical appearance (haircuts for instance…), and it is important for the people to know this. While I personally think that Colbert is hilarious, the reality is, if he actually made it to the ballot, and ultimately (God forbid) was elected, our country would be in a very deep and serious trouble. It may be funny that he has so many supporters, but if he were actually our president, I think that we would find our country in a complete ruin.
So yes, laugh all you want, but ask yourself this: What would our country have come to if a man like Stephen Colbert was elected our president?
>
~Liz
I somewhat I agree with Kirk, as Americans we’re really not very smart and would rather watch a new special about Pamela Anderson or Brittney Spears than spend our time learning about key issues in an upcoming election. However, I think it’s the media’s fault for flipping over to this sort of media. Of course we watch Brittney Spears more than we watch important stories about politics because there aren’t any to watch. Perhaps if the media spent more time showing us important stories about important issues people would learn to pay more attention to them. I for one would much rather hear about what’s going on with the war on Iraq than whether or not Ann Curry has made it to the North Pole, actually that was quasi entertaining, but anyway.
If the news covered more than Hillary Clinton’s cleavage maybe the world would learn to pay more attention to politics. They have to lead by example and I think it’s high time that they figure out what’s really going on and quit entertaining us. Quit giving us stories about non-nonsensical issues that shouldn’t be talked about in the first place and give us what’s actually important to know. It might take a while for people to adjust from not hearing about Brittney Spear’s custody battle first thing in the morning but i think the world would be a better place because of it.
I completely agree with Kirk M. Colbert is funny, and I think he should’ve fulfilled his “dream” to run for president. As for the media, I don’t blame them for saying more about Britney Spears than Mitt Romney. For one thing, not everyone wants to see white old men in nice suits everytime they turn on the tube after a long days work. People are ignorant. We watch TV because it has people who are pretty in cituations that are dumb and aren’t like ours. Plus I think we all know why people would rather watch Pamela Anderson than Hilary… since a little under half our country is male there we go, we lost half of them already.
The media, like Kirk says, has to make money. Get people to watch.
Unless the people of America get more informed about politics, AND START CARING the media is going to continue to skip around policy issues and play over and over human interest pieces about the cat that got stuck in the tree, or weighs 25 lbs.
Wow! That would be another lame brain idea for Stephen Colbert to put his name on the ballot in South Carolina for the presidential primary. Yes, I know that it would not be a substantial quest and he might get a vote or two, but it seems like a waist of time to me. To me it is no different than I believe it was Fred Thompson coming into the race a little bit later. I know it is only in South Carolina, but it still could have some effect on the candidates in that state. I just think that it is making a mockery of our Governmental system. He is poking fun at how our country can just let every Tom, Dick, or Colbert just waltz there name right onto the ballet with a little money. It is stupid to think that anything is really going to be done in our country if people keep screwing around like this. Yes, all of the candidates this far have had stances on issues like abortion and healthcare. I just feel that Stephen Colbert could really hurt a good candidates chance of winning in South Carolina. Also the press is taking a real focus off of the candidates and putting it into this stunt that will get more media attention than the last Republican debate.
I agree with Kirk, the media is going for the meat of what is happening in politics, and Colbert running is the biggest thing that has happened in politics lately. For Colbert I think it was a really smart move politically for him to try and enter the race. He already has money and momentum, so what’s to say he can’t get the last one, or gain the 40 percent like the article said. I think that it’s stupid that people don’t think that he is legitimate candidate. He is more of a legitimate candidate then some of these other yahoo’s who want their name on the ballot. Look at Arnold, he’s the governor of California and he is an actor. Colbert is way more legit then Arnold. Just because he makes fun of candidates on TV doesn’t mean he can’t be a serious politician. How the media or anyone portrays a candidate shouldn’t matter. Hasn’t the American public learned that whatever the media says isn’t true? The race for president should be about the issues, not the candidate’s personality. But you know it will never be about that because that isn’t what the media will focus on. There is no way anyone could stop this whole thing from being the big deal, especially when the media is involved.
I think that everyone is getting the right idea here… the media, while unbelievably tasteless, latches on to what will sell. In this case, Stephen Colbert, a political comedian and TV star, is 10 times more likely to be interesting than Barack Obama’s stance on fighting poverty. Thus, his determination to get on the S.C. presidential ballot will interest people more. Comedy pretty much dominates the “brilliant” minds of the American people… Like Chelsea said, this whole thing pretty much goes along with the movie “Man of the Year.” I think that people are entertained by the idea of a politically smart celebrity as a Presidential candidate, but it ends there. Even though Robin Williams’s character “won” the election, it was because of a rigged election. When it comes down to it, I don’t believe that the American people would actually elect someone like Colbert. It is just too “risky.” And back to the media, it is unfortunate that we live in a nation where a respected nightly news show can spare 40 minutes of a 60 minute taping to highlight Colbert’s attempted gag. But then again, that is what sells. And it will continue to until people start caring more about policy issues than they do Hilary’s cleavage. (I shudder just hearing that).
What is with our class and agreeing with whatever the first person posts. I don’t really agree at all with Kirk. [Well I do agree the Daily Show is better than the Colbert Report.] But I disagree with his thesis which is: “It shows how ignorant the media is and how the media is only out to try and show the trick of the day even though it might not be as important as other things going on in the world. The fact that “nightline” found time in their 60 minute, 40 minutes of show, to include a segment about Stephen Colbert and his gag to run for president.”
Stephen Colbert running for President and the subsequent media coverage following his announcement to run for President is expected and makes sense. In no way does it show that the media is ignorant. It may show that the consumers of the media are somewhat…easily distracted but, not ignorant. The fact is Stephen Colbert running for President is news. Someone announced that they were running for President of the superpower in the world. It is worth mentioning. That he made a mockery of the announcement of running for President makes the story even more newsworthy. If Colbert actually ran, he would probably screw the Democrats but, it would certainly shake things up a little. Anyone who has watched his show can realize he is brilliant.
South Carolina’s primary won’t make any difference to the outcome of the election. If Colbert bumped the front runner down a notch in one state no one will even care. People will also realize that Colbert detracted votes from candidates as well.
Evan said
Wow! That would be another lame brain idea for Stephen Colbert to put his name on the ballot in South Carolina for the presidential primary. Yes, I know that it would not be a substantial quest and he might get a vote or two, but it seems like a waist of time to me. To me it is no different than I believe it was Fred Thompson coming into the race a little bit later.
First, Colbert has no lame brain ideas. The man is a political and comedic genius. His announcement of running for President was completely satirical.
Fred Thompson actually has a legitimate chance. Colbert doesn’t. Fred is running for a Party that he is a member of. Colbert isn’t. Fred has political experience. Colbert doesn’t. They are completely different situations.
I just think that it is making a mockery of our Governmental system. He is poking fun at how our country can just let every Tom, Dick, or Colbert just waltz there name right onto the ballet with a little money. It is stupid to think that anything is really going to be done in our country if people keep screwing around like this. Yes, all of the candidates this far have had stances on issues like abortion and healthcare.
He is not mocking our government system. He is mocking how individuals running for President announce their candidacy.
Shauna said, “the media, while unbelievably tasteless, latches on to what will sell. In this case, Stephen Colbert, a political comedian and TV star, is 10 times more likely to be interesting than Barack Obama’s stance on fighting poverty. Thus, his determination to get on the S.C. presidential ballot will interest people more. Comedy pretty much dominates the “brilliant” minds of the American people… “
Shauna touches on what this article really is about. It’s not about if Colbert running is bad or good. It is a commentary on how the media and the consumers of it react. For everyone who accused the media of being “ignorant” or “stupid”, understand that news companies are companies that need to sell. They sell what the American people want to hear.
The media’s irresponsibility is just an indicator of the public’s apathy towards politics. The media delivers what people want to hear, and the masses aren’t interested about John McCain’s or Hillary Clinton’s stance on social security. Boehlert brings up a good point in that Americans tend to be focused on personalites more that platforms, that’s why charismatic candidates seem to be more successful in elections. As for Stephen Colbert, I think he has a funny way of taking America’s obsession with image over issues and throwing it back in our face. I would have preferred Jon Stewart running, but that’s just me.
This is kind of funny for Colbert to do. He is pulling the media away in South Carolina from both parties. This is the medias fault for being so stupid and falling for his tactics. You know this is his plan to grab attention from the media and try to take votes away from both parties so no candidate can get this sate. They say the rate he’s going that he actually might win the darn thing. This is great for some comedic figure to take a stance and show how politics really work you don’t have to be the best one you just have to be the funniest and most popular.
See the problem is we are coming into a new generation of presidents. We don’t only look at them as a person and their policies, but how they will act as a commander in chief. What is their outtake on war? Americans favor war in the since that when someone does wrong to us we do it right back, but this war for oil and terrorism can’t be won it can only be fought. It will never end. Someone’s always going to hate someone else, it’s in our nature. We can’t stop it.