@dkmich for Samantha Bee almost made me throw something at the boob tube. Shameless shills who I hope one day are forced to eat their lies.

If these enablers would just stop, maybe the enabled would have to stop too.

@dkmich

for sharing that. I'll be back to see that again later. He nails it perfectly.

If these enablers would just stop, maybe the enabled would have to stop too.

@Amanda Matthews

I used to love the Daily Show and Colbert, even if they weren't always well-informed on various issues... but thank FSM for Redacted Tonight and Jimmy Dore far more (amusingly) accurate replacements.

Interesting that an audience member in the posted video asked what a hump on Bush-2's back (apparently spotted in a 2004 debate) might have been, as I seem to recall some questioning of one on Hillary's back at some point in this past election? Assuming this to be the case, was Hillary more likely using old prompter personal tech or could these be sightings of The Alien Riders Of The Lizard People? That might explain a lot regarding their evidently shared policies and world-views.

Actually, even if there isn't an existing movie with a title of that name, I'd like to see one anyway. Probably be much funnier than real life... and might contain hints on how to deal with the pesky creatures. s/

'courage' and honesty since he took down Tucker Carlson (see video below) but I disagree with him frequently when he soft peddles (or ignores) corruption on the left. But he often does makes some great points and arguments when it comes to the right side of the aisle.

Can't stand Colbert. The few times I've watched him I wanted to break something. He's all hair-on-fire and he makes very little sense. Hysterical is the word that pops into mind when I think of him. Maybe my problem is I just don't care to spend the time to sort through all his unfunny remarks. He reminds me of the kid on the playground who tries too damn hard. This latest episode where he called Trump's mouth Putin's 'cock holster' illustrates my point. That type of crudity is unnecessary and in my personal opinion, it was childish in his attempt to be 'edgy'.

But that's just my opinion and it doesn't really mean anything to anyone else but me. Maybe people see something in those guys that goes right over my head.

@Mark from Queens https://theweek.com/articles/490942/stephen-colbert-jon-stewarts-washing...

Thanks for blunting one of We the People’s biggest non-violent weapons, guys.

construct an image of liberal outrage, that is really no more than filling upwardly mobile, "socially Liberal" folks with a sense of moral superiority, over their counterparts in the duopoly confines of Red/Blue, Right/Left.

Having said that, I was a fan of both, especially Colbert, who still to this day, gave one of the most, scathing and ballsy performances, when he leveled Bush at the White Correspondents Dinner in 2007, right to his face, literally.

But no more. They're everything that's wrong with Neoliberalism. They'll not ever bite the hand that feeds them, in the way George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, and Bill Hicks weren't afraid to do. They're very much agents of keeping the status quo, with some feel-good laughs at the other side while not ever getting at the core of the problem. They get paid handsomely not to cross that line.

I've plastered this everywhere it's appropriate and so here it is again, if you haven't seen it. Explains far better than I could what they're all about, and by extension corporate whores/phonies like Jimmy Fallon also.

"The Joke's On You," from the Baffler, July 2012 by Steven Almond. It's a must-read, in its entirety.

Some highlights:

Over the past decade, political humor has proliferated not as a daring form of social commentary, but a reliable profit source. Our high-tech jesters serve as smirking adjuncts to the dysfunctional institutions of modern media and politics, from which all their routines derive. Their net effect is almost entirely therapeutic: they congratulate viewers for their fine habits of thought and feeling while remaining careful never to question the corrupt precepts of the status quo too vigorously.

Our lazy embrace of Stewart and Colbert is a testament to our own impoverished comic standards. We have come to accept coy mockery as genuine subversion and snarky mimesis as originality. It would be more accurate to describe our golden age of political comedy as the peak output of a lucrative corporate plantation whose chief export is a cheap and powerful opiate for progressive angst and rage...

“Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America,” he told Carlson. “See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. And we’re left out there to mow our lawns.” The exchange went viral. Stewart was hailed as a hero: here, at last, was a man brave enough to condemn the tyranny of a middling cable shoutfest.

But who, exactly, did Stewart mean by “we”? He’s not just some poor schnook who works the assembly line at a factory then goes home to mow his lawn. He’s a media celebrity who works for Viacom, one of the largest entertainment corporations in the world. Stewart can score easy points by playing the humble populist. But he’s as comfortable on the corporate plantation as any of the buffoons he delights in humiliating.

The queasy irony here is that Stewart and Colbert are parasites of the dysfunction they mock. Without blowhards such as Carlson and shameless politicians, Stewart would be out of a job that pays him a reported $14 million per annum. Without the bigoted bluster of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report would not exist. They aren’t just invested in the status quo, but dependent on it.

Consider, in this context, Stewart’s coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. His initial segment highlighted the hypocrisy of those who portrayed the protestors in Zuccotti Park as lawless and menacing while praising Tea Party rallies as quintessentially patriotic. But Stewart was careful to include a caveat: “I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s gonna be down with that,” he said, alluding to vandalism by activists during a 1999 World Trade Organization summit. Stewart then leaned toward the camera and said, in his best guilty-liberal stage whisper, “We all love Starbucks.” The audience laughed approvingly. Protests for economic justice are worthy of our praise, just so long as they don’t take aim at our luxuries. The show later sent two correspondents down to Zuccotti Park. One highlighted the various “weirdos” on display. The other played up the alleged class divisions within those occupying the park. Both segments trivialized the movement by playing to right-wing stereotypes of protestors as self-indulgent neo-hippies.

Read the whole thing. It's one of those great pieces that don't come around very often. He nailed the whole Neoliberal entertainment thing, and it is so appropriate for right now, when it's more obvious than it was then, that the Joke is on us.

@Mark from Queens One of the prominent right wing blowhards (may have been Limbaugh) admitted once it was much better for business when Democrats won. It's the same for this bunch, minus the honesty. The neo-liberal thing lets them benefit like Republicans while easing their guilt on the social issues. I think the moment for me was when John Oliver went after Bernie as if he was any one of the Republicans he usually punctures. Phonies, the whole lot of 'em. The right wing talkers may have brought down the discourse but the left wing comedians sheepdog, which is at least as dangerous, IMHO.

construct an image of liberal outrage, that is really no more than filling upwardly mobile, "socially Liberal" folks with a sense of moral superiority, over their counterparts in the duopoly confines of Red/Blue, Right/Left.

Having said that, I was a fan of both, especially Colbert, who still to this day, gave one of the most, scathing and ballsy performances, when he leveled Bush at the White Correspondents Dinner in 2007, right to his face, literally.

But no more. They're everything that's wrong with Neoliberalism. They'll not ever bite the hand that feeds them, in the way George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, and Bill Hicks weren't afraid to do. They're very much agents of keeping the status quo, with some feel-good laughs at the other side while not ever getting at the core of the problem. They get paid handsomely not to cross that line.

I've plastered this everywhere it's appropriate and so here it is again, if you haven't seen it. Explains far better than I could what they're all about, and by extension corporate whores/phonies like Jimmy Fallon also.

"The Joke's On You," from the Baffler, July 2012 by Steven Almond. It's a must-read, in its entirety.

Some highlights:

Over the past decade, political humor has proliferated not as a daring form of social commentary, but a reliable profit source. Our high-tech jesters serve as smirking adjuncts to the dysfunctional institutions of modern media and politics, from which all their routines derive. Their net effect is almost entirely therapeutic: they congratulate viewers for their fine habits of thought and feeling while remaining careful never to question the corrupt precepts of the status quo too vigorously.

Our lazy embrace of Stewart and Colbert is a testament to our own impoverished comic standards. We have come to accept coy mockery as genuine subversion and snarky mimesis as originality. It would be more accurate to describe our golden age of political comedy as the peak output of a lucrative corporate plantation whose chief export is a cheap and powerful opiate for progressive angst and rage...

“Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America,” he told Carlson. “See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. And we’re left out there to mow our lawns.” The exchange went viral. Stewart was hailed as a hero: here, at last, was a man brave enough to condemn the tyranny of a middling cable shoutfest.

But who, exactly, did Stewart mean by “we”? He’s not just some poor schnook who works the assembly line at a factory then goes home to mow his lawn. He’s a media celebrity who works for Viacom, one of the largest entertainment corporations in the world. Stewart can score easy points by playing the humble populist. But he’s as comfortable on the corporate plantation as any of the buffoons he delights in humiliating.

The queasy irony here is that Stewart and Colbert are parasites of the dysfunction they mock. Without blowhards such as Carlson and shameless politicians, Stewart would be out of a job that pays him a reported $14 million per annum. Without the bigoted bluster of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report would not exist. They aren’t just invested in the status quo, but dependent on it.

Consider, in this context, Stewart’s coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. His initial segment highlighted the hypocrisy of those who portrayed the protestors in Zuccotti Park as lawless and menacing while praising Tea Party rallies as quintessentially patriotic. But Stewart was careful to include a caveat: “I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s gonna be down with that,” he said, alluding to vandalism by activists during a 1999 World Trade Organization summit. Stewart then leaned toward the camera and said, in his best guilty-liberal stage whisper, “We all love Starbucks.” The audience laughed approvingly. Protests for economic justice are worthy of our praise, just so long as they don’t take aim at our luxuries. The show later sent two correspondents down to Zuccotti Park. One highlighted the various “weirdos” on display. The other played up the alleged class divisions within those occupying the park. Both segments trivialized the movement by playing to right-wing stereotypes of protestors as self-indulgent neo-hippies.

Read the whole thing. It's one of those great pieces that don't come around very often. He nailed the whole Neoliberal entertainment thing, and it is so appropriate for right now, when it's more obvious than it was then, that the Joke is on us.