The Colbert Report did real work to normalize a specific right wing framing to politics. I don’t think of it as a net positive the way I do The Daily Show. It might have been satire and I too might have enjoyed it from time to time, but it was also part of a normalization of the “both sidesing” of things.
It is only both sidesing if you don’t understand satire. He is pretending to be a right-wing pundit but rephrasing what they say in such a way as to point out how bad the right-wing talking points are.
The fact is that this character played an role in normalizing this shift we saw, across the board, towards accepting this kind of right wing framing of politics. The fact that it was satire is irrelevant. The normalization is damage done.
I upvoted you because you’re making an interesting argument, but I’m definitely more in the Charlie Chaplin camp on political satire, and that ridiculing fascism is a productive thing to do - The Great Dictator was released before the US entered WW 2. Although Chaplin put a lot of work at the end of that movie to make sure everyone knew it was satire and Colbert was a bit less diligent.
Hm. A bunch of media illiterate conservative dingdongs watched the Colbert report and politics now visually looks like that… but nationalism to it’s extreme tends to look like that and Colbert’s team knew that. Fascism and nationalism look like that and I’m not sure satirizing it normalizes it (in general) but neoliberalism and that ‘working across the aisle’ politics (and journalism) that was also trendy at the time did actively normalize it.
It’s funny I remember thinking something similar in Germany a long time ago, about another politician: all those humorists, cartoonists etc. mocking him are basically just helping this conservative asshole win. Whether I was even right about that is one thing, but there’s a huge difference:
He wasn’t threatening to crack down on every person against him or on every minority he chose, and he couldn’t have either because the system was working (at least way better than in the USA).
Also they were mostly joking about his bad English and love for fatty traditional foods. What Steven Colbert does is a bit different.
No, satire and such have an important place even in working democracies, but especially in a still young dictatorship.
Also: what really is Steven Colbert’s power? Can’t he effect much more doing exactly what he’s doing?
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
Steven Colbert has enormous power, because they can move culture, which is what they did when they were normalizing a rightwing framing of politics. People like Colbert, and even more so since his moving on from the character in question, has the ability to reach people and change their minds in a way almost no other people do. Yes it was satire, but in the times where it was relevant, it acted as an analgesic to the real threat which conservatism, and the fascism it inevitably leads to. By treating it as something only worth mocking and not worth taking as a serious threat, it softened the corner on conservatism as a movement, leading directly to where we are now.
Political power extends from culture: Trump is the outcome of a right wing project to move the culture, and to a limited degree, Colbert contributed to that with his character.
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
No. No your argument that we should self censure is part of the problem and mechanism that has resulted in the looming shadow of fascism taking over the planet. Colbert needs to have done better over the course of his career in understanding the impacts they had on culture and politics.
Satire is a means of leveraging humour to deliver often caustic criticism that might otherwise seem a bit on the nose. It’s been an effective tool of protest since at least the second millennium BC.
It’s your opinion that criticising conservatives through satire empowers them, but it’s a very questionable conclusion IMO.
I would rather them do something substantive with their power than to continue to normalize right wing views.
That’s exactly what he does, dude.
It works well because MAGA doesn’t understand satire.
The Colbert Report did real work to normalize a specific right wing framing to politics. I don’t think of it as a net positive the way I do The Daily Show. It might have been satire and I too might have enjoyed it from time to time, but it was also part of a normalization of the “both sidesing” of things.
It is only both sidesing if you don’t understand satire. He is pretending to be a right-wing pundit but rephrasing what they say in such a way as to point out how bad the right-wing talking points are.
The fact is that this character played an role in normalizing this shift we saw, across the board, towards accepting this kind of right wing framing of politics. The fact that it was satire is irrelevant. The normalization is damage done.
I upvoted you because you’re making an interesting argument, but I’m definitely more in the Charlie Chaplin camp on political satire, and that ridiculing fascism is a productive thing to do - The Great Dictator was released before the US entered WW 2. Although Chaplin put a lot of work at the end of that movie to make sure everyone knew it was satire and Colbert was a bit less diligent.
Hm. A bunch of media illiterate conservative dingdongs watched the Colbert report and politics now visually looks like that… but nationalism to it’s extreme tends to look like that and Colbert’s team knew that. Fascism and nationalism look like that and I’m not sure satirizing it normalizes it (in general) but neoliberalism and that ‘working across the aisle’ politics (and journalism) that was also trendy at the time did actively normalize it.
No the fact is people like you are too dense to understand satire.
Lemmy seems to be more interested in worshiping its heroes than it is addressing their flaws.
Go look up what the word normalization means.
Nuh uh
Are you saying wingers didn’t accept this right wing framing of politics long before?
They were openly satirizing it. Was that somehow not obvious?
You really didn’t know the purpose of that show?
It’s funny I remember thinking something similar in Germany a long time ago, about another politician: all those humorists, cartoonists etc. mocking him are basically just helping this conservative asshole win. Whether I was even right about that is one thing, but there’s a huge difference:
He wasn’t threatening to crack down on every person against him or on every minority he chose, and he couldn’t have either because the system was working (at least way better than in the USA).
Also they were mostly joking about his bad English and love for fatty traditional foods. What Steven Colbert does is a bit different.
No, satire and such have an important place even in working democracies, but especially in a still young dictatorship.
Also: what really is Steven Colbert’s power? Can’t he effect much more doing exactly what he’s doing?
There are many ways to fight back. Don’t point your finger and say “you’re doing it wrong”. We’re on the same side after all.
Steven Colbert has enormous power, because they can move culture, which is what they did when they were normalizing a rightwing framing of politics. People like Colbert, and even more so since his moving on from the character in question, has the ability to reach people and change their minds in a way almost no other people do. Yes it was satire, but in the times where it was relevant, it acted as an analgesic to the real threat which conservatism, and the fascism it inevitably leads to. By treating it as something only worth mocking and not worth taking as a serious threat, it softened the corner on conservatism as a movement, leading directly to where we are now.
Political power extends from culture: Trump is the outcome of a right wing project to move the culture, and to a limited degree, Colbert contributed to that with his character.
No. No your argument that we should self censure is part of the problem and mechanism that has resulted in the looming shadow of fascism taking over the planet. Colbert needs to have done better over the course of his career in understanding the impacts they had on culture and politics.
Satire is a means of leveraging humour to deliver often caustic criticism that might otherwise seem a bit on the nose. It’s been an effective tool of protest since at least the second millennium BC.
It’s your opinion that criticising conservatives through satire empowers them, but it’s a very questionable conclusion IMO.
A lot of court jesters, would -be poets, playwrights, prophets etc lost their lives…
It’s not Colbert’s fault that 75% of the country is too stupid to understand satire.