Skip to main content

The Late Show With Stephen Colbert Sucked

 Did I watch it a fair amount? Sure. Did I laugh sometimes? Absolutely. And he's not without his charms. Our ages are close enough that we lean into pop culture similarly. I've never met anyone who dislikes The Lord of The Rings book trilogy. His wife is more interesting than he is.

But let's cut the crap: the show was too political and too liberal to have and keep a big audience. He got his start in Jon Stewart's satirical orbit, and his rise may have sown the seeds of his own destruction. Of all the really strong criticisms you can make of Donald Trump, I guess I never have hated him enough to be sad that Colbert's show was ending. The Left thinks its satire reflects reality, and that's exactly why they keep losing. To paraphrase James Carville, you can't beat someone you don't take seriously.

Political satire has a long tradition in our country, but the secret sauce of political comedy gold is that (almost) everyone has to laugh. We've hit a point where conservatives and moderates think liberals and progressives are just mean and ill-informed.

And then again, maybe the whole format--a big budget show on one of the traditional broadcast networks, when people have so many choices--was doomed anyway. But I also think it's true that there's a disconnect between the wealthy entertainment class, and ordinary people. Colbert hasn't been shocking or provocative in 15 years, at least. He's funniest when he's making fun of himself. His whole reason for being on the air gets tired. Either be funny, or be serious. Both at once is near-impossible. I'm a Never Trump, orthodox Catholic social democrat, and I couldn't stand Colbert's monologues by the end. Streisand and Bette Midler and David Letterman can be as left-wing as they want; this is America. But I know that most entertainers are kind of clueless about stuff that matters. And if you're an entertainer, you have to entertain. The good part of "Shut up and dribble" is not, "You can't have an opinion." It's that your expertise has nothing to do with your political opinions. Nobody should trust an expert outside his or her field.

And I guess a contrast with Jon Stewart is in order. And I know they are friends, and good for them. The humor parts of The Daily Show were and are often wildly unfair, but the key part is, it's almost always funny. And the second half of the show (it's been on for more than 25 years now) is a serious interview with powerful and otherwise influential people, Right and Left. Jon Stewart would be the first to say, "Don't get your news from a comedy show," but he let real people say what they truly believed. That is truly a public service, and mainstream news could absolutely learn from that. When is the last time you read a newspaper or saw a news report and felt fully confident in what you read, heard, or saw? I'll be honest: I might share a link to a news story out of an apparently ancient belief that mainstream news sources ought to be a neutral ground for debate and discussion, but my overall trust level for any of them is low indeed. You have to read a lot of different sources to be sure you're not badly mistaken, because journalism is a scandalous shambles right now. And if you don't realize that, you're probably sad Colbert isn't on the air.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...