Okay, can we talk for a second about Sklar's piece? (Sorry, Rachel: here we go). Her justification for the thing's existence is that it allows reporters to cozy up to and establish relationships with sources who wouldn't otherwise show up if not for the celebs. She also takes the Krucoff defense ("It's for charity!").
Can somebody help me understand the many different degrees of "wrong" I feel about this?
Colbert ended this event in 2006 because (sorry, Alex, I know this is the point you were trying to make more subtly) he basically told the media that they were a bunch of lazy assholes who were as responsible as anyone for the Iraq war because they basically phoned in the whole Bush presidency in the hope of getting favors from Karl, Ken, Dick and Andy. After that, there hasn't been much else to say. The media hate being told that they such at their jobs.
Colbert "died at the dais" in 2006? Reality check. His speech was by the far the most popular and memorable speech ever given at that sorry confab of the discredited and corrupt. It's Youtube site is still smoking today. Yeah, the audience that year didn't like it. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT! And it explains why, in a panic over being the butt of jokes instead of the dispenser, they tried painting up the old whore with some Hollywood flash. The Great Unwashed will love us now!!!! Wretch. The fact that there's a Dem in the White House changes nothing, however silly hypocrites like Chris Lehmann may bleat. It's over.
@lrubemp: i'm only responding to you because this is the craziest comment on the subject but why does no one understand that statements like "no one in the room thought it was funny" is the definition of DYING, even if everyone loved it on the YouTube the next day
Did anyone get as upset by Glenn Beck being there as I did? Shouldn't he have been making house cat jerky and Alcoa fedoras somewhere, all the while raging about government largess, instead of lashing that black and white bow time mumu around himself and swilling champale with his sworn enemies?
His presence sort of further proved the disingenuousness of the whole affair.
I have to quibble with the use of "died" to describe Colbert's bit. I think dying is when truly nobody thinks the act was funny, whereas Colbert did a routine that brutalized the guy up on the dais in a so-true-it's-funny kind of way. It was awkward and uncomfortable, and only liberal people liked it, but "died"? Uh, no.
@Dave J.: Seconded. His devastating Emperor Has No Clothes routine went so viral that it's unfair to say he "died." Also, according to at least one person I know who was there, there were pockets of the audience in tears from laughing so hard.
@nystar2000: Thirded. There was nervous silence because the whole incestous crowd was being implicated as enablers. His real audience was us, on the Internet, where he slew. People still speak of it three years later, its audacity put Colbert over the top, a new level of fame not just here but abroad.
Well, I mean, if I had to basically throw a party for someone I hated for years, and then one year got to throw it for a guy who was basically my idol, I'd probably admit to having a much better time than usual.
Why is this shocking? Not to belabor the obvious point that has been made for months, but: the media hated George W. Bush, and they love Obama. Of course this year's event was "fun" for them.
Ya know, I actually think that the Colbert thing was one of the bravest things a Washington correspondent has done in recent memory, certainly during the Bush administration.
@Gawkchalk: They might have been concerned that Griffith would have told the conservative Republicans to slap those bathroom dicks out of their mouths. Too risky.
Not to take anything away from Wanda Sykes (or even Rich Little), but it's good to be reminded, once a year around this time, of the incandescent, once-in-a-lifetime brilliance that was Colbert's 2006 WHCA appearance.
I still get chills looking at that video. Fifteen years from now we'll try to tell younger folks about it, and they won't believe that it actually happened.
05/11/09
Can somebody help me understand the many different degrees of "wrong" I feel about this?
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
His presence sort of further proved the disingenuousness of the whole affair.
05/11/09
On a comforting note, his presence proved he did not spend the evening in a structure that could be referred to as a "complex" or "bunker."
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
Why is this shocking? Not to belabor the obvious point that has been made for months, but: the media hated George W. Bush, and they love Obama. Of course this year's event was "fun" for them.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/14/09
05/11/09
Was Kathy Griffin not available?
05/11/09
05/11/09
Imagine, in that setting, Kathy Griffin doing her usual shout-out of "Where's my gays?"
05/11/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
I still get chills looking at that video. Fifteen years from now we'll try to tell younger folks about it, and they won't believe that it actually happened.
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/10/09
05/09/09