Thursday, May 25, 2006

Blog Response: GOP ignorance? or overeager bloggers?

It seems that one of the liberal blogosphere's jokes today is an email sent by DeLay's Legal Defense Fund, noting that Robert Greenwald "crashed and burned" on Colbert's show, even showing the video at the top of their website (it is also here). Looks like Think Progress first noticed it - here is their take, excerpted below:

This morning, DeLay’s legal defense fund sent out a mass email criticizing the movie “The Big Buy: Tom DeLay’s Stolen Congress,” by “Outfoxed” creator Robert Greenwald.

The email features a “one-pager on the truth behind Liberal Hollywood’s the Big Buy,” and the lead item is Colbert’s interview with Greenwald on Comedy Central (where Colbert plays a faux-conservative, O’Reilly-esque character). The headline of the “fact sheet”: HOLLYWOOD PULLS MICHAEL MOORE TACTICS ON TOM DELAY. COLBERT CRACKS THE STORY ON REAL MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE MOVIE.

DeLay thinks Colbert is so persuasive, he’s now featuring the full video of the interview at the top of the legal fund’s website. And why not? According to the email, Greenwald “crashed and burned” under the pressure of Colbert’s hard-hitting questions, like “Who hates America more, you or Michael Moore?”

Apparently the people at DeLay’s legal fund think that Colbert is actually a conservative. Or maybe they’re just that desperate for supporters.

Or maybe people are just that desperate to make fun of conservatives?

At first I read this, like most others, and laughed - even posted the link here under "Amusement: Colbert for DeLay". But then I actually read the email and watched the video unlike most others it seems. While at first glance, i can understand Think Progress's interpretation, if you actually read it, it doesn't imply that - it merely says he crashed and burned on the show...and when you watch the video, you see that Greenwald really DID do a horrible job on the show with his persistent giggling and difficulty articulating himself. I think DeLay is a scumbag like everyone else, but liberals really undermine their cause when they overblow and misinterpret things like this - it just perpetuates the image of a petty, weak, snobbish, alarmist, and out of touch party.

Come on, after the WHCD speech, I think anyone who reads the news (even with the meager mainstream coverage) knows that Colbert is an irreverent liberal satirist. You look stupid for suggesting conservatives are that stupid.

Update: for defense of my argument concerning the headline use of the verb "crack" see the comments.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But in fact the e-mail said in its headline:

“Hollywood Pulls Michael Moore Antics on Tom Delay; Colbert Cracks the Story on Real Motivations Behind the Movie.”

Which implies that they thought Colbert was a hard-charging investigative journalist "cracking the story." ROFL

7:57 PM  
Blogger Shannon said...

Yes, that is the headline, but just saying "Colbert cracks" doesn't imply they thought he was a hard-charging journalist - it implies that his line of questions (and "Colbert" might be a reference to the show, not the person) revealed Greenwald's "real motivations" - which i guess it sort of did since he talked about why he was making the movie- although i think those motivations are fine in my book, they can spin it however they want.

Who knows, the reference to "Colbert cracks" could be a very intelligent ironic remark - even in an interview with a comedian playing stupid conservative, Greenwald STILL "crashed and burned". I don't think that's how it was intended per se, but its just as fair an assumption as the other way around.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Dude. Spin it any tortured way you feel you need to. Greenwald 'cracked?' He was obviously having a good time. He didn't stay in character like Colbert, but that's not the same as 'cracking' under supposed pressure.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Shannon said...

yes, but that could easily be because they were tired of having people laugh at them, even if those laughing misunderstood. Or maybe, I'm worng, who knows.

1:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home