I'm nearly 60 years old and a great fan of both the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. I almost always watch them both after the PBS News Hour. I knew before hand that Mr. Colbert was going to appear at the Correspondent’s dinner Saturday night on CSPAN and made a point of watching. It was an outrageously wonderful experience to watch. The response of the attendees ran the gamut from nervous laughter to slack jawed amazement, and disbelief. Justice Scalia, bless his right wing heart, was man enough to laugh uproariously when Colbert welcomed him with some Sicilian gestures of disputed meaning. But quite frankly I can't imagine that much of the rest of the viewing public was also tuned in, I mean come on its not like LIVE FROM NEW YORK IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT! Monday morning I asked my co workers both young and old alike, and nobody, I mean nobody knew what I was talking about. Three quarters of them didn't even know who Steven Colbert was, and I work at Universal Studios in Hollywood. So what's my point? The point is everybody's view of the unrolling of daily events is absolutely shaped by where they get their news whether from newspapers, radio, television or the internet. There is no such thing as fair and balanced, anywhere. Public opinion on whole drifts like one of those jelly fish on National Geographic channel, where ever the strongest currents take it.

I sent Morning Edition a note asking them to repeat and more fully explore this story. I'm not going to hold my breath; I think it is up to the blogosphere to give this one legs, sorta like the swiftboaters.

Meanwhile, go over to www.thankyoustephencolbert.org and drop a line. Join the over 50,000 others who have. It may be small and inconsequential but it feels good!!

Why is "the media" reporting mostly negatively on Colbert's presentation? Let's see... could it be because he bitchslapped the press for five years of ineptitude in a way that was impossible to ignore? Most likely.

Colberg should pour it outrageously, taking advantage of the numbers game that rules mass communication. Everyone, even Lou, will jump on board.

Whoever invited Stephen Colbert to speak at that dinner must know what he does for a living. What in the world did they think he would do? Be unfunny? Or perhaps tread lightly as I perceived Jon Stewart to do at the Oscars?

I only wish that Stephen would play his shtick for viewers of the Colbert Report like he did with the video he made for his audition for Press Secretary. I'm certain that viewers which were unable to see the video or did not hear about his performance (could there be any?) would really enjoy seeing it.......and I mean REALLY enjoy it!

Wouldn't you all wish that you could have a video of Mary Matalin sitting with hubby James Carville at that dinner??? I bet that she was stewing while he was having troubles stifling laughter! I wish someone would have kept a camera on Bush the entire time and another on Carville and Matalin--those would be almost as entertaining as Stephen Colbert!!

Will this administration's term EVER be over????

... they were the fools being made fun of. And by the looks of the stoney faces in the room, the Bushs' included, Mr. Colbert must have hit his target dead on. Congratulations to him.

Know why they weren't laughing? Because the truthiness hurts, don't it? Better get used to it; he's not going away.

I wonder what would have happened if there were a laugh track playing? I think a lot of people were stifling their laughter in an effort not to be the only one laughing. That's the only way I can explain the silence, unless 75% of the audience just doesn't get irony (doubt it), because I thought the whole thing was hilarious. I sat here watching it in the comfort of my own office, though, free to laugh without offending anyone. I can imagine if I sat at a table with some stone faces, I'd be holding myself back. Remember the power of group mentality...

I congratulate Colbert on his performance. In what i've been reading on the web, it's apparent that many, many people regard Colbert as speaking truth to power. I concur with this, but i want to offer the following observation.

In King Lear, only Cordelia and the Fool (Jester) speak truth to Lear. The fool because he's a Jester and can get away with it (to some extent) and Cordelia because she's the only one of Lear's daughters with enough virtue to do so. If you've read the tragedy, you'll understand why, while i admire Colbert's performance, i don't feel vindicated by it.

If the only one who can speak truth to power is Colbert's comedic persona, then we are living out the tragedy of the rapid decline of American democracy (actually, to be precise, i maintain that, if the only voice that speaks truth to power is that of the jester or Hollywood entertainer -- if, in short, the press has abandoned its legitimate right to critique government -- then one no longer lives in a democracy anyway). In other words, the press certainly is not Cordelia but has perhaps become (or always been) one of Lear's other daughters. This doesn't fill me with a great deal of hope for the coming years in the US, and certainly very little even for the upcoming elections (congressional or presidential).

Don't tell me my second husband is knocking down my third...? I thought Keith O. had a sense of humor, and wasn't afraid to push the line.

What is this world coming to?!?!?

One of the BIG LIES of American politics and commentary, is the myth of the so-called "liberal media". This is a myth propagated by the countless conservative talking heads who dominate that media. It's a classic case of the lie repeated often enough that it becomes "true", which by the way, is a tried-and-"true" method that calculating right-wingers use to spread their propaganda.

In reality, the media is dominated by conservatives, including a large number of rabid, far-right wackos, hatemongers and demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Ann "Bomb The NY Times And Poison Judge Souter" Coulter, Michael "Nutcase" Savage and Bill "Compulsive Liar" O'Reilly. These fanatics would be in an insane asylum in any other country, but in our right-wing dominated media, they're given star status and treated like celebrities.

Media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Media) has done several systematic studies of the American Press, and found, not surprisingly, that the number of right-wingers far outnumbers progressive voices, in every area--from syndicated columnists to TV political commentators to radio personalities.

And the commentators presented by the corporate press as "liberal" are usually mealy-mouthed middle-of-the-roaders afraid of offending anyone, or god forbid, raising their voices. They pose as liberals, but are progressive in name only.

So, why is the conservative media so prevalent in America? Mostly because the small handful of giant corporations that control the media are themselves conservative--and because conservatives don't usually attack the powerful, they are usually allied with the powerful. Corporations and other powerful institutions have nothing to fear from conservative nutcases like Ann Coulter--right-wingers like this demented demagogue thrive on attacking the powerless, the weak, the politically voiceless--anyone incapable of defending themselves.

Put a tough-minded liberal like Noam Chomsky on the air and powerful people and institutions start getting real nervous, real fast.

I know you know this Tim, but the more we repeat the old canard of the "liberal media", even in jest, the more we help right-wing propagandists reinforce their dirty lies. Thank you though, for posting the hilarious remarks of Lou Dobbs--unless he was serious, in which case, the remarks become merely tiresome and idiotic.