seems wrong

[psocoptera]

So apparently Stephen Colbert testified before Congress - in character? Now granted I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I've never watched the Daily Show or the spin-off or whatever, but that just seems wrong to me. Ok, yes, some people might say politics is all a circus anyways and I'm being an idealist, but testifying before Congress strikes me as one of those things that is supposed to be done honestly, like being a witness in court. (This is somehow leading me to imagine Penn and Teller witnessing a crime and Teller, like, miming on the witness stand...)

Comments

[myalexandria.livejournal.com]

no, I read it and had a similar reaction, really. And I hate criticizing Catholic progressives, so if I'm doing it you can be pretty sure I think it's actually a misstep :-)

[sofer.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I heard snippets of his testimony on the radio and I found it really inappropriate.

[uncleamos]

Duh, Colbert is a conservative.

Everyone knows that.

[adfamiliares.livejournal.com]

Why not watch the testimony for yourself? It's only about 5 minutes long.

It's very funny (unless you disagree with the argument, in which case it's very annoying), but also has a serious point to make, and when Colbert gets to the heart of it (essentially, protecting the rights of the least of these strengthens the rights of all), he plays it fairly straight.

The intended audience is fairly clearly not the representatives in the room, some of whom look distinctly displeased, but youtube. The calculation, stated pretty explicitly at the start, is that testimony by Colbert the character will attract more attention to the issue of immigration reform than straight testimony to the same effect by a traditional expert (or by Colbert the actor). To the extent that the clip has been watched a lot, the tactic succeeded. Objecting to the medium is a way to distract attention from the message. That may not be your aim, but it's certainly the aim of some of the conservative complaints I'm hearing.

You may reasonably object anyway, of course. You might wish that less time in Congressional committees was spent on posturing and playing to the camera, and more on actual policy debate. I agree. Or you might prefer that posturing be confined to the more traditional modes of boring and ranting, omitting satiric. Fair enough.

I think that Penn & Teller have testified before Congress, by the way, perhaps about the war on drugs, although TSOR failed to turn up video.

[jaipur.livejournal.com]

huh. That's a decent defense, actually...

[psocoptera.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, it does feel hypocritical to complain that the Democrats can't get anything done and then turn around and complain that they're trying something new to build support and it's working but I don't liiike it. I guess on further reflection I would take clown suits, rubber noses, and the enactment of liberal policy over the sober business attire and ineffectiveness we have at present. But... I still don't liiike it. It just seems disrespectful. Possibly I am old. (I don't think it's that I disagree, though, I mean, I don't know the specifics of what's up for debate, but I would definitely like to see more legal immigration, and also better protections for undocumented workers reporting employer abuse and stuff...)