align="left" height="199" width="200">File this under the heading
"Slow News Day." According to the Capitol Hill pub style="font-style:italic;">Roll Call, Stephen Colbert is no
kingmaker. In fact, he has zero influence on American politics
whatsoever. OK, maybe I added that last line in to make the piece more
interesting, because as is, it's not a very hard-hitting expose. In
fact, it's little more than a think piece disguised as earnest media
criticism. After all, the writer Mary Ann Akers took it upon herself
to namedrop both Colbert and Stalin in the same sentence: "Yet,
somehow, Colbert exerts a loyalty that is unmatched since the era of
Stalin." Classy, Akers. Classy.
Raw Story has the piece covered for
non-subscribers, because it just doesn't make sense to pay for this
sort of thing. More chuckle-inducing snips, with my smartass
rejoinders below:
Akers: "Of the many House Members who actually appeared on the show,
only two of them won their race by less than 63 percent -- and many of
them were unopposed entirely or not even running for re-election."
Me: Right. But how many Americans nationwide even knew who these
people were before The Colbert Report put them on air? Let's
not forget that this past midterm election was a national referendum,
not a regional popularity pageant. Because of Colbert, Robert Wexler
(D-Fla.) went from being an unchallenged stiff to a coke-and-whores
sensation overnight. Same goes for pretty much everyone he
interviewed. Why? Simple: Colbert's "Better Know a District" segment
has turned local politics into a subject of energetic national
interest. I'm not sure that Roll
Call could say the same, and they cover this stuff for a
living.
Akers: "Could it be that Colbert is truly the magic man? The answer,
of course, is no."
Me: A time-worn rhetorical strategy. Build up a myth so you can
demythologize it. Concretize the popular opinion in a couple charged
terms -- "magic man," "kingmaker" -- then throw in a condescending
generalization -- "of course" -- as you negate their energy with a
dismissal. Crafty, Akers. Crafty.
But it all falls apart when considering the extratextual reality,
which is simple: The Colbert Report has made kings and magic
both, simply by mashing the personal and political into a digestible,
hilarious and, most importantly, understandable narrative for mass
consumption. The result? Take a guess, people. Akers is writing about
him, isn't she? Everyone's talking about him. Articles on him are
almost as popular as his show, nabbing mad clicks like they're going
out of style. Republicans and Democrats alike are clamoring for his
attention, and not just because he can get them on The Daily
Show either. Some want the viral publicity he can bring, and
others just want to stroke his balls so he doesn't ferociously roast
them the way he did href="http://www.morphizm.com/observations/thill/thill_colbert.html">Bush
at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Colbert is sound and
fury signifying (and simulating) something unique, while Akers piece
is nothing signifying sound and fury.
But Colbert may not be off the hook just yet. Evidently, global
warming is going to give him nightmares of an entirely different sort
-- I can guarantee that Akers' shorty won't keep him up at night --
because it is having a seriously scary effect on the only nemesis that
strikes fear into his hyperreal heart: bears! That's right,
increasingly warmer temperatures everywhere, but in Siberia for our
purposes, are causing href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061115/od_nm/russia_bears1_dc"
target="blank">bears to skip their normal hibernation schedules
and terrorize the countryside at will:
"Insomniac bears are roaming the forests of southwestern Siberia
scaring local people as the weather stays too warm for the animals to
fall into their usual winter slumber. The furry mammals escape harsh
winters by going to sleep in October-November for around six months,
but in the snowless Kemerovo region where the weather is unseasonably
warm, bears have no desire yet to hibernate."
What the study did not include is whether or not the bears have
postponed hibernation to pay back Colbert for all his hate-mongering
towards their ravenous kind. Nor whether or not his rants against
mammalia ursidae cost my beloved Golden Bears of UC Berkeley
a disheartening pigskin loss against the Arizona Wildcats one week
before we were about to play USC for all the marbles. Either way,
Colbert is on the warpath, and the bears are matching his hatred blow
for blow. Which, come to think of it, is a perfect word to describe
Akers' clumsy metrics. They blow.