C-Span Asks Web Sites to Pull Colbert Clip

WASHINGTON - Political comedy often is intended to stir controversy, but this doesn't usually involve broadcasting rights and the public affairs network C-SPAN.

The cable network asked two Internet video providers, YouTube and IFILM, to pull clips of Stephen Colbert's April 29 performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner from their Web sites.

C-SPAN said it contacted the companies because the copyrighted material was posted online without its permission.

Colbert hosts a satirical current events show on Comedy Central and performed his comedy routine at the correspondent's dinner.

YouTube posted the Colbert video shortly after the dinner ended and received the letter to remove it May 3, according to Julie Supan, senior director of marketing. The Colbert video was viewed 2.7 million times in less than 48 hours, she said.

After removing the video, YouTube received a large number of e-mails asking about the missing clip, Supan said. A misconception that C-SPAN is funded by the government led viewers to complain that the Colbert video should be in the public domain, Supan said.

C-SPAN is a private, nonprofit company and holds the copyright on the entire correspondent's dinner.

On May 5, two days after YouTube received C-SPAN's letter, the Colbert video was publicly available through an agreement with Google Video.

Google had been talking with C-SPAN about a partnership before the dinner, according to Jennifer Feikin, director of video and multimedia search partnerships.

C-SPAN said it chose Google as a partner because it agreed to post video of the entire dinner, and to include a link to C-SPAN's Web site.

Google video of correspondent's dinner: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid-4973617448770513925

I write topical humor for radio DJs and have done it every day for 15 years. In my professional opinion, there are some pretty good lines (or at least ideas for lines) scattered here and there in this. But the problem is with the attitude, which is relentlessly one-sided and grounded in an arrogant belief that the opinions of the writer are fact and anyone who might disagree is stupid and misinformed. That's deadly for comedy because pomposity is what comedy skewers, not what it celebrates. It's particularly deadly when it is done in an inappropirate venue, such as right in front of the President of the United States, who obviously can't respond.

Colbert is a character or concept comedian (something that wears out fast with me, like Bobcat Goldthwait's creepy whining). His concept is that he's a big lib playing a lib's cliche idea of an arrogant, boneheaded conservative blowhard. It's a one-note idea based on a false stereotype. Therefore, what might appear to be self-deprecating humor that makes the comic look ridiculous is actually an attack on people he doesn't like, so it comes across as nasty rather than funny. That's why liberals like it so much: it reinforces their own prejudices and allows them to smugly belittle everyone who might disagree with them. But it's bad humor. Good topical humor is not blindly partisan: it skewers hypocrisy wherever it is found. Otherwise, it's just mean-spirited propaganda disguised as humor (see the smug sarcasm of Al Franken, which has the sentence structure of jokes, but seldom displays any wit or even linguistic creativity).

I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree with both of you on the composition of Colbert's humor.

While I would agree with HHFi's statement that he is a "character or concept comedian", I would say that his style is more akin to Andy Kaufman than Bobcat Goldthwait. In specific, his presentation is so 'in character', that for many people it is difficult to see that it is, in fact, just a character.

I disagree that the stereotype is false. I would say without question that it is a stereotype, and it wouldn't apply to (most) conservatives, but there are enough who fit the mold to make it a stereotype.

For example, when I was still a registered Libertarian (and actually a candidate for NM Senate for a while), I could make jokes about the far fringes of that party (you know them, the ones who want to put their own toll-booths on their own streets to pay for fixing their potholes themselves).

The fact that I could joke about it meant the stereotype was valid. The fact that (some of) the other Libs found it funny meant they personally didn't fit the stereotype. The fact that my candidacy stopped at the state convention meant there were more of the stereotype types there than I previously thought;)

If, instead of joking about it, I had done as Colbert does, and made my speech at the convention skewering the topic facetiously by proposing it as a plank in my platform tongue-in-cheek, they probably would have nominated me.

So, for at least some of us, those of which are far enough away from the stereotypical conservative stance he lampoons, find that the "self-deprecating humor that makes the comic look ridiculous" and which "is actually an attack on people he doesn't like" doesn't come across as "merely nasty" at all.

It is freakin' hilarious.

After having read all about this, I went out and got a copy of the video (intact, not the edited version--24 mins. 16 secs.). I saw all the 'funny/unfunny' posts (not just here), I wanted to examine it for myself.

I watched it, and the only two jokes without a noticable response from the audience were two on which the timing was off (it took a second or so to get the joke and he was already tallking again).

I think the audience thought that his performance was funny. I don't think they got too enthusiastic about it, but this wasn't a comedy club, its a freakin' state dinner with armed men in sunglasses walking around at night.

I think that HHFi's comment at the end is really the point on which his interpretation diverges from mine. He says: "Good topical humor is not blindly partisan: it skewers hypocrisy wherever it is found."

I think you missed the point on Colbert. He doesn't do topical humor. The topic is merely the day's springboard for his character (while your job is exactly the opposite--making good generic jokes for ANY character on a given topic).

He really is like Andy Kaufmann. I think (personally) he is brilliant, and has perfectly captured the arrogant ignorance personna.

I would suppose that the ire he raises in viewers would be directly proportional to the viewer's own resemblence to his character.

The ire he raises on his show with liberal guests is pretty funny, too. Even though he is acting, I've seen a lot of people almost come unglued from the questions he asks them. The ones who are prepped aren't as funny.

And you have to note as well that Tom DeLay was completely fooled, thinking that Colbert was supporting him (apparently, his staff posted a segment where Colbert interviewed Robert Greenwald on his 'defenddelay.com' website before they realized Colbert was a parody).

Since I come to conservatism from a different place than many others, I find it pretty interesting, and I watch his show often.

BTW, the show which is on just before, "The Daily Show", is really the topical humor show. Colbert used to be just a character on that show before they decided to spin him off to his own half-hour.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.