Colbert vs O'Reilly

[Strangler Lewis]

Everyone knows that comedy depends somewhat on a rapport between comedian and audience and a shared point of view. Larry the Cable guy says something about a truck, and his audience roars. I don't get it, at least not on a visceral level. A Jewish comic says something culturally relevant to me, and I'm there. Duh. Thus, there was no point to the interview except to give O'Reilly cover to wonder how anyone could dare find criticism of him, the president, etc. funny and to criticize them as wise-asses. If Jon Stewart aired a mock talking head panel about the appeal of the redneck comedians, he'd be criticized for elitism, etc.

By the way, a common theme on The Daily Show, even during interviews is "How will the Democrats blow it?"

[Alex]

I don't see that. Stewart gave Hillary's campaign manager a verbal blow job last night.

[Strangler Lewis]

Didn't see it. Can't call it. But he did not blow Howard Dean or other Democrats that have been on recently. I guess we'll see tonight what, if anything, he says about the Democrat response to the State of the Union address.

[NirvanaMan]

Perhaps they are turning a corner. I used to watch it religiously but over the past 3 years or so I tune in less and less. Catch it now only once a week if even.

Of course they always poked a bit of fun at the left now and then, and yes there is a far less common but none the less reoccurring theme of how will the dems blow it, but it carries a decidedly different tone. As in, "oh these are the good guys, but something silly or stupid always botches things up for them".

Originally, I feel the show was more of a lampoon of politics in general. As their audience has skewed younger and more to the left, it feels like they are pandering to them. Perhaps it is also a good fit for Stewart's personal politics as well?

I think the balance that really made it funny for me years ago is no longer there. It is heavily weighted towards a one-sided funny assault. Someone else at one point stated that perhaps it was because republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches. Maybe. That is a reasonable explanation. Maybe we'll see a change as the power shifts.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Didn't see it. Can't call it. But he did not blow Howard Dean or other Democrats that have been on recently. I guess we'll see tonight what, if anything, he says about the Democrat response to the State of the Union address.

Oddly enough, Fox News gave a relative glowing review of the Democratic response last night. At the same time Babette made a comment that he sounded like a robot. Then again, so did John Kerry. Wait a second...are the Democrats robots? Is that how the terminator thing happened?

I knew he smelled like a T-100.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Whoever is in power is who gets mocked. With Bush and a Republican controlled Congress, it was the conservatives that got dissed. Now that the Dems are stepping up, you'll see a lot more blue-bashing.

[Alex]

Yes, but will it be the same kind?

There's a difference between "I love you so I mock you" and "I think you're malignant and so I mock you." And of course, if it is true that "all things are mockable, will be mocked, and are equally mockworthy" then it renders mocking meaningless. Then it is just cynicism.

Thus, there was no point to the interview except to give O'Reilly cover to wonder how anyone could dare find criticism of him, the president, etc. funny and to criticize them as wise-asses.

So what do the many "blue state" examinations of what exactly is funny about Larry the Cable Guy and "Blue Collar Comedy" priovide cover for? People talk about why other people find things funny all of the freaking time.

One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of American's have likely never seen an episode of the Daily Show (which I love) or The Colbert Report (which I've grown weary of, it is one joke repeated every night). They don't know what the shows are about, they've only ever seen clips second hand. They don't know how they operate or what their missions are.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree that funny/not funny is a common topic of discussion, but I don't think this is up there with "Is Chaplin funny?" or "Why do we sometimes laugh at other people's misfortune?" Asking two media critics why Stewart and Colbert are funny is like asking why Weekend Update is (was) funny. The whole conversation was just a pretense for O'Reilly to call them names for laughing at him.

I admire Colbert for keeping up the patter, but I think the show jumped the shark when it introduced Tek Janssen and other bizarre situations. Much the way "The Simpsons" jumped the shark about 20 years ago with Homer's increasingly bizarre escapades.

[Alex]

I guess we'll have to disagree. I don't see any difference between "why/is Chaplin funny" and "why/is Colbert funny."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I don't need or want some pseudo-analysts to tell me why Blue Collar Comedy would be funny to someone who relates to it. Same goes for sitcom humor, "look how bratty my child is" humor, "hurt defenseless beings" humor, or "I'm a total asshole" humor. I mean, duh. I know why those things are funny to those people - because they're idiots. No, I'm kidding, I mean that I know that different things are funny to different people.

Do we really have to explain what a spoof is? Who wouldn't understand what a send-up is? Or irony, or sarcasm, over-the-top-ness?

Lordy Lou, you gotta be kidding me.