Rob H. wrote earlier (see about half way on this list) that Colbert's performance (and the joy on this list about it) was so negative as to engage in a nihilistic tearing down of all the hardworking journalists in Washington who are actually trying to get the story. He claims that there's little journalists can do, with stonewallers like Scott M. and Ari F. (and now Tony S.) in the press room, and a largely leak-proof administration. He praises several aggressive members of the press corps, like Helen Thomas, D. Gregory, and a few others.

First of all, let me note that Colbert's performance was constructed in a way to praise the few press-room reporters (Helen Thomas, etc.) who have been asking reality based questions--note that in his audition tape, she chased him away with her "why did we go to war in Iraq?"

Second of all, the purpose of satire is to turn the heat up on vice, and the vice in this question--which I think any objective assessment will show--is that the major media outlets spent much of the past four years in a cosy, cowardly relationship with Washington's political establishment. It's hard work (to borrow the presidents' phrase) to write compelling journalism by painstakingly seeking out the truth. It's much easier to live in the press-room of the White House, and echo whatever gets said there. The problem is, while this model of journalism is cost-effective and cosy, it's also dangerous for our democracy. Not abstractly dangerous, mind you: dangerous in the sense that it helps start wars; dangerous in the sense that it erodes civil liberties; dangerous in the sense that it allows for corruption and a devil may care attitude about the country's economic and social future. 2500 soldiers dead, 300+ billion spent, environmental catastrophe on the horizon, national soul sold over torture kind of dangerous. The kind of dangerous that, frankly, deserves a little heat, however painful, in response, especially when objectors have been contemptuously shrugged off since 9/11.

So I don't think this was nihilism. This was a call to honesty, like Murrow's famous send-up of McCarthy. Those journalists who have been working hard should be happy to have this kind of help from a powerful outsider like Colbert. They can go to their editors and say: it's not my job to participate in Scott McClellan's farce. My job is to report what's actually happening--to the best of my ability (and you don't need secret insiders to do a good job of doing that--much of what needs to be said is publically available). It's those who have been dancing the government's waltz while the world burns who should now finally feel uncomfortable. That's right Capitol Gang, etc., I'm talking about you.

John

Stephen Colbert's monologue at the Press Corps banquet was a brilliant demonstration of true courage and integrity. Colbert got his opportunity, and he didn't shirk his duty to non-truthiness in favor of advancing his career or placating the powers that be; instead, he demonstrated his honest contempt for those powers.

A Voltaire for our times.

I sure as hell hope somebody's got his back.