ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,836
I started watching Colbert, Stewart and Maher for a while... and I enjoyed them, for what they were. Then, very quickly, I found myself cringing. It's difficult for me to say this because I've always loved Stephen Colbert, but he's a hypocrite like the rest of the left-wing political talk-show hosts you mentioned. As O'Reilly says to him an interview, Stephen Colbert is Bill O'Reilly. They are the same person. Both sleazebags. Both preaching to the crowd. Both of them, ready to smear shit on anyone they can (supporting the opposite wing of the plane) in order to advance their own careers. Colbert, cleverly, hides behind humour. The Report is satire, after all, so it can say whatever it wants. There are no ethical boundaries to satire, are there? Colbert can pick and chose, from what he's said over the years. This is a serious comment. That's a joke. But, it's all in bad taste. And it's not very funny... Colbert has the ability to make stale material sound hilarious. Most of his jokes are obvious sarcastic jabs at dead fish in a barrel. And he goes way further than the right, in terms of defaming and humiliating his political opposition - which may seem righteous to some people, or brilliant to others. But, really, it just compromises his message.
It's important to watch the right-wing hosts, to note the similarities. Yes, Bill O'Reilly is a dick. But, he's such an obvious and unsophisticated dick that he shines a light on those surrounding him, more attuned to camouflaging themselves against the contemporary media backdrop.
Colbert's (Maher's, and Stewart's) audience members make me cringe more than the hosts or the material themselves. This mentality among far-left idiots that all right-wing people are borderline-retarded is useless. Yet, all Stewart has to say is "Republican" and he has his gang of rabid salivating frat boys jumping up and down, making "hooting" noises. And then there's the chanting at the beginning of 'The Colbert Report'.
"Stephen! Stephen! Stephen!"
It's supposed to be ironic, and maybe it was initially, but now it's just horrible. His audience laughs at the wrong times, more frequently than O'Reilly's audience claps at the wrong time. By "the wrong time", what I mean is this: the Colbert Nation (*shudder*) anticipates the joke (and accompanying genius) so much that they can't contain themselves. You hear them laughing during the set-up, way before the punch-line. His audience sounds like a laugh track. It's really disturbing.
I just watched the episode with Hilary Clinton. Her interview was dreadful. That's the last Report I'm going to watch, and you honestly couldn't pay me to watch another Real Time or The Daily Show. At least Colbert is a talented showman. Maher and Stewart's shows are like the Colbert Report, without any talent. They're atrocious and potentially dangerous. All this talk about right-wing fundamentalists: what about the left-wing fundamentalists that they're creating? (Don't tell me there's no such thing. Don't be naïve.)
I'm glad that Colbert is taking over from Letterman, because I do really like him. I just can't stand the blatant hypocrisy and political one-dimensionality of his current show. Honestly, it makes me a little sick. I'm tired of being surrounded by left-wing nut jobs, who somehow think they're a thousand steps removed from their right-wing counterparts.
Colbert was head-hunted for The Daily Show because they were looking for a "conservative looking guy" who they could use, satirically. They didn't hire him based on his political orientation. He's an entertainer, not a politician. He is being used by politically minded people to push an agenda. Colbert, ironically, is a puppet... and I'm pretty sure he's aware of all this. I don't think he respects his audience. Jon Stewart certainly doesn't.
Finally, Maher.
Bill Maher is, by far, the worst of the lot. He's a fucking idiot and he embarrasses himself frequently on his own show, via both intellectual and political ignorance. The episode with Michael Moore is a great example. His opinions were so outrageous and inappropriate, that he had both the right and the left wing of his panel against him. His arguments are mind-numbingly repetitive. Often he just insists that he's correct, without any explanation as to why or how... and, of course, the audience backs him up... He abuses his position as the controlling body of Real Time: inviting guests on, only to shit all over them and cut them off when they start to get the upper hand.
Maher is the worst kind of coward. He is clearly very insecure, and not very bright. (Don't bring up his university degree, as a counter-argument. Again, don't be naive.) I was unsurprised to discover that his first talk show was cancelled, as a result of sheer negligence on his part. I watched an episode, in which he tried to blame the destruction of his first show on one of his guests... only to be shot down, as usual, before quickly changing the subject.
This whole experience has turned me off talk shows, political or not. I don't watch any of them, regularly, anymore. Though, if I happen to flip channels and find Conan on my television, at least I know I'm not going to cringe... and I can feel safe and secure, knowing that nobody is trying to force a political agenda down my throat.
You're comparing politically oriented left-wing talk-shows that perpetuate the idea that republicans are idiots, to traditional talk-shows with little political orientation (in terms of their core programming). They're not really in the same genre... and, even if they were, it seems like a bit of a co-incidence that all those who serve your political agenda or funnier than all those who do not.
It's not clever to say "Republicans are idiots". Nor is it clever to say "Democrats are idiots". They aren't funny statements, either. And, if you think they are, or one of them is, then: you're no better than the people you agree are idiots; the people you're laughing at. You are laughing at yourself.
I very much doubt you read all this. I'll just finish up by saying that I'm Australian.
Conan O'Brien has a wider international appeal, because he's not preaching to a niche US crowd desperate for a big hearty pat on the back. In other words: I don't care enough about US politics to watch talk-show hosts obsessively drone on and on about every little thing that happens (or doesn't, haha!) in Congress. It gets really boring for me, really quickly. The "democrats" shat on Bush. Now, the "republicans" are shitting on Obama. Yet both parties criticize each other for, what appears to be a fairly mutual, shit orgy.
Neither is willing to admit to the hypocrisy.
There's a massive skew in US politics. Far more so than Australian politics. The right and the left are way too separate, in the states... and these political talk shows only serve to widen the distance. They're intelligent enough to know that this is not beneficial and that they're stooping to the same tactics as their opposition. (Hold on, Colbert is being satirical! Wank, wank, wank.)
To make literal the metaphor of right-wing/left-wing: don't we need a balance to prevent us from falling out of the sky?
Doesn't the left and the right have a purpose?
The left tend towards idealism and are most useful when dealing with short-term problems: that is, solutions that have no long-term impacts. Education, for example, rather than immigration. The left are more prone to just letting people in: because they need somewhere to live; because they are starving; because their lives are being threatened.
The right leans towards practical (and often *seemingly* immoral) solutions, that provide long-term stability. To return to immigration: practically, we can't let everyone in. Call me an asshole. Or a psycho. Or a monster. Like Maher calls republican politicians who invites onto his show.
The left says what everyone wants to hear, they promote life as it *should* be. And that's an important position, undoubtedly. But, sometimes we need a voice of reason too. The unpopular decisions - the ones that hurt people in the now - cannot be disregarded completely on principle.
If you could kill a man to save a million lives, would you?
What about killing a billion people to save six billion?
The United States is collapsing. It is increasingly unpopular to be right-wing. So much so that it seems acceptable to reasonable, intelligent people (such as yourself) to call them the devil... or to highly advocate programs that do. Eventually the US will only have one wing. And, in it's efforts to save every life within it's borders and beyond, it will lose the ability to save anyone at all.
Colbert is sitting on the left wing, trying to charm people over from the other side.
Which means he's either an idiot, or he just doesn't give a shit. I'm tempted to believe the latter, despite how much I like him. It saddens me that he (and others) are happy to sell tickets to a sinking ship. Then again, maybe it's option 3. Maybe he's in denial about his position in the political world. I guess there's only so many times you can hear someone chant your name, before it starts inflating your ego.
Letterman comes across like an asshole to a lot of people, because he doesn't care and he doesn't pretend to care. He has no political agenda. He's not taking a talk-show and turning it into a pseudo-intellectual pissing match, masquerading as satire. Nor does he do a Fallon and shamelessly tell everyone that they're absolutely wonderful. I don't particularly like Letterman as a host, but I'm not genuinely repelled by his program. I don't cringe. I don't feel like a group of idiots is trying to manipulate me, or that - by watching - I am contributing to a serious socio-political problem.
The same problem exists, these days, with faith.
Atheists (the left, more or less, of this context) openly imply (or state) that religious orientation is idiotic, and that anyone who believes in God is - by extension - an idiot. The president of the atheist society, for example, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens. All of their arguments against faith are eerily reminiscent of Maher/Colbert/Stewart's arguments against the right. There's no respect. Just intellectual elitism. We are SO smart. And they are SO stupid. How could they believe that shit? The virgin birth. The carpenter son of God. The creation stories in Genesis. It's all obviously SO stupid.
Meanwhile, on the other side, the faithful are equally incapable of entertaining a counter-opinion. There is no discussion in US politics. It's just opposition. Just people shitting on each other. And there is no discussion between atheists and the faithful. Just hatred and name calling.
Jon Stewart has the mentality of a child. He contributes nothing to meaningful debate. If you don't believe me, check out his debate: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...81C8DEB9D6BA48A89B3B81&view=detail&FORM=VIRE2
If you couldn't be bothered watching, neither party won that debate. It was absolutely pathetic. Stewart's mechanical podium shtick is low, even for him. (But it's a joke, right? So, it's okay. *sigh*) Stewart makes a number of serious mistakes, throughout. Particularly regarding the US deficit under Bush (in comparison to the deficit under Obama). He comes across as less intelligent than O'Reilly, but more likeable. It's like watching the all-star quarterback debate an average student.
The circles that you frequent might love the radical lefties, but the rest of the world isn't in love with them. More people in Australia know who Conan O'Brien is, than who Bill Maher is or Stephen Colbert (prior to him getting the Letterman gig). I guess it's easier to see, from the outside, being an Australian, I mean, that it's all absolute bullshit... which is probably why the shows you mentioned are self-contained - that is, they only rate well within their country of origin.
Having said all that, whether or not you chose to subscribe to these radical lunatics, posing as comedians, is your prerogative.
Just don't blame me when you fall out of the sky.