When Reporters Who Decry Censorship…Censor
Jan 19th, 2007 | 35 responses
One of the things that has made the American press great has been the lack of prior restraint censorship on what’s written. The White House Correspondents Association dinner has in recent years reflected this freewheeling nature, by hiring entertainers who pushed the envelope:
Radio host Don Imus got just a wee bit too personal for President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton a few years ago. And then last year there was Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert, doing his take off of Bill O’Reilly with barbs aimed at President George W. Bush who was sitting right next to him. It was a big controversy: liberals loved it, conservatives detested it and Mr. and Mrs. George Bush were reportedly furious (Many thought the REAL Bill O’Reilly would have been funnier…)
A tradition? No more. Because a series of news reports have made it known that this year a decision was apparently made: do NOT bring in someone who will offend the President and his supporters.
So they opted for a veteran, solid variety show and Vegas entertainer…but one who cannot be confused with either a controversial morning radio talk show host with a cowboy hat, or a Comedy Central early-21st-century comedian who is heavy on irony and less heavy on traditional one-liners.
This year the entertainment will be….Rich Little (who I loved on the Ed Sullivan Show which went off TV some 30 years ago). But that is not the problem. The problem, as this post by Attytood reports, is that Little has apparently been INSTRUCTED by his client reporters NOT to offend the political sensibilities of Mr. Bush and his supporters:
When we saw earlier this week that the WHCA had chosen Rich Little — who we used to watch imitate Richard Nixon and Bob Hope on Johnny Carson in the early 1970s, if we were allowed to stay up that late — to follow last year’s ruckus over in-your-face funny Stephen Colbert as the main entertainer, we were willing to let it go.But then we read this….The cowardice of these people — who sat there on mute for months while the president made plans to start a war under false pretenses — is astounding. Little now says he has an understanding not to bash Bush or mention the war:
Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don’t want a repeat of last year’s controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves.“They got a lot of letters,” Little said Tuesday. “I won’t even mention the word ‘Iraq.’”
Little, who hasn’t been to the White House since he was a favorite of the Reagan administration, said he’ll stick with his usual schtick — the impersonations of the past six presidents.
“They don’t want anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and he’s worried about his legacy,” added Little, a longtime Las Vegas resident.
Attytood rightfully suggests that this is, in effect, censorship…from the press corps and writes: “We won’t belabor the point, because it’s too obvious, but America desperately needs a press corps that’s more eager to offend the White House, not less eager. It was funny when Basil Fawlty said “don’t mention the war.”
OUR THOUGHTS:
(1) Rich Little is an excellent entertainer with a very solid resume. He has been pleasing audiences for years. Some of Colbert’s fans in particular, will blast Little because he is Rich Little. That’s unfair. And aside from being a “trouper” who has been a hit with a variety of audiences, he is to be commended in his role as the spokesman for the Juvenile Diabetes Association.
(2) Entertainers are often told “be careful not to mention such and such.” I’ve been told “be careful not to make fat jokes” (the client’s wife was fat). At a gig at a restaurant in San Diego that my friends on the San Diego Union-Tribune used to insist was connected with organized crime, the client told me “We’re all in the liquor distribution business…” when I walked in. He stated his ethnicity and I asked: “Should I make some jokes about that?” The guy with a neck the size of a football field smiled and said: “Sure. If you don’t want to live.”
(3) The message Little got indicated that his clients view themselves as hosts and part of the Washington establishment and not as people who believe someone can survive some satirical jokes or barbs about the 800 lb. gorilla that will be in that room that night: Bush’s problems in office and the Iraq war.
(4) So Jay Leno, David Letterman and Jon Stewart can poke fun at George Bush and the war. Mad Magazine can, too. But George Bush and his associates cannot survive getting into their ears a joke that suggests a form of anything less than endearment or neutrality or their heads will explode. We will not offend..
This suggests a shift in the White House press corps, or at least those who’ve organized the event’s (previously “cutting-edge”) entertainment.
PS: If the administration ever tries to stop a story that any of these folks that are saying, remind them. Don’t upset the White House. If Tony Snow ever goes after one of them in a manner they deem offensive, remind them. Keep Tony happy or at least not mad at you for what you write. After all, the President and Tony DO read your stories.
These are seemingly the new standards (or do they just apply to the President?). But that’s what happens when you don’t want to offend friends who belong to your club (The Washington Insiders Club). Also, just think of it: if Richard Little let an offensive joke slip, your sources might be mad at you and what would happen then?
If Rich Little got this gig and you had left him alone to decide what to put in, he might well have decided he wanted to keep it more in line with historical, traditional, broad-appeal comedy and NOT do anything that the bigwigs in power might not like. The issue is not Rich Little or what he chooses to put in his act. The issue is that the choice of what not to put in was in a polite way made FOR him.
Also, it’s so nice to see working journalists respond to their course of action so quickly due to letters. If you’re ever doing an investigative series on your newspaper and your editors get letters saying your paper should not cover it because it’s an issue that offends some readers or people in power and makes them easy, we assume the series will be pulled or edited to be offensive to no one.
Not offend the White House?
Next year, why not just hire Dennis Miller and leave it at that?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
35 Responses to “When Reporters Who Decry Censorship…Censor”
I don’t see this as a freedom of speech issue. I see this as a “some prior comedians used a venue to insult the audience, and we don’t want to insult the audience at this venue” issue.
Seriously. I’m a performer, and if I were performing for a crowd who really didn’t like country music, I wouldn’t play any.
So crying “censorship” is not really justified here: this is just recognizing that there is an appropriate time and place for certain types of humor and criticism.
I would have to disagree here with Joe here. Washington is invariably brutal and toxic in its politics. Can’t there be one evening in the 365 when people aren’t going at each other with daggers drawn?
Is there a constitutional requirement that the President must show up at the White House Correspondents dinner. No. Why should Bush want to sit through a Colbert?
Liberals want to hammer Bush 24/7, as can be seen from the comments on Attywood’s blog. But Bush could easily write-off the dinner as a partisan attack-fest, and not go. Without the president, a lot of the cachet disappears from such an event. It becomes simply another professional association dinner.
The organizers know that, given Colbert’s bloodfest – which went beyond anything previously such as critiques of Clinton, in the view of Washington hands like the Post’s Milbank – when there is a Democratic administration there will be demands from conservatives that President Hillary or Obama be hammered by a conservative comic.
Imagine the screams of rage from Media Matters for America, FDL, or Attywood then.
Is having one evening a year of relative truce in Washington too much to ask from Bush-obsessed liberals? Evidently so.
I don’t think they should be having dinners with the President at all. This shouldn’t be a big club. The relationship should be adversarial.
Joes
Forget the censorship, who’s opening that night for Little – Topo Gigio?
Peace
JTD
The Garlic
Isn’t it amazing, though, how the same conservatives that decried Colbert’s offense to their “dear Leader” are the ones that rolled with laughter when Imus skewered Clinton? Either all Presidents Democrat or Republican should be off-limits or fair game…double standards make me vomit. Like Joe said, it also illustrates just how in bed with the White House the press has become…which was never the intention of the Founding Fathers for freedom of the press. It also shows just how little to no sense of humor Bush has and in it’s place is a big stick up his backside.
The problem with Colbert last year is he just wasn’t funny. You can make funny jokes about the war. Jon Stewart does it all the time. He’s satirical and biting and usually funny. Why? In large part because Stewart doesn’t take himself that seriously. Colbert’s problem last year is that he was pretending he was trying to be funny while in fact trying to make a brutal substantive attack on the President. That’s not appropriate at that dinner.
We have a “gridiron” show here in Louisiana every year, where the reporters do skits to make fun of the politicians they cover. It’s almost always funny, and the politicians who are being made fun of last as much as anybody else. And they do that because the show is over-the-top and is just trying to be funny, not indict all the politicians with clever attacks.
Anna said: “Isn’t it amazing, though, how the same conservatives that decried Colbert’s offense to their “dear Leaderâ€? are the ones that rolled with laughter when Imus skewered Clinton?…double standards make me vomit.”
Anna’s heavy-handed liberal snark is mistaken (as may be imagined from anyone who uses the “dear leader” term linking Bush to the dictator of North Korea). I would challenge her to name the conservatives who “rolled with laughter” at Imus.
As may be seen in the following appraisal of Imus, in TIME magazine in 1996, immediately after the speech, Imus pissed off both liberal and conservative Washington. No one was happy, given he attacked BOTH liberals and conservatives as Anna wants. As a result, he was in the doghouse with much of official Washington and the media elite for years after.
From TIME magazine:
The Washington press corps feigned surprise that radio host Don Imus offended the President, the First Lady, Speaker Newt Gingrich and others at the Radio & TV Correspondents’ Dinner last Thursday night. There were some funny moments, and intermittent silences, as Imus, the evening’s emcee, took jabs at the Speaker’s gay half-sister, Clinton’s alleged extramarital activities, Senator Bob Kerrey’s artificial leg, and offered X-rated details of a TV journalist’s marital difficulties. Imus went easier on people who visit his show (Tim Russert, Bob Dole, Cokie Roberts) than on those who don’t, such as Bernard Shaw (an anchor desk away from going postal) and George Will (“the kind of guy who dresses up on weekends in clothes that make him feel pretty”).
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.”
Humor is obviously very subjective. I thought it was hilarious. The awkwardness that permeated the room made it even more enjoyable.
Chris said: “Humor is obviously very subjective. I thought it was hilarious. The awkwardness that permeated the room made it even more enjoyable.”
I think Chris makes a key point here…this is debate between outside versus inside the Beltway.
Liberal bloggers loved Colbert because he tore only into Bush and what he saw as Bush’s media enablers (unlike Imus, who are bipartisan in his nastiness). Unlike many liberal bloggers, liberals in Washington have to associate with conservatives in the course of their daily lives and work.
One can blog from Berkeley like KOS, and live happily while tearing apart conservatives, as you need never meet or see anyone who disagrees with you.
Think about it: How can you rip someone a new one in the your media, and then go to them the next day for a comment? The same goes for lawmakers who have to cooperate to pass legislation.
Two worlds: Inside and Outside the Beltway.
I agree with Chris both ways. Colbert was hilarious, in my view, but that whole dinner shouldn’t exist. The press corps are supposed to be the guys following the president around making sure he doesn’t pull any shit without the people finding out. By nature it’s supposed to be a adversarial, not symbiotic, relationship.
Reporters are so afraid of losing their precious “access” that they no longer ask any tough questions. Why the hell do you care about access if you aren’t using it for anything? If I want Tony Snows press releases I can go to the White House webpage, I don’t need a Washington correspondent to read them aloud for me. I think this is part of what’s hurting traditional media. They’ve become so docile, so much more concerned with kidnapped blond children than with national policies, so bogged down in the 30 second soundbyte and 3 word catchphrase, that they’ve lost all meaning.
I read somewhere that Little was the most popular comedian in the WH during Reagan’s terms. Yet, the journalists think it’s necessary to instruct this veteran on the jokes he’s allowed to make. Imho this is very telling. Nobody is expected to abstain from critizising the president nowadays.
“The problem with Colbert last year is he just wasn’t funny”
I guess that’s why the video of his performance is still so popular on TV. This world has become so funny that people simply need some sober minutes in their lifes.
“still so popular on TV” ? Uh, sry, on Youtube.
Marlowecan:
OK, it was snark & my (inadvertent) linking of Bush to Kim Jong Il was not consciously intended. I also admit that my remark on conservatives was hyperbole. However, considering that Republican hatred for Clinton during his presidency seems to dwarf anything that right-wing bloggers refer to as the BDS syndrome that they feel liberals have, it seemed not terribly out-of-line hyperbole. All that aside, do you agree that there shouldn’t be a double-standard in this regard? Also, I get the impression that Bush is the first president in the history of this dinner to not want anything that might be offensive to him mentioned by the next (and I assume, any future) entertainer. One of the first requirements for having a sense of humor is the ability to laugh at yourself before you can laugh at anyone else, which Bush does not seem capable of doing, hence my observation that he has little to no sense of humor (and that’s not BDS…in my opinion anyone who can’t laugh at themselves has no sense of humor regardless of political affiliation).
By the way, would Republicans be calling it censorship if the tables were turned & it was a Democrat determining what could not be said by the entertainer?
I have to think that whoever hired Colbert for last year’s dinner was unfamiliar with his humor. Had they watched his show, they would have realized that he’s a satirist of the administration, and that Bush who’s been surrounded by sycophants wouldn’t be able to handle criticism, even in the form of humor. I believe Bush has a weak ego, but let him pick someone innocuous if he can’t deal with it.
On a personal note, I am grateful that they picked Colbert last year, because that was how I discovered his show on Comedy Central.
I think this is the comment that best sums up the problem with the political media. Bravo Lynx.
Komrad Marlowcan – What any good reporter or comedian should do is attack or investigate the people in power. If the pinko Liberal MSM gives the Demonocrats a free pass after 100 hours shame on them. The press loved going to the Bush BBQ in Crawford. Don’t piss W off, you won’t get any brisket and Lone Star.
Kim, that’s exactly my point. Colbert’s diatribe was not humor, it was criticism, pure and simple, and that dinner is not the place for criticism. You can make jokes at another person’s expense without actually leveling serious criticism at him.
Some on the left kept trying to say “well, President Bush and the right just can’t take a joke” in the aftermath of last year’s dinner. But they weren’t jokes, they were attacks. Imus’ jokes were offensive (I can’t stand Imus or most talk show hosts, left, right, or otherwise), but they were aimed at both sides, as others in the thread have pointed out. Saturday Night Live pokes a lot of fun at politicians of all stripes, and they’re just that, jokes. Colbert, as best I can tell, believes in his attacks and considers them serious criticism. That dinner is not the place for it.
Comrade Rudi…I have missed you, my old Bolshie chum. I agree that the press should be constantly adversarial and probing of both Democrats and GOP. Also, after anyone – conservative or liberal – who saw Bush’s performance in the debate with Kerry can attest, his ego seems to have grown in office, and he clearly can’t take criticism easily.
Anna, yes, I think you are right that many conservatives in the blogosphere would be denouncing Democratic censorship were the sides reversed. As you say, the demented frenzy to which Clinton seemed to drive many conservatives mind-boggling.
As PatHMV says, Colbert differed from Imus in not opening fire on everyone in sight but purely criticizing Bush and the “Bush enablers” in the press corps.
Again, the left blogosphere loved it, and it was popular on Youtube. The right naturally hated it. Is something humorous when it only appeals to one side of a political spectrum?
For example, although I am a moderate conservative, I recall appreciating the old anti-Bush bumper sticker: “Somewhere in Texas there’s a village that’s lost its idiot.” I thought that it was a well-crafted line, that was intended to give a laugh as much as make a political point.
I didn’t have the same reaction to Colbert. I thought it was pure, political attack criticism thinly veiled through his stage persona.
Forget the possible censorship.
Rich Little is a Canadian!
What we need are Freedom Impersonators!
Well, Colbert cracked me up. But I’ve always felt the WHCA dinner was ridiculous. The president has no business being there. Kick his ass out and then get someone in to cook him like a turkey. How’s a comedian supposed to be funny if they pull his teeth?
How’s Rich Little supposed to be funny without a Wayback Machine?
What I thought was offensive about Colbert was that it simply isn’t funny to joke about an ongoing war, regardless if your intent is to oppose the war. It wasn’t funny when Bush tried to make fun of himself at a previous event (the film of him searching for WMD in the White House). Liberals certainly didn’t find that hilarious at all, many were outraged. “How dare he joke when the troops are in harm’s way?” I can’t see it any better for someone to make jokes at the president’s expense in regard to the Iraq War than it was for him to use self deprecating humor in that way. If Colbert had been just as biting but had left Iraq out of it, the humor would have worked much better and wouldn’t have crossed that line.
I do think that some of the current political humor goes too far in general though. The problem is that things are accepted in comedy that would never be appropriate in any other situation. And then the people who are at the butt of that humor aren’t allowed to be offended because that shows they don’t have a ‘sense of humor’. So, it’s become a convenient way to get biting criticism into the public domain without really taking responsibility for saying outrageous things. The Colbert thing is a good example; as Marlowe points out, what Colbert does goes beyond lampooning, it’s meant to be political criticism. It’s important to distinguish the two, because any public figure should be able to laugh at the former but shouldn’t be required to be subjected to ridicule if he can’t laugh at the latter. I think it’s also significant that a lot of younger people seem to get most of their political information from the comedy shows, and without a balance of fact based information I find that a bit troubling.
““Somewhere in Texas there’s a village that’s lost its idiot.â€? I thought that it was a well-crafted line, that was intended to give a laugh as much as make a political point. I didn’t have the same reaction to Colbert.”
Let me guess: You’re feeling comfortable while laughing about governors, but not about presidents?
Everybody, my first post here… just wanna say I’m impressed by the tone of criticism in this thread. At most other blogs, this discussion would have devolved into “How dare you criticize our President in a time of war!” vs. “(insert anti-Bush nickname here) deserves everything he gets!” It’s nice to see some civility on the internet for a change…
Having said that though, and though I consider myself conservative, I think the WH is way out of line to dictate the terms of Little’s speech. If they’re so afraid, why hire a comedian at all? Let the President roast/praise/whatever himself if he can’t accept a little ribbing for just one friggin’ night of the year. Even Colbert, IMHO, wasn’t as bad as many partisan conservatives claimed.
Re Mr. Gandelman’s suggestion… Dennis Miller would have been (again IMHO) a much better choice than the very talented but unfortunately outdated Little. Sure, Miller’s pro-Bush, but from what I’ve heard, he’s not a Kool-Aid drinker and would most likely have had the… er… organs to jibe Bush and Co. on at least a few issues, if not Iraq itself.
But everybody’s points are pretty valid in that (1) it’s the press’ job to hold these guys’ feet to the fire, not become their lunch date buddies;, and (2) it’s pointless to hire entertainment so bowdlerized, it’s fearful of offending anyone. Right or wrong, American entertainment today could be almost defined by its ability to “offend”, i.e. cause people to reappriase their near-unconscious beliefs and assumptions about society, patriotism, religion, etc., into question. When it’s done right, there’s no better entertainment.
Comedic effectiveness aside, I felt that the choice of Colbert for last year’s affair a great example of stuffy DC suits trying to appear hip, by hiring the guy that all the kids are talking about. And failing miserably, of course.
No knock on Rich Little, who’s gentle pokes, and sometimes spot on impersonations, I’ve always found amusing (man, am I old), but I think he’s a perfect choice for a dinner which exemplifies DC cronyism.
What bothers me about the apparent directives on content was that it shows a lack of respect for a veteran performer who surely knows the ropes.
And Joe, I don’t think anyone should be doing Jimmy Hoffa impressions at the Butcher Shop.
CS- I can see where supporters of the war or the president would have been offended. This was at a time when war critics were still being accused of lack of patriotism. I thought it wasn’t really funny (too much tension in the room) but that it took courage to confront the President where he couldn’t duck out. Your perspective here probably depends on how you see the issue.
But like I said, while it was an unfortunate choice by a WH staffer, it seems to have helped Colbert widen his audience. I guess these are touchy times, and someone like Little is an uncontroversial choice.
Attytood has updated. Will you?
CStanley, certainly there are certain subjects that people think are “untouchable”. Almost no American would find it cute to joke about 9/11, but I have heard jokes about Iraqi bombings. The closer it comes to home the less willing you are to joke about it. You didn’t mention that joking about Katrina was off limits, but to many it’s no joking matter. What about poor people? Poverty is no joke but there are plenty of jokes about it. People who will heartily laugh at jokes about backwards Christians will get uneasy when they’re about backwards Muslims. Others are the reverse.
You see my point. I do feel the fact that everybody has their sacred cows, the “appropriateness” of a joke changes with the setting the joker and the audience. It’s a political dinner and therefore the humor will tend to be political, and THE political subject is Iraq. U don’t expect a military mom to be amused by Iraq jokes, I also don’t expect an Iraqi mom to be amused by bombing jokes. If we eliminate everything in humor that has the potential to offend then we might was well do away with satire altogether. Again, I know it’s a complex subject, if Colbert had made fun of 9/11 widows (like a certain stick-figure blond psycho I could name) I would have been offended, but picking and choosing for the comic what’s appropriate doesn’t solve much.
Again, I know it’s a complex subject, if Colbert had made fun of 9/11 widows (like a certain stick-figure blond psycho I could name) I would have been offended, but picking and choosing for the comic what’s appropriate doesn’t solve much.
And that wasn’t really a joke. Sometimes protest comes in the form of humor. That is partly the way I see Colbert. He’s a political protester that gets his point across through humor. It gets people thinking a new way. To me jokes about the war are the least offensive part of it- the entire misadventure and the way we’ve been “misinformed” about it by our political leadership is offensive.
Exactly, Kim. But what is the purpose of hiring a comedian for this event? Is it for humor (which can be at the expense of the POTUS but stays within boundaries) or for political protest?
CS-You made my point. I never understood why they picked him in the first place. If anyone in the WH had watched his show- a thinly- veiled, wickedly funny satire of The O’Reilly Factor, they would have realized that he is critical of the war and of the administration’s management of it and the news surrounding it, and not invited him in the first place. To criticize him for being who he is or expect him to tone down his schtick doesn’t seem fair.
Oh GAWD.
The press corp offends the White HOUSE and GWB 8758 hours a year. I think they can take a 2 hour break and it not be called censorship.
Geeze Louise. Even Al Queida has to rest a few minutes a year.
Upinsmoke- Are you sure it isn’t the other way around? Tony Snow is so good at ducking that he would make a great hunting partner for Dick Cheney!
Overlooked in all this discussion is that Colbert skewered media types as well. That’s actually what I liked best about his performance.
jjc,
I agree with you- the first part of the “video audition” for press secretary was very good, as well as some of his lines aimed at audience members.