I am not a left-wing liberal nutcase prone to wild conspiracy theories. I have actually viewed certain media theories (Noam Chomsky primarily) that suggest there is a more systematic control over the public a little suspiciously. These views seemed a little exaggerated and there just wasn't substantial proof of the media playing for the big-money power, at least to such a meaningful extent. Despite the obvious silence of the MSM these past five or six years, I in fact had some confidence left in MSM before this Colbert episode. I resent being labeled by these people and I suggest that rather than me being a crazy liberal their egos are over-inflated. Now I also resent the fact that these people have such a loud voice through their media. I am currently searching for alternative news sources, although I will probably keep tuning in to the MSM for one reason only: it is good to know your enemy.

Does the MSM hate bloggers for their skills and freedom? They have always displayed such an evident loathing towards blogs, and in this case most of those in MSM who belatedly touched the Colbert controversy basically explained they did not want to condescend to responding to these fools in the 'blogosphere'. Like in any media there are good reliable blogs and some idiots, too. Does MSM feel threatened by blogging?

Are those working for MSM pressured from above? By whom and how directly? Or is there more silent agreement and self-censorship? These are interesting questions and ones I would love to get the answers to!

No, I am not crazy nor stupid and yes, I do have a good sense of what is funny and Colbert was spot on and outrageously funny!

The text was good, but I found his delivery poor and not entertaining.

Just wanted to tell Joan Walsh that her article about the Colbert performance at the Correspondants dinner was right on the mark. Colbert made the press uncomfortable because he did what the press has refused to do , that is to report the truth. At last somebody told President Bush the truth.

The MSM “out-whimper” and “Blackout” was to be expected. It would be a unique emperor (along with his lapdog Press Corp) who can withstand being told he is wearing no clothes at the White House Correspondence brew-haha. Colbert was on time, funny and great.

Of course, if the journalists and politicians present had appropriately responded, then more than half of Colbert's material would have been irrelevant. Lucky for Mr. Colbert, the mainstream media journalists (and the publications producing them) have lost, destroyed, pandered and gambled away the strength and power of the once mighty 4th estate- reducing that audience to nothing more than political propaganda puppets. What was truly funny is that some mainstream journalists, such as MSNBC’s Ken Ober-whatever, actually talked about the speech on their shows- but only to denigrate its worth, sad pathetic armchair quarterback whining by the skewered.

Pidgeon hole it as a liberal bias, if you must opt for convenience and delusion. But as any good 20-30 something knows- the most effective way to make a point in this world is with money- so you might call this my “consumer bias”. I sincerely hope a MSM and its advertisers don’t entertain the delusion that they have the 30-40 year, professional, upper middle class, top tax bracket, tons of expendable wealth, demographic paying attention to their ramblings. This particular member of that demo does not buy what MSM is selling (in its pandering, cow-towing, blindered bias or its advertising). Many of us basically just ignore you (and your advertisers) Mr. Obermann. Trust me when I say that the generation next in power not only watches Stewart and Colbert religiously- but we (a) get the point and (b) agree. Viva le Satire. Viva le Blog-o-sphere.

And PS: Humankind has never gone quietly into the good night of progress and invention. The MSM versus Blog-o-sphere debate is nothing more than a literary rehashing of the Model T versus the horse drawn carriage. Get over yourself and grow with the times MSM- if you don’t grow, you are doomed.

As far as any advertiser’s consideration of a similar “blackout”: Know this, I’ll buy whatever anyone is selling during ad time for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Except Viagra and time-shares, oh and the girls gone wild DVDs- I won’t buy those. But anything else.

Face it, Colbert was genius, his delivery impeccable, ability to remain in character masterful and the harsh truth painfully honest and funny. Any journalist or politician claiming Colbert bombed should think long and hard about the sting of truth and spend some quality time reflective staring in the mirror, wondering how they fell from grace so effortlessly- preferably with a bottle of Jim Beam at hand to dull the pain of irrelevancy....I want to give Steven Colbert’s Peabody to the guy who booked Colbert to keynote the dinner: F-ing Brilliant, almost as brilliant as Colbert himself.

Clearly, how comedy is received is a subjective matter, almost by definition. So all I can say is that, for my part, when I saw the bit, I LAUGHED UNTIL THE TEARS IN MY EYES BLURRED MY VISION AND UNTIL I HAD CRAMPS IN MY ABS!!! (That's aBs...) My wife likewise. We didn't think it was funny - we thought it was ALL-OUT HILARIOUS!!!

The fact that it was so daring and awkward to make fun of the world's most powerful man and the US media in such an intelligent but provocative way when they were all sitting right there, added an "OMG, I can't believe he just said that!?!"-factor that made it even funnier. Breaking social taboos is often funny, as John Clease and the Brits have long realized.

I guess that it would be too damaging for conservatives to concede that he was funny - if they did so, they would be implying that Colbert's implicit critiques have some validity. The only reason his 'praise' of Bush's steadfastness (from Monday to Wednesday no matter Tuesday's facts) could be funny is if there is some truth to the suggestion that Bush is detached from reality and stubborn to the point of absurdity.