Boehlert: Coverage Of Colbert Run Reveals MSM Flaws

Media Matters:

Did you notice the contrasting media responses to comedian Stephen Colbert's announcement that he plans to get his factually-challenged TV namesake on both the Democratic and Republican ballots for the South Carolina presidential primary? The mainstream Beltway press could barely contain its glee as it cheered the stunt on, lavishing all sorts of media attention on Colbert, and basking in the entertainment industry glow that his act brought to the White House campaign trail.

By contrast, it was mostly left to non-traditional online outlets to strike a skeptical chord; to make the grown-up observation that perhaps this wasn't the best idea. Over at the Huffington Post, Rachel Sklar, a major-league Colbert fan (as am I), wrote that the comedian's candidacy comes at the wrong time:

Now is the time for the fringe players to slip away. Bye-bye, Brownback, so long Kucinich (we predict) and Gravel (we hope). The race is tightening, stakes are getting higher, and the general feeling is that this is where things start to count. The distraction of a spoof candidate — even the ultimate spoof candidate — will just get in the way.

Read the whole story: Media Matters

Comments

[larry278]

Mazel tov, you've written an overly long blog on Mr Colbert's run for POTUS which is a bore.

[campaignman]

Postscript­...

Of course, any of the Democrats is better than the Republicans, experience or not, as the GOP candidates are prepared to follow the path established by George W. Bush.

That path has undermined our civil rights, national security and, our greatest strength, our national image and identity.

Any Democrat, more or less experienced, even Dennis Kucinich, would be a better choice in my mind than any of the Republicans.

Unfortunately, among the less attentive centrist voters who decide these elections, we cannot just put up anybody and win. That is just the reality.

[strifeknot]

What a pathetic, defeatist attitude. A politician with a D after his name is not innately better than one with an R after his name.

Ron Paul, for example, is very much preferable to Hillary Clinton.

No, you can't put up just anybody and win, but if you nominate another conservative Democrat and he or she is elected, you still lose. What's the point of even having two parties if you don't mind having no significant distinctions between them? Trading principles for electability is unacceptable. Enough of this lesser-of-­two-evilis­m.

[campaignman]

Bill Richardson is unable to say that he believes one's sexuality is innate, not chosen. He was also a disaster as Energy Secretary under Clinton and is prone to campaign mistakes.

Dennis Kucinich makes John Edwards look qualified. While Dennis has some good ideas, he has shown no ability in Congress to be a leader and achieve anything. He has never proven he can win a statewide election. How can anyone take seriously someone who, if made our nominee, would take us to a bigger defeat than George McGovern or Walter Mondale?

That leaves Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Both men have extensive successful histories in Congress. Each has the credentials to deal with world crises. Each has repeatedly won statewide elections. While their states are small, great men can emerge from small states. Bill Clinton is our most recent example. While small men can emerge from large states. George W. Bush is our latest example.

In my mind, either Biden or Dodd would be a wise choice. Each has minor concerns but, as Dodd is Northeast liberal who supports decriminalization of marijuana among other difficult to sell positions, it seems to me that Joe Biden is our safest bet.

Biden cannot be easily labeled. He is viewed as everyone's first choice as Secretary of State, Defense or Attorney General because of his grasp of so many issues. Moreover, he is the only candidate to offer a responsible and feasible plan to get out of Iraq - and he earned 75 votes in the Senate for that plan.

If we want to win, we need Joe Biden as our nominee.

[campaignman]

Our greatest threat are bears. I will be voting for Stephen Colbert (if I ever move to South Carolina) so that I can be protected from bears.

After all, bears impact all aspects of life, from health care (obvious) to airplanes. Have you ever experienced bears on a plane?! Well, you don't want to.

In truth, Stephen Colbert's humor is clever and can make us think about issues in a fresh way. Most importantly, he could be just what the campaign needs to actually get less interested voters to pay some attention.

He also reminds us that we all need to get more serious about the candidate selection process.

Hillary is our front-runner because of her name recognition, ability to handle herself in the debates, first woman with a real chance to win badge, and having a popular former President as a husband. On matters of practical experience, her greatest effort, healthcare, ended in failure. She also opposed one of her husbands most touted achievements, welfare reform. Her six years in the Senate have shown growth and caution but hardly justify handing her the Presidency.

Barack is second in line because he makes an inspiring speech and, being black, represents a visible step forward for a nation that only left legal segregation aside 40 years ago and still has many issues regarding race. He has also been an effective advocate for lobbying reform and spoke out against the war in Iraq at a time when that position was not popular. Still, he is largely untested and inexperienced as a national candidate and, being so new to the public, is more vulnerable to GOP smears than most.

Edwards is handsome but, other than taking many positions with which I agree, has no record of achievement to justify his ability to serve successfully as President. I agree our campaign funding system corrupts our laws but I have yet to hear him offer any kind of solution, other than public funding of elections, with which all the candidates give lip service.

to be continued.­..

[strifeknot]

Kucinich is a "fringe" candidate and should just go away? Kucinich is the only Democrat running who has a sane position on issue after issue, and is the only candidate any leftist should consider voting for.

Supporting a Bush-lite candidate like Clinton just because she's a Democrat is unproductive, will not lead to necessary change in government, and will send the message to the Democratic party that they can continue to take the votes of liberals for granted, even as the party and its leaders drift ever further to the right.

Vote your conscience, vote on the issues, and don't be suckered by the "practical" approach of supporting the most conservative candidates just to secure a Democratic victory. Look how well that practicality worked out in 2000 and 2004. One would think after those disastrous elections that the Democratic party would realize it's time to pull back from the right, but they've doing the opposite.

A Clinton nomination will guarantee a Republican victory in 2008. People who want a rightwinger will vote for someone who admits to being one, like the Republicans, rather than a conservative like Clinton, who pretends to be something she isn't. Meanwhile, leftists like me will find a third-party or independent candidate to vote for, or just abstain. Clinton will only win the votes of the gutless centrists and nothing more.

[mamacat]

Stephen's candidacy stimulates discussion, always a good thing. By comparing himself to the other Republicans, he helps to show what lightweights they truly are.
The more people think about the issues, and about what we need in a president, the more likely people are to vote Democratic. Thus, Stephen's bringing more attention to the race will be good for the democratic process, and bad for Republicans.

[ResidentChimp]

Democrats should be worried. Colbert will receive about 95% percent of his votes from Democrats.

[loki]

What happened to the Beck Watch that was suppose to be going on here at HUFPO? Someone was streaming him over here today and I couldnt believe what he was saying.
Basically he was saying the UN is trying to take over the world by dumbing down Americans. ( I dont think you can Dumb us down much more that electing Bush) He claimed that the UN uses Moives like Happy Feat, Superman and the new Redford movie he only called GI JOE, but I think its Lions for Lambs as part of their conspiracy to take over the world.

Then he called for people to wake up and remember that America was a country founded by GOD, and the Americans are the Supreme Race who are meant to save the world. Americans should no longer support the UN for anything as they are out to dominate the world.

He rambled about people saying "its just a Movie" is like Democrats saying its just a bill while trying to push the amnesty bill through congress in bits and pieces now, and how its another way the UN is trying to remove our freedoms.
Im telling you, he was totally incoherent, I think he is back on booze and crack the way he sounded.
Oh yeah, he said Political Correctness was invented by the Communist back in the 30's or something like that, and then started saying all university students were Nazi Brown coats and the UN was controlling the University programs, and people need to get away from the extremist left , the UN and the non believers of faith side with the Right.
Ive never heard his radio show before, only seen a couple of his CNN shows. But man, this guy is on crack or something. He really was that rambling and just going all over the place with his Hell Fire and Damnation of Democrats, Universities, a couple movies and the UN. I would have laughed, but knowing he has people who actually believe and support his crack, I was getting a little scared.

[SaintN]

Well at least you can make a comment on this article which is what you can't do on other articles posted on HuffPost by narrow-minded,low witted demogogues like Jeremy "Shit 4 Brains" Shithill!

[meandmagoo]

Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious and fitting if Colbert and Kucinich ended up in the White House?

I'm allowed a dream or two.

[Lelu]

I wish Huffpo would give Kucinich (and Gravel, and Biden, and Dodd, and Richardson, and even Edwards) more coverage but...they don't. I also wish Huffpo would report on the nationwide protests on the 27th and the fact that "the media" hasn't reported on it...but they don't.

[ReelBusy]

And all candidates are not created (or covered) equally so a "spoof" points out this in-equality. Colbert serves as a reminder that Americans will vote for the most famous name RE: George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, the Governator and even Gopher from the LOVE BOAT TV series. Both parties should be happy Colbert is not in the race past South Carolina and use this "run" to take a look in the mirror for a bit of self-examination.

[Lelu]

Hence why I commented here instead of some other threads. I'm not for or against Colbert doing his stunt, just wish Huffpo would run more stories about the other candidates and the other important things the MSM won't touch instead of how Hillary is the ice-queen (boring) and how Obama is supposedly totally different from Hillary (not).

[EuGeneTherapy]

My now converted Republican friend has it right: The media always wants a 51%/49% election. Always. If not, they don't get to sell ad space endlessly blabbing about non-sensical drivel regarding the candidates.

This blue blood arch conservative who has never voted for a democrat in his life has seen the light, and knows Bush neo-con fake conservatism for its America destroying power, and finally will vote democrat come 2008. However, he is right that the media will look to destroy the democratic candidate as much as possible so as to make a close race out of the election.

[LeftVetPatriot]

Ten years dead, Pat Paulsen is still running, too.
He has a better chance than Rudy.

http://www.paulsen.com/

[TovSquirrel]

"I'd suggest that the notion that South Carolinians who are committed to participating in the state's upcoming primary (i.e. voters who take their politics most seriously) are not going to vote on a comedian executing a joke."

Correct, they will vote for a politician executing a joke.

[smartstuart]

South Carolinians are fucking morons...t­he Worst of ALL Americans.­...religio­us freaks....­war mongers...­..beer-swi­lling sloths who care more about NASCAR than America...­.racists..­..bigots..­...dumb enough to fall for Bush's smear, in 2000, against McCain....­too bad Gen. Sherman didn't do a better job burning down the entire state!!!! They'll vote for ANY candidate who hates gays, loves guns, and cherishes fetuses...­until they're born!!! DUMB FUCKERS!!!

[Trilby]

When I was a freshman in College (1970), word got around that many students planned to vote for Darg, an enormous orange dorm cat, for president of the student government. The Dean let it be known that students voted for Darg and Darg won, he would shut down student government. We voted for Darg. I will be happy to vote for Colbert, and yes I know what's at stake.