Colbert News Hub

Hello, Hubsters!

Wow. As Carly Simon sang: Anticipation…is keeping me waiting! The Colbert Report has a blow-you-away week coming up. The guests are amazing, and my hopes have risen high into the stratosphere, beyond our galaxy, boldly going where no one (okay, maybe a few) have gone before. And with The Daily Show also having some top-notch visitors, I’ve got really great expectations.

So let’s hop right to it!

Monday, 6/4: Rep. John Lewis?

There is some uncertainty about Monday’s guest. One website says Lewis, but ColbertNation.com does not have anyone listed as yet. So, will Stephen get to better know this representative of Georgia’s 5th district, who has served in Congress since 1987? That’s still TBD, but I’m taking a chance. Having grown up in the segregated South, Lewis was active in the Civil Rights movement, a follower of Dr. Martin Luther King, and a former chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). If he’s on, I suspect he’ll be discussing how some states are beginning to demand voter IDs, which has the effect of preventing many people from going to the polls. He spoke about the issue with Chris Matthews, and likened the ID to the old poll tax and literacy tests designed to prevent blacks from exercising their rights. Lewis is also author of a book called Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement.

Here are some links so you can find out more about him—if he does appear on the show.

Visit his website: Judging from what’s there, he seems to be a good guy: Lewis sponsored an amendment demanding an accounting of the cost of our recent wars in the Middle East; wants to help people in trouble of losing their homes; and supports LGBT rights because “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Follow him on Twitter.

Brown University recently honored him. (Harvard did, too.)

The Academy of Achievement considers him a champion of Civil Rights.

He recently appeared with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC where he talked about voter suppression and gay marriage.

In 2011, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Like him on Facebook.

On a lighter note—here he is, dancing at Atlanta’s Baconfest!

Tuesday, 6/5: Jill Biden

After welcoming the First Lady on the Report last week, Stephen is about to greet the very impressive Second: Jill Biden, wife of the Vice President and a force in her own right. A long-time English teacher, she has worked in high schools, with emotionally damaged teens in psychiatric hospitals, and now at a community college in Virginia. Dr. Biden recently co-hosted the White House Summit on Community Colleges with President Obama in order to call attention to how beneficial these local and often lower-cost schools can be in training young people. Spurred by a number of friends who have battled breast cancer, she and her husband also became Honorary Co-Chairs for the Global Race for the Cure in Washington, DC. Finally, she became involved with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and is particularly focused on calling attention to famine-struck areas in Africa.

Now, Jill Biden has something in common with Stephen: like him, she has a new picture book out. In fact, it’s released this very day. Hers, however, is on a rather more serious subject and I believe it contains no stripper poles—although it is just as patriotically inclined as his. First, it’s important to remember that the Bidens’ son Beau served in Iraq, leaving a family behind. (Aside: Note that none of the Bush children joined the battle he started. Now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.) Don’t Forget, God Bless Our Troops deals with this poignant subject. Inspired by her granddaughter, who missed her father greatly when he went away, it shows how the girl finds a way to channel that sadness by doing good and sending care packages to the troops. By the way, Beau is now back home, safe.

Naturally, supporting military families is important to Biden, and she and Michelle Obama created Joining Forces to show the public what they can do to help. Given how much Stephen himself does for soldiers and vets (including donating profits from his new audiobook), I’m sure the two of them will have a wonderful conversation on the subject.

Jill and Joe Biden have been married since 1977. When they were wed, she became stepmom to both Beau and his brother Hunter; later the couple had a daughter, Ashley, who got married this past weekend! Congratulations to the new bride and groom. (As a Jewish woman I HAVE to say it: You married a doctor! Mazel Tov! Kvelling.) I’m sure most people know, but Joe Biden’s first wife and a daughter tragically died in a car crash, leaving him as a single parent until he met Jill.

Visit her website.

Kirkus Reviews likes the book.

Both Jill and Joe Biden have spoken out against spousal abuse and in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, which, amazingly, has been under fire by Republicans.

Politico wrote about this upcoming appearance.

She recently gave the commencement speech at Broward College.

Last year, Biden visited Kenya to discuss the famine in that country. As we know, it’s a nation with special significance to her husband’s boss. (He was born there – HA HA. NOOO.)

Follow her on Twitter. Her latest tweet, as I write this, is quite strange: “Joe said he suffers from finger flatulence. I told him to stop asking the grandkids to pull his finger.” Hmmmm.

Wednesday, 6/6: Neil Patrick Harris

The “Company” co-stars are reuniting!!!! Okay, I am so excited about this that I jumped up and down when I learned about Neil Patrick Harris’s appearance. I adore NPH, who is smart, funny, talented and absolutely up to a Colbertian interview. And dare we hope for a song? Maybe a Sondheim? (There are two chances for a musical experience this week; see below.) I expect that this joyful occasion is due to the Tony® Awards, which Harris will once again host on Sunday, June 10th. I say, let him host everything, and when he takes on the Emmys®, he can just announce Stephen as the winner whomever those terrible Emmy voters choose.

Harris first came to fame playing the teenage genius Doogie Howser, M.D., which gave little indication to the world at large where his future career would go. Yes, he was appealing and got a Golden Globe® nomination—but would anyone who knew him only from that show have imagined him singing and dancing so brilliantly on Broadway? Or, as some of us Joss Whedon fangirls would note, as the star of the absolutely wonderful web series Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog? And by the way, in case you’re not aware, Harris is also a skilled magician.

Currently, he stars in the successful sitcom How I Met Your Mother, for which he garnered many Emmy and Golden Globe nominations, and his stage credits include Stephen Sondheim’s Assassins, the Emcee in Cabaret, Rent, and Sweeney Todd (another Sondheim). He’s also directed some theatrical productions. Interestingly, Harris hasn’t really done too much in the way of movies, although one of his first roles was in the film Clara’s Heart, for which he received several award nominations. He also recently did voice work for Smurfs. Still, that leaves a lot of room for future success. NPH—you have a new area to conquer!

He and his fiancé (husband yet?) David Burtka are the parents of twins—who recently had a celebrity meeting with Oprah.

Follow him on Twitter.

He came out as gay when it wasn’t so easy to do. Here us part of his wonderful statement: “I am happy to dispel any rumors or misconceptions and am quite proud to say that I am a very content gay man living my life to the fullest and feel most fortunate to be working with wonderful people in the business I love.”

Of course, he’s also recorded an “It Gets Better” video.

Like him on Facebook.

He and Hugh Jackman blew everyone away at the 2011 Tony Awards.

Here’s a good fan site for NPH.

Like every star worthy of adulation, he’s gone on Sesame Street.

NPH supports a number of charities having to do with cancer, AIDS, hunger, and green causes.

He appeared on The Daily Show just last year.

Thursday, 6/7: Regina Spektor

The Russian-born singer Regina Spektor has a new album out, her sixth, called What We Saw from the Cheap Seats. The child of two musicians—her mother was a professor at a college in the then-Soviet Union while her father is an amateur violinist—she started playing piano from a very young age. Facing discrimination due to their Judaism, the Spektors emigrated, finally ending up on the Bronx. Regina continued studying piano with a professor at the highly respected Manhattan School of Music and later received a degree in composition from the Conservatory of Music at Purchase College. Given her exposure to both the classical repertory and to contemporary folk, rock, and punk, Spektor has quite a musical vocabulary to draw on, as well as voice with an amazing range.

Spektor’s career began in a number of downtown, East Village clubs in New York, and she later signed with Sire Records. A look at the late night shows on which she has appeared is dazzling—Conan hosted her four times; Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Farrell, and Ferguson all had her on two times each; and she’s been the musical guest on SNL. (So Stephen, what took you so long?) She’s also opened for a number of major bands, including the Strokes and Kings of Leon. Finally, you may have heard her songs on the soundtracks of various TV programs such as Grey’s Anatomy, Weeds, and—get this—How I Met Your Mother! Maybe NPH is a fan, too. I particularly love the fact that her music has also been used on a Brazilian telenovela, which almost assures that she’s become famous there, too.

Not surprisingly, she’s also socially conscious and has used her money to help raise funds for Darfur, Planned Parenthood, Doctors without Borders, and in support of human rights in Tibet.

Visit her website to order the new album, watch videos, find out her tour dates, and more.

Comment on her official forum.

Like her on Facebook.

Follow her on Twitter.

Go to her YouTube channel to watch videos.

Listen to some songs on Soundcloud.

The new album is doing extremely well, per Billboard!

The New York Times profiled her.  (It contains a touching story of kindness and generosity that probably allowed her to continue her music career.)

Read an article in the Guardian.

Hear her on NPR.

And now, let’s check in with our good friend Jon!

Monday, 6/4: Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein

You thought Congress was a mess? Here’s the bad news: it’s worse than you thought. Mann and Ornstein are the authors of a new book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. It’s been widely praised in The New York Times and the Economist, as well as by Bill Clinton, Paul Volker, and Juan Williams. Ornstein writes a weekly column for Roll Call and is a resident scholar at the extremely conservative American Enterprise Institute, while Mann, who has formerly taught at such top universities as Princeton, Georgetown, and Johns Hopkins, now is with the Brookings Institute.

Read the Washington Post review.

Visit the site for their Election Reform Project.

Listen to them on NPR.

Tuesday, 6/5: Gary Johnson

Obama, Romney…and Johnson. Though he’s received much less attention than the big-party candidates, Gary Johnson is running for president on the Libertarian ticket. A former Republican governor of New Mexico, Johnson is also a super-athlete who participates in Ironman marathons and has climbed Mount Everest. After that, running for president must be a piece of cake! Dealing with Jon—maybe, maybe not. The bad news about Johnson is that he wants to slash the budget, including eliminating the Department of Education, and give the money to the states—minus a certain percentage. The good news is that he’s anti the drug war and wants to bring troops stationed in peaceful countries (like Europe) back home. I trust not, I fear.

Visit his website.

Like him on Facebook.

Follow him on Twitter. (He’s tweeted excitedly about this visit.)

Read an interview with him in GQ.

Wednesday, 6/6: Michael Fassbender

Okay—time for a fangirl break. Michael Fassbender…sigh. Mind you, the first role I ever saw him in was as Bobby Sands, the militant Irish hunger striker, in Steve McQueen’s brilliant film Hunger. (McQueen the British director, not the now-dead actor.) To play the role, Fassbender had lost so much weight that it seemed as if he, too, would disappear, just as Sands did. (Sands died on his strike.) Beauty was not an issue in the work, but his considerable talent and passion for the role certainly were. Fassbender also received a lot of notoriety for his fearless performance as a sex addict in McQueen’s next film, Shame, for which he won a Golden Globe and a BAFTA award, as well as for A Dangerous Method (David Cronenberg) in which he played Carl Jung. And oh yeah, he’s also appeared in such blockbusters as X-Men: First Class. Fassbender’s newest film: Prometheus. This one’s a biggie.

He discussed his role as an android in Prometheus.

Here’s a fan website dedicated to him.

Read a recent interview in New York’s Daily News.

Definitely stole this link to Esquire cover shots from The Daily Show website. (Okay, some others too.) But anything with pictures of Fassbender is good with me!

Thursday, 6/7: Edward Conard

Uh-oh! I hope Jon is at his toughest for this visit, because Edward Conard was the former managing director of Bain Capital—the Romney-associated firm that bought and closed businesses, putting people out of work. His new book is Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong, which in fact will be released on this very day. And by the way, that’s no typo: it IS Conard, not Conrad.

Read the BusinessWeek review.

Like him on Facebook.

Follow him on Twitter. Looks as if he just stated tweeting for the book’s release. As someone who works in publishing, I say: bad. You should be doing it way before to build up an audience and not just look like you’re selling.

Visit his website to see video, read an excerpt, and more.

That’s all for this week! Let me know who you’re most looking forward to — there are plenty of exciting choices this week!
Have a great time watching.
Cheers.

Original Article

EPISODE NUMBER: 8104 (May 31, 2012)
GUESTS: Jack Hitt
SEGMENTS:  The Best-Selling I Am A Pole (And So Can You!) | President Obama’s Righteous Drone Strikes | The Word- Two Birds With One Drone | Michael Bloomberg’s Supersized Soda Scheme | Jack Hitt | Sign Off- Welcome Baby Gwinn!
SUIT REPORT: Grey Suit | White Shirt with black pinstripes | Black tie with white stripes
VIDEOS: Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Best-Selling I Am A Pole (And So Can You!)

[caption id=”attachment_13660” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Folks, if you watch this show, if you’re a frequent watcher of this show and I hope you are, you know I wear many hats: pundit, journalist, and this one that says I’m a female body inspector. Which, due to a pending court case, I legally must inform you, is not an actual governmental position. Once again, my apologies to Doris Kearns Goodwin.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13661” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, recently folks, recently, I add another hat, that of children’s book author. Thanks to the publication of I Am A Pole (And So Can You) which is currently number one in the New York Times Bestseller List of Advice, How to, and Miscellaneous. That’s right: Advice, How to, and Miscellaneous. In your face The Blood Sugar Solution by Doctor Mark Hyman. Number six. Six, ouch! Plus, kind of a creepy name for a children’s book.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13662” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, some might say, “Why are you in that category Stephen? A pole can’t give you advice. That is story a complete fantasy.” Oh, is it, people who say that? Well, why is I Am A Pole also number two on Publisher’s Weekly’s list of Best Seller Nonfiction. Nonfiction. Non-Nonfiction. That means everything in this book actually happened.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13663” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”And I certainly, I certainly hope no journalist does exhaustive groundwork that proves me a liar. ‘Cause the last thing I want is to be embroiled in a literary scandal over this clearly nonfiction book about a talking pole finding his purpose in life and in strip clubs. A controversy like that might land me in a teary eyed interview with Oprah and that would destroy my sales.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13664” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Speaking of which, the only other hardcover nonfiction book ahead of me is The Passage of Power, the forth volume in Caro’s expansive biography of LBJ that took him ten years to write. This took me ten minutes to write. I am winning. I am winning.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13665” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”And, of course, my sales are smoking my fellow pundits. I sold more than Rachel Maddow’s Drift, Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Lincoln, and I blew the doors of Sean Hannity’s 30 Days To A Thicker Neck.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13666” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”So, folks, go out an buy this book. It’s great for Mother’s Day, which has already passed but go out and buy one for next year. Father’s day, graduation… ”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13667” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”and don’t forget to pick up the audio book. Narrated by Oscar winner Tom Hanks. All of my and Tom’s money from this audio book will go to U.S. Vets, the United States Veteran’s Initiative. Which helps veterans transition back into civilian life.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13668” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Little, uh, little backstage anecdote. Thank you. Thank you. It’s a great organization. Uh, little kind of fun, backstage anecdote. During the recording of the book, Tom Hanks told me that I remind him of a young Forrest Gump. Thank you, sir.”][/caption]

President Obama’s Righteous Drone Strikes

[caption id=”attachment_13669” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, folks, we all know Barak Obama has been working hard to kill our economy, but it turns out there is something he is working even harder to kill.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13672” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”That’s right, we took out Al Qaeda’s number two and it’s not the first time. In 2011, 2008, and 2006 we also took out Al Qaeda’s number twos.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13670” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=” Right now that must be a kind of a tough position to fill. “A promotion to number two? Oh, Mr. al-Zawahiri I flattered but I promised I’d coach my son’s Buzkashi team and it’s my turn to bring the headless goat carcass.”“][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13671” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, Al Qaeda operatives aren’t just afraid to move up, they’re afraid to look up because Obama has carried out five times as many covert drone strikes as George Bush. So what’s behind the President’s righteous kill spree? Could it be he’s just gunning for another Nobel Peace Prize? Good luck, sir.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13673” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Or could it be moral authority? You see, the President campaigned on the promise to shut down the prison on Guantanamo Bay but that turned out to be real hard. So, rather than sending prisoners to Gitmo he is taking the high road by sending them to their maker.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13674” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”As the New York Times puts it “Mr. Obama has avoided the complications of detention by deciding to take no prisoners alive.” It’s brilliant! He doesn’t have to worry about Habeas Corpus because after a drone strike sometimes you can’t even find the corpus.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13675” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”The only problem is folks, occasionally our drones kill civilians. But you know what they say, “To make an omelet you’ve gotta kill a few civilians.”“][/caption]

The Word- Two Birds With One Drone

[caption id=”attachment_13677” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Unfortunately, killing civilians hurts America’s moral standing but the administration has a solution and it’s the subject of tonight’s word.”][/caption]

To make sure only terrorists are killed the White House has set rigorous standards for who gets targeted and as counter terrorism adviser John Brennan explained:

[caption id=”attachment_13678” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Yes, it is comforting to know that the administration has set the bar at the high level of killing the right person.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13679” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Yes, Obama gets “baseball cards” with pictures and stats on suspected terrorists and, of course, a stick of stale gum. Which he gives to Biden.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13680” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Eventually, eventually the process must work because a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the single digits. That’s impressive because those bombs are huge.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13681” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”And the administration has developed a brilliant system for ensuring those building engulfing explosions don’t kill noncombatants. They just count all military aged in a strike zone as combatants.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13682” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”They reason that Al Qaeda is an isolated, radical group so anyone with them is probably Al Qaeda. The same way that anyone at Comic Con is probably a virgin.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13683” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, folks. Now this isn’t just the president executing innocent people around the world by fiat. There is an appeals process. The men are considered terrorist unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. In which case, I assume there is a legal process that unkills them.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13684” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Now, best of all, keeping civilian casualties down by saying that civilians don’t really exist could solve the President’s Gitmo problem once and for all because you know what that place is full of?”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13685” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”It is full of known terrorists. He should shut that place down with some drone strikes. Of course, that might take out some guards but using the President’s own standard, they are military aged males spending time with terrorists. They must be guilty of something and if we just keep using logic like that, none of us have to feel guilty about anything.”][/caption]

Michael Bloomberg’s Supersized Soda Scheme

[caption id=”attachment_13686” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Nation, I am no fan of New York City billionaire, billionmayor Mike Bloomberg. He is turning New York into a organic, slow food nanny state. First, he banned smoking. Then, he banned trans fats. Then, he added bike lanes everywhere. Now it’s nearly impossible for me to hit bikers on my drive to work.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13687” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”No more giant sodas? Come on! This is America, the land of plenty! We haven’t even achieved type three diabetes yet. We’re so close.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13688” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”And I don’t know about you folks but I can’t drink less than sixteen ounces. I need a soda so large that James Cameron wants to go to the bottom of it.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13689” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”This ban will completely ruin my movie going experience! I go to the cinema to drink an oil drum of soda that makes me pee thirty times. By the way I missed the end of Thelma and Louise, how did that road trip go? Can’t wait for the sequel.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13690” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”How am I supposed to receive proper refreshment? Buy two sodas? How does this even work? There’s two straws! I’ve only got one mouth. Where do I stick the other one Bloomberg? You sick bastard!”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13691” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Make sure not to mix those straws up but… fine, fine! If this is our new reality I guess we’re all going to have to make some big changes. Drinkie come on out here, boy. Come on out here, Drinkie.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13692” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”This is Drinkie, he’s my pet giant drink. You, uh, you may remember Drinkie from previous episodes. He usually tries to kill me but I took him to a cup whisperer and he’s much more obedient now.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13693” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Hey, buddy, hey buddy, you wanna go for a drink? Look, oh, look he’s wagging his little straw. Okay, we’ll go in a second Drinkie but first, um, why don’t you just go over there and look at that sunset. Okay, buddy? Just, uh, your just go, your just going to stare into the sun, boy. You just don’t turn around Drinkie. Just, just keep staring at the sun Drinkie.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13694” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”I-I love you, boy! Nooo! No, Drinkie! No, Drinkie! Nooo! He was so young! And so refreshing! Is this what you want Bloomberg? You monster! Ooh, Drinkie, oh, oh! Oh, that hits the spot! Oh, I’m so sad! I’m so thirsty!”][/caption]

Jack Hitt

[caption id=”attachment_13695” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”My guest tonight is the author of a new book called A Bunch of Amateurs: A Search for the American Character. The search is over, I’m right here.”][/caption]

Stephen:

Jack: 

Sign Off- Welcome Baby Gwinn!

[caption id=”attachment_13657” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Folks, before we go I just want to welcome the newest member of the Colbert Nation, Oliver Campbell Gwinn. Congratulations to the entire Gwinn family, with a name like that he’s destined to grow up to be a 1920s bare knuckle prize fighter.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13659” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”Oliver’s the second son born to my writer, Peter Gwinn, since he began working on this show. Which has me suspicious that he has broken our strict, company abstinence pledge. I mean, one baby, whose to say? Maybe they shared a Slurpee, I heard that can happen. But two babies? I’ve gotta hunch somebodies been doing some extracurricular tip wagging.”][/caption]

[caption id=”attachment_13658” align=”aligncenter” width=”500” caption=”So to Peter and his entire family I would like to extend a sincere and heartfelt cut it out. Goodnight, everybody!”][/caption]

Original Article

At Penn State, Sophia A. McClennen wears many hats: she’s a Professor of Comparative Literature, Spanish, and Women’s Studies; the Director of the Center for Global Studies; and Director of the Graduate Program in Comparative Literature. While much of her work involves Latin American media and literature — McClennen is the author of Ariel Dorfman: An Aesthetics of Hope, about the Chilean author and activist, as well as of the upcoming Globalization and Latin American Cinema— she also writes about culture, politics, and social change. This focus makes Stephen a perfect subject for her cultural criticism, as seen by her regular blog entries to The Huffington Post, many of which center around The Colbert Report. Her newest book, previously titled America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy, is available in hardcover, and will be released in paperback in early July, retitled Colbert’s America: Satire and Democracy.

I want to start by saying that these questions are absolutely fabulous. I am so grateful for the careful reading that led to such insightful questions.

I changed the title to ‘Colbert’s America’ — since that refers to the paperback version and is the one folks will actually be able to afford! I also tend to refer to him as “Colbert” and not “Stephen” but we can change that.

‘Colbert’s America’ focuses on “public pedagogy”: how Stephen’s comedy actively engages people, makes them think, and encourages his audience to create a space for public debate about social and political issues. For our audience who hasn’t yet read the book, would you briefly summarize its thesis in your words?

‘Colbert’s America’ is the first book to cover the various themes and features of The Colbert Report. Its goal is to offer readers insight into the powerful ways that Stephen Colbert’s comedy has challenged the cult of ignorance that has threatened meaningful public debate and social dialogue since 9/11.

Since the show’s first episode in 2005, Colbert’s program has entertained its audience, encouraged political discourse, and stirred some of the most complacent members of society. One of the key arguments of the book is that Colbert does more than mock pundits and politicians: he actually has helped influence a new generation of actively involved citizens. He also, though, teaches his viewers that citizenship can be fun. So I argue that it is a mistake to miss the comedy and only see the social critique. Colbert’s satire fosters critical
thinking about social issues, encourages active citizenship, and entertains the viewer - all at the same time.

You previously wrote for the Harvard Lampoon and stated that you “would not have written this book without that experience.” Could you talk a little about how the Lampoon influenced you, how it helped you better understand comedy, and how it affected your perception of what was happening in The Colbert Report?

I have to start by saying that I was not a writer for the Lampoon — I worked on the business end. But the experience of working on a humor magazine dedicated to parody and satire showed me how that kind of humor can function as a highly effective form of social critique while being extremely entertaining.

Hanging out with the Lampoon’s writers — like Conan O’Brien and Bill Oakley — also helped me appreciate how incredibly complex effective satire is as an art form. When you watch The Colbert Report you can get lost in the silliness—but behind it is extremely sharp writing that is highly attentive to the ways that words work. Great satire does this without the audience even noticing the work that goes into creating the comedy. Its wittiness is so incredibly amusing and biting at the same time.

So when I first saw “The Word” segment — I immediately became fascinated by the way that Colbert’s show was using language satirically. It was so smart and so funny and it reminded me of my Lampoon days, of the experience of having a ton of fun while also trying to make a statement at the same time.

You really shine a spotlight on Colbert’s appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner, and I was fascinated by your research on how the mainstream media thoroughly ignored him until the video went viral on the Internet. It’s not that I wasn’t generally aware of it, but the actual numbers you include are pretty astonishing. Why do you think there was such a disconnect between the media and the audience?

There are a number of possible explanations for why the mainstream media initially panned or ignored Colbert’s epic performance that night. Some say that they felt insulted — since Colbert had mocked the media as much as Bush. Others suggest that they didn’t think he was funny (I find that argument a bit absurd since funny or not — it would have been news to cover a roast like that, right?). And others suggest that they felt that Colbert had “crossed the line” and they did not want to cover the speech because they felt it had been disrespectful.

My reading of it is that it was a combination of the media’s own sense of being insulted by Colbert alongside their discomfort with watching someone roast the President — a president that they had failed to hold to the same standards of critique that they had used on President Clinton. Recall the brilliant moment during the speech when he said:

“The President makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ‘em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!”

That was such an effective critique. It drove home the media’s complacency with extraordinary power. And it is no surprise that when the US public got a chance to watch the speech, as it circulated on the internet through alternative media outlets and the blogosphere, that they were exhilarated by what they saw.

Also, in relation to that appearance: Stephen Colbert has stated pretty consistently that “he had no idea that he was upsetting anyone … or rallying anyone”. I’ve never heard him vary from this view — including in an interview with Jonathan Alter just a few months ago. Do you think he was genuinely surprised by the reaction his routine received? Why do you think he has never said directly what seems so obvious to most of us: that he came there to mock Bush’s stubbornly willful ignorance and the media’s kowtowing? Or, as he has put it in another context, that he came there to speak truth to power?

I’ve always found those comments a bit perplexing too. I think we know how important the speech has been to him. In many ways it catapulted his career to a whole new level. And he wouldn’t have included the entire transcript in the back of ‘I Am America (And So Can You!)’ if he didn’t also see it as a huge part of his satire.

He has also said that he didn’t realize that he was causing any stirs since the audience was big enough that he heard plenty of laughs—but it is difficult to imagine that he was
unaware of the facial expressions of the President given that he was about 5 feet away. And there are plenty of shots from that night that also show audience members looking
uncomfortable. (Of course those shots only add to the enjoyment factor for those of us who later watched the performance on-line!).

So all I can do is guess on that one. My best thought on it is that he has decided to keep that one close to his vest. He may, rightly, realize that openly admitting that he went there to mock the President to his face and expose his idiocy could backfire and hurt his public appeal. You’ll notice that he is one of the few—if not the only — satirical comedians today to have exceptional charisma with the public. He avoids any negative, nasty, biting, or snarky comments when he speaks out of character. And, even more importantly, he seems honestly good natured and fun-loving. So we are unlikely to ever hear him say something that seems aggressive. He just lets the performance stand for itself without openly stating that he hoped it would change the way the nation thought about the president. I think it is a huge part of his success.

How do you think the experience at the Dinner affected Colbert’s subsequent “political theater,” as I’ll call it-everything from testifying on migrant workers to getting his SuperPac approved? Do you feel that the response alerted him to possibilities he might not formerly have imagined?

This is a great question — and one we can only guess at too. There is a definite trajectory where Colbert begins to experiment more and more with crossing over into direct political venues after the performance at the WHCA Dinner. His celebrity certainly affords him more and more opportunities to be effective in these arenas as well. I can’t be sure whether he had had those ideas previously and the Dinner gave him the opening to do them—or if the success of the Dinner led him to explore more of these forms of comedic public intervention.

One other possible way to think about this, though, is that the experience revealed his 30-minute show was no longer the only space through which he could reach his audience. I think it is possible that he realized that his fans would “watch” whether he was on a comedy show or not.

Since the book has been published, Stephen has continued to expand his pedagogy into new areas, in particular through his SuperPac. I wonder if you’d like to comment on some of his latest activities, including the South Carolina primary brouhaha and the proposed Animal Planet/Nat Geo debate.

Yes! In fact, the SuperPac sort of highlights the thesis of my book and takes my argument to a whole other level. The SuperPac is without question another magnitude of scale over the Dinner performance. At the Dinner we were amazed by his “ballsalicious” performance, but the SuperPac has been Colbert’s entry into civic action. In some ways I see it growing more out of his work with “Better Know a District” than the Dinner event.

The power of the SuperPac as a vehicle for politically motivated satire is really extraordinary. I wrote about his work with it in a blog where I called him the “PAC Daddy”. Colbert managed to teach the nation how PACs work in a way that was entertaining and enlightening. This is no small feat when we realize that we have been hearing about the need for campaign finance reform for over a decade with almost no traction in the public. The reason why the general public knows how PACs work today is largely due to Colbert.

And then he used the SuperPac to go into a critique of negative ads, it gave him a chance to expose the funding for the South Carolina primary, and more. I expect that he has more plans for election-connected public pedagogy to come. He seems to be having a lot of fun thinking of creative ways to insert his satire into the public sphere.

But, as you mention, some of these stunts just feel gimmicky. A battle between Animal Planet and National Geographic over who gets to be affiliated with him is not exactly a political intervention. At the very least, though, Colbert does a good job of showing his audience how corporations vie to get public attention. And you can’t really fault him for hamming it up since it just boosts the Colbert ego—which of course is a trademark feature of his persona.

One of your major points that interested me concerned Stephen’s ability to combine education and amusement. Coming out of film studies, I’ve been accustomed to dealing with many political artists who long to reach a general audience and engage them with something other than Hollywood entertainment. They usually haven’t managed to win over the masses, however. But one person they’ve always used as a touchstone is the German playwright Bertolt Brecht, who believed in “interrupting the spectacle” and also making spectators aware of the difference between the role and the actor playing it. It seems to me that Stephen has succeeded with this as well as anyone. I wonder if you’ve thought about Brecht and how that type of theater might have influenced Stephen, especially as he trained as a “serious” actor.

This is a great question — and now you are making me wish I had thought of that link earlier. You are absolutely spot on, I think. Most actors trained today would have been exposed to Brecht so there is little question that during his years at Northwestern Colbert would have been taught Brecht’s ideas about ways to use performance to shock the public out of complacency.

One of his best recent examples of that, I think, was the way that he responded to the Wheat Thins sponsorship e-mail. That was one of those moments when he made it clear to the audience that he was being sponsored, that the sponsorship was asking him to use the product, and was also establishing guidelines about how it should be used. In fact, he also did something a bit similar with Doritos. He effectively undermines the artifice of product placement, breaking the plane and showing the audience how ridiculous the entire process is. What is sort of amazing here, though, is that he somehow manages to hold onto his persona—even if less overtly — while doing it.

What kind of comic possibilities do you think Stephen opens up for political performance and public pedagogy beyond his own show? Is his achievement something you feel could be replicated by others? And by that, I don’t mean someone merely imitating him, but taking a cue to create thoughtful satire in their own way.

I think the answer lies in the Millenials—the generation that has grown up with Colbert and that is his target audience. I think that this is a generation that “gets it” – and that is more likely to use performance and play to speak truth to power than previous ones. These are kids that grew up with the playful use of language found on FaceBook and the short, punchy writing of texts and tweets. And, despite the older generation that wants to dismiss them as narcissistic slackers, this generation votes at a rate of 66%, whereas the previous two voted at a rate of 50%.

Colbert has shown his fans the power of satire and he has redefined its potential to have a public impact. It is hard to imagine that the generation growing up with him won’t take his lead and run with it.

You compare Colbert to Jonathan Swift as a satirist, and point out some commonalities between the two. But one thing you don’t mention is their shared Irish Catholicism. What influence do you think that had in their similar perception of the world?

Yes, that’s a good point. The connection is a strong one and I think that it all goes back to a deep sense of humanity and compassion and a total intolerance for hypocrisy and hubris. Neither Swift in his time nor Colbert today can idly watch human suffering, gross social inequity, and disrespect for human life. But what really brings out their need for satire is when those with privilege try to justify or explain or condone these sorts of behaviors, explaining away the suffering of others as perfectly natural, necessary, or not really that big a deal. There is a real connection between Swift and Colbert on that and it orresponds to a Christian view of brotherhood and compassion.

You spend a fair amount of time, quite rightly, on Stephen’s use of language — puns, neologisms, and so forth. It’s interesting that in a world, and a medium, where images frequently supplant language and writing has faded in importance, so much of his show focuses on the constantly shifting meaning of words and the construction of rhetoric. Indeed, he exemplifies “word/play” in its multiple senses. Do you think that strategy automatically engages spectators in a different and more intellectually rigorous way?

Absolutely. As I mentioned above, I think that when I first watched the show what immediately captured my attention was the incredibly smart use of language. There is no other major satirist today using language in the multiple ways found on The Colbert Report. It is definitely another trademark feature of Colbert’s comedy.

Satire depends on language—whether verbal or written—since it is the space between what is said and what is meant that begins the critical process for the audience. But The Colbert Report really uses written text –in the opening run-down when “headlines” accompany his puns, in the opening credits that have a variety of words swirling around him, and then, of course, on segments like “The Word.”

In many ways those uses of language simply parody the ways that written text are used on shows like The O’Reilly Factor or in the text heavy graphics that accompany most news programming today. What Colbert does with written text is draw the viewer’s attention to these practices and encourage critical reflection. In a moment when politicians like Newt Gingrich express “moral outrage” at being asked about his private life, we need to be reminded of how easily language can be coopted by those in power. And Colbert has been extremely effective at doing just that.

You contextualize Stephen in relation to the postmodernists and their deconstruction of language, truth, and identity. Without a doubt, Stephen —and his staff—couldn’t do what they do without that precedent. (And their knowledge of postmodern theory has been brilliantly demonstrated in more than a few parodies of art criticism!) They understand that we live in a world where language and truth are unstable, and words are frequently used to mean the opposite of what they should. In terms of Colbert’s pedagogy, do you think he’s teaching this theoretical framework to the public at large, and demonstrating how they should try to take apart both the rhetoric and the images that are thrown at them every day?

I do. I think that that is one of the pieces of the show most easily overlooked. Colbert doesn’t just criticize the authoritative, propagandistic language of the power elite, and he doesn’t just expose the absurd spectacle of the mainstream news media, he also calls to task those on the left that celebrated deconstruction and postmodernism in ways that led to political apathy, self-satisfied obtuse critique, and critical inertia.

I think this is one of the most brilliant parts of the show and it demonstrates that the Colbert team recognizes that one of the problems of the left in the Bush years was an inability to find ways to speak truth to power because they were too busy deconstructing what “truth” and “power” and “speaking” “really” meant. He and Jon Stewart have done an excellent job on this point—and it has had an influence, I believe, in redefining the ways that today’s left can envision a critique of the right’s representational strategies without falling into nihilism. They rescue the politically productive elements of postmodern critique without falling into the trap of refusing to take an ethical stand on issues of vital importance.

I’d like to focus on the issue of whether comedy can really affect the course of politics. Both Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart seem to deny it, and you include Stewart quoting Peter Cook sarcastically noting out that the great satirists of the Weimar cabaret “really stopped Hitler in his tracks.” Cook may be right for the most repressive regimes, but in a democratic one, where the comics aren’t killed, there may be more possibility. You hedge a bit in the book, but personally: do you believe that Stephen can actually effect change with comedy?

I think he already has. Take the example of the SuperPac. Colbert taught his audience how they work, revealed their inherently anti-democratic nature, and led to a whole host of activism connected to campaign reform. Even Nancy Pelosi, who had advised Representatives to avoid talking to Colbert, came around and sought Colbert’s support for her campaign finance initiative. This is the biggest and best example — because it is one where we can show pretty close cause and effect.

Another example from recent shows, but one where the line is a bit harder to draw from Colbert to public opinion, is the way that he has called attention to the prejudice and discrimination connected to gay marriage debates. He has been very successful in revealing the hypocrisy and intolerance of anti-gay rhetoric. And polling shows that for young voters the right’s stand on gay marriage is a major turnoff. Colbert has consistently reminded his audience that the LGBT community is part of this democracy and they deserve the same rights as everyone else—and he has done it by making those that oppose those rights seem like fools. It is hard not to see that as an example of comedy with a political impact.

Related to that, I wonder if you feel that Colbert’s increasing move toward real interaction with politics—including testifying before Congress, establishing the SuperPac and funding the South Carolina primary—is due to the fact that he feels he has to get ever closer to the “real” centers of power in order to make a difference. Perhaps just satirizing them on the show isn’t enough. But, as with the WHCD he’s receiving a lot of criticism for making a mockery of serious matters. At the end of the book you examine some arguments for and against Colbert’s more overt entrance on the political stage. What’s your opinion on this?

This, of course, is the big question. Could Colbert inadvertently make a mockery of politics with his stunts? And many on the left are worried that he might. My thinking is that there are some risks and we would be foolish not to see them — these are the risks that young people would lose any respect for the democratic process at all, that they would become even more apathetic and disgusted, and that Colbert’s comedy would make it even harder for the public to see what “real” political action looks like.

But my opinion is that, despite some real risks, these are really the wrong questions to ask. I mean if people FORGET that Colbert is a comedian is that his fault? If they get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central whose “fault” is that? If it turns out that we learn more when we watch Stewart and
Colbert (as a Pew study showed), then it seems crazy to fault the comedians or to expect them to become serious journalists. If things get blurry that is good because it makes the public THINK, and anytime we have to think and ask questions and draw our own conclusions democracy is healthier.

When folks ask whether Colbert and Stewart are hurting the system by mocking it, they forget that the system is already a mockery and all the comedians are doing is exposing it. You can’t blame Stewart and Colbert for the failures of government, of media, or of the public. Their comedy may well be one of the prime reasons that we are even talking about these issues. The more we talk about them, the better.

Best parallel would be Ben Franklin — folks seemed to do OK with seeing him REALLY move between satire and politics. If Ben Franklin could do it, why shouldn’t Colbert?

How do you think the “cult of personality” that you write about—and that Colbert has referred to—affects his political effectiveness? While it gets people to follow him … well, it gets people to follow him because he’s HIM. Do you see that as a problem in how his audience translates his critique into actual action? You do refer, at one point, to the “all-too-convincing” persona he takes on and the failure of some viewers to distinguish between the man from the character.

Great question. This issue, in my opinion, is trickier than the mixing politics with satire one we talked about above. The cult of personality connected to the show and to the Colbert persona is harder to pin down in terms of its effects on engaging critical thinking and supporting a healthy democracy.

We know, for instance, that viewers from a far broader political spectrum can watch The Colbert Report and enjoy it than can watch The Daily Show. This is because the in-character satire is far more complex – Colbert says things in character he doesn’t believe out of character—than what happens with Stewart — who tends to call attention to something crazy happening in politics then point to it with a big WTF. So some viewers can watch Colbert and seem to ignore or gloss over the disconnect between what he is saying and what he thinks. And this is made even more complicated by his extraordinary charisma and charm.

And – even more— it turns out the Colbert and his team have often been surprised by fan responses that have exceeded any of their expectations. Recall that the website that launched the viral video of the WHCA Dinner was fan driven, and the original Colbert Nation website was also created by a fan. More recently the idea of creating mini Colbert SuperPacs came from a fan, Howie Benefiel at UT Austin, who emailed Colbert asking to create Texans for a better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

What does all of this personality driven power mean? And how dangerous might it be? Part of the reason why the power exists is because Colbert really is an amazing public figure. And part of it exists because he has really cultivated it as part of his parody of punditry — he is emulating the personality cults of figures like Beck and O’Reilly. The possibility that he is actually boosting personality-driven politics is a real issue – but in the end I think it is an inevitable consequence of the sort of satire he does.

He critiques personality-driven politics by parodying it. But he also is an extraordinary personality and his charisma has helped him build a huge fan base. There is a tricky
disconnect there. In the end, though, I think that the real reason we don’t need to worry about a negative impact of his personality on his fans is simply because of the difference between him and some of the pundits he parodies. Sure he wants more viewers and more dedicated fans — but in the end his political motives are to restore and enrich our democracy, to foster critical thinking, and to call out the negative tendencies he sees plaguing our society. So if he inadvertently creates some fans that are just mindless sheep, which can happen with any celebrity, then at least they are following aleader with a good cause!

Interestingly, one subject you don’t really speak about in terms of Colbert’s public pedagogy is science. His show is certainly in the forefront when it comes to bringing scientific discussions and breakthroughs to a mass audience. Additionally, because such things as evolution are under fire by the extreme right wing, there’s a political dimension to this presentation of scientific fact. How do you think this would fit into your argument?

This is a really good point and it is a central feature of the show. In a way it all connects back to the show’s “thesis statement” of truthiness. Colbert’s show has really worked
hard at exposing the ways that the assault on the ideas of truth and fact has damaged the nation. And one of the prime arenas where we have seen that has been in the realm of science and in debates over evolution, the climate, and health. Colbert has been a real champion for the scientific community – bringing noted scientists on to talk about their work and allowing them to refute many of the extreme right wing positions that are so constantly repeated in the mainstream news media. There is a political dimension to all of this, of course, since we have seen the Republican Party in recent years really turn against science—defunding it, attacking it, ignoring it, and confusing it with religious beliefs. Colbert has done a great job of calling out the absurdities of the anti-science positions espoused by the right wing.

You write about Colbert’s Wikipedia stunt, where he asked his viewers to change the Wikipedia entry to say that the number of African elephants had increased (when it fact it hadn’t). One thing you don’t mention is that the actual science of this particular topic — ecology and environmentalism — was one of the main areas manipulated by the Bush administration. How much do you think his choice of subject was influenced by that? I wonder, as well, if you think Stephen might also have been trying to illustrate the power a charismatic leader has to subvert reality? Do you feel that many of the people who changed the Wikipedia site understood how damaging that type of lie could be if it weren’t done by someone like Stephen?

Yes — I totally agree. The Wikipedia stunt did a lot of things at the same time. It launched the idea of “wikiality” –a kindred concept to truthiness, but one which also showed the power of the people to create the ideas that are central to a society. It also revealed the tricky power of a strong personality that can mobilize a fan base to do what he says. My reading of the event, though, was that it was also a major way to show fans how much power they had. Colbert was not the first person to teach the pubic that the internet offered forms of activism and political power –but he certainly was one of the first celerity personalities to launch internet activism via a TV show on cable.

I think the question of what fans are thinking when they follow Colbert’s calls to action goes back to the cult of personality question above. The research on viewer responses to Colbert shows that his viewer’s critical abilities to understand what he is doing are mixed. Not everyone “gets it” to the same degree. But when you are talking about a show with 1 million viewers a night, that range is really to be expected.

You discuss the nature of television as a medium; in particular you cite the work of Neil Postman (author of Amusing Ourselves to Death) who basically wrote off TV as an inherently passive medium in comparison to reading, for example. He asserted that TV simply could not create an active and politically engaged spectator. To counter him, you point to the changed context of contemporary TV viewing and how it’s now “linked to more active media” like the Internet. But I have a problem with Postman’s very thesis, and his dismissal of images. One example I’d give: the anti-Vietnam War movement which absolutely and justifiably was galvanized by the images shown on TV. And both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show make great use of TV’s potential to play wittily with the juxtaposition of words and pictures. While I would never dismiss the power of the Internet, do you feel that watching The Colbert Report itself, without that presumably more active context, would have been necessarily passive?

No, definitely not. The nature of the satire on The Colbert Report is inherently critical and it encourages the viewer to think—whether or not they interact with the show via
the internet. Images can be powerful catalysts for critical thinking, as you mention in the case of the photos shown from Viet Nam. And programs like The Daily Show and The
Colbert Report use images as a counterpoint to the text and language, a combination that requires a degree of active viewer engagement.

In all fairness to Postman, though, he was not writing about satire TV, a TV form that is inherently more complex than most. He was, as you rightly note, dismissive of the power of images shown on TV, but my sense of his thesis is that he was very much concerned with the transition that takes place when information comes at the viewer passively, rather than allowing the reader to take in a piece on their own terms — looking at accompanying photos, for instance, for as long as they wish. The rhythm of the flow of information as something controlled for the viewer was at the heart of his worries and my point was that TV is quite different today. Research suggests that watching TV — on a TV during scheduled programming — is an increasingly smaller percentage of current practices of media consumption across all age groups. When Postman wrote his book people watched scheduled shows at scheduled times and that was that. It really was a different era.

You end the introduction with the question: “Stephen Colbert: Great satirist … or greatest satirist?” You say that you hope we will have our own answer after reading the book. But what is YOUR answer?

You mean you haven’t guessed it already?

A big thank you to Sophia McClennen for taking the time out to talk to us!!

Original Article

Second lady Jill Biden will sit down with Stephen Colbert next week, the White House announced on Thursday.

Dr. Biden will visit the late-night show on Tuesday to chat about her new illustrated children’s book entitled “Don’t Forget, God Bless Our Troops.”

Dr. Biden will appear on “The Today Show,” CNN’s “Starting Point” and “Weekend Today,” according to the announcement.

Source: Politico.

Original Article