I don't do political ranting…(at least not publicly). Doing so would be like flogging myself in the dark. What would be the point, right? Others can do it better (the political ranting that is…not the flogging). And, in the end, little would actually change. It'd be just one more inane (insane??) and furtive voice added to the cacophony…

Don't get me wrong.  I like it when others do it. I always appreciate their effort. 

So, stating publicly I was entertained/excited by Stephen Colbert's recent performance is a little bit out of character and prolly deserves explanation. (Or, maybe I had nothing else to babble about today…) Go watch the video here, if you haven't seen it, before reading any further.

It's not that he was funny or his satire was biting. It's not that he "savaged the prez*". It's not that he was expressing his criticism directly to the object of his derision…a la mano y mano. And, it's not that he stumbled on the joke (intentionally??), thus proving he's human…and not too polished to be real.

No, the reason for my interest in this story…and hence the willingness to weigh in via this site to the millions of non readers (thx JACC)…is that the MSM (mainstream media) is so absolutly forking clueless as to what really occurred that night.

Did the story of what Colbert said show up on the nightly news? Did the NYT put it on the front page the next day? Did Fox News or CNN send the intrepid reporter out into the night to get the story? No. It was buried. It was ignored.  The Bush impersonator got more attention from the MSM.

From over at Sploid comes the analysis of why that happened…why the story was buried…and why the MSM is so grossly clueless…

But the real target of Colbert's attack was the Washington press, those grossly overpaid typists who blindly "reported" whatever the administration told them to report for five devastating years — an era that many historians are already calling the last days of the United States.

"Over the last five years you people were so good — over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming," Colbert told the grim-faced media drunks. "We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew."

"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know — fiction!"

This country was founded on a principle of freedom…freedom to express one's opinion, freedom to think differently, and freedom of press. So, Stephen Colbert is in the clear. He's exercising his freedom. And, in truth, the MSM can choose to ignore a story. It is a free country. They have that right too. But, the act of ignoring a story by the MSM is exactly what Colbert was attacking. And, true to form, they fell right into the trap…again.

I thank the supreme being on a near daily basis for giving me the intelligence way back in the beginning to see that journalism was a bad career choice (although, I ended up in advertising…maybe that intelligence was fleeting…just shows that no one is perfect). It would be murder as a career now.

For what do the journalists stand? Objectivity in reporting? What's that? Unbiased and uncompromising pursuit of the truth? Never heard of it.  They're more concerned with looking good on camera.  And, forget trying to get a Pulitzer…

What happened to the standards of ethical excellence and journalistic integrity as exhibited by Ernie Pyle and Edward R. Murrow and David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite?  What would they have said about the performance of the media during the last five years?


(*I don't remember where I saw this description.)