Colbert vs O'Reilly

[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."