WASHINGTON – There are congressional hearings and there are comedy shows, and the twain rarely meet.
So when a House panel on immigration combined them on purpose last week with testimony from Stephen Colbert (kohl-BEHR’) and his “truthy” alter ego, debate broke out on the proper roles of the many celebrities — from Angelina Jolie to Bono to Elmo — who advocate in Washington.
Debate broke out. All on its own. In no way influenced by a desire to bitch about a TV comedian rather than talk about the issues he was raising in his testimony.
I hate this, because I can see so clearly how easily the story could have gone the other way, away from the celebrity-filled Twitter ramblings and toward how Colbert’s presence shone a light on the plight of workers most people only think about when they’re demonizing them on semi-literate teawad signs. Take this story apart, see where it could have been done differently, and you start to see how and why it wasn’t.
Die already, AP. Go sue some bloggers.
A.
Ronald Reagan, former president of the US and their most high holy saint. You know, the one who played The Gipper in Knute Rockne, All American. Can everyone shut up now?
Shouldn’t the AP headline:
Colbert sparks debate about ‘expert’ celebrities
have been:
Colbert sparks ‘debate’ about expert celebrities?
Wonder if the Faux news stopped to consider that the traditional role of the court jester was to spark thoughts you couldn’t suggest directly?
I hate this, because I can see so clearly how easily the story could have gone the other way, away from the celebrity-filled Twitter ramblings and toward how Colbert’s presence shone a light on the plight of workers most people only think about when they’re demonizing them on semi-literate teawad signs.
No no no, the most important subject of news media coverage is news media coverage. You let actual substance in and it gets waaay too complicated. Plus you might accidentally make people think and who wants that?
— O So Sincerely, Your MainStream Media