I hope you’re a little more civil in your discussions with the Chinese.
.

But let my try to respond anyway:

Let me start by pointing out that the correct term for us Colbert worshipers is “Colbert Huggers”, thank you.

The debate about whether Colbert “bombed” is missing the point. I believe he had no intention of trying to be funny in a way that gets hearty laughs. He was lecturing Bush and the press under the guise of delivering a “comedy sketch”. If he had elicited hearty laughter, he would have failed. Appropriate? No. Correct? Yes.

Judith Miller an anomaly? If so, a pretty damn important one (“incestuous amplification” by the country’s most respected newspaper). But I don’t think she is, and this is where the real issue lies—forget about the blip of Colbert’s performance. Something happened that shut down the media’s skepticism during 2001-04. The overly-timid press response to WMD and the Osama-Sadaam link in the run-up to the war is pretty much accepted as truth, already admitted by a good number of protagonists in the press. Just compare the US press coverage with the much more focused, critical coverage by the British press (not surprising, since the Financial Times is arguably the best newspaper in the English-speaking world). And let’s not even get into TV, where the coverage by the BBC (owned by our only real ally in the “coalition of the willing”, the UK government [!]) was much more insightful and critical than anything on CNN. The only country where the media bought into the WMD argument was the US.

No one is arguing that the press “caused” the war. But I’m all for press-bashing when it is well deserved. I want to understand what the hell happened.

If I may respond briefly to your points:

– “I don’t trust you when you tell me whether something is funny or not. I’ll be the judge. No more ‘was he funny?’ debate.”

To clarify: I don’t mean to say that no one found him funny. Humor is, of course, subjective. I’m saying that many people found him not particularly funny, and not because they’re stupid or brainwashed by the right wing (which seems to be the argument of many bloggers). It’s just not indicative of some moral shortcoming to say he wasn’t funny.

–”Second, Colbert didn’t ‘bomb’. Re-watch the video.”

Even those who thought he was funny have, for the most part, acknowledged that he got a lukewarm reaction. I think the video speaks for itself.

- “No conspiracy…just a chance to form a humble answer to granddaughters who will ask ‘what did you do to resist the Great Unraveling of the US Empire?’”

This is the kind of Colbert-worship I’m talking about! I just don’t belive he had his granddaughters and his legacy as a political freedom fighter in mind when he did this monologue, sorry. To be fair, I don’t know him personally, so I’ll never know for sure. But as I mentioned above, he could have made a much more powerful statement if he’d said afterward, “Someone needs to stand up and say these things.” If he’d done that, perhaps I’d be prostrating myself in front of him like you are. But he didn’t. He faded back into his comic persona and let the argument rage on around him.

–”Third, Cohen’s Washington Post article, calling for preserving the civility and integrity of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (as opposed to, say, the Constitution, the United Nations, or even the Geneva Convention), was something I hope about which he will someday admit deep shame. It simply validates Colbert’s ‘comedy scetch’.”

Richard Cohen is a blowhard. His initial column was certainly stupid in places. My point was more about the flaming response he got. It used to be that the left displayed a certain level of civility, especially compared to the wild name-calling of right-wingers on cable TV and talk radio. But that gap seems to have closed.

As to your last point, “Judith Miller” has become shorthand for every terrible thing the press is supposed to represent. Yes, she screwed up. Yes, she appears to have been in the administration’s pocket. But she is, I would argue, an anomaly. Could the press have done a better job leading up to the war? Yes. Is that why we’re at war? No. I’m sick of the spotlight constantly being thrown off Bush and onto the press about why we’re at war. Bush is the gulity party here, and all the press-bashing in the world won’t change that.

–First, I know from personal experience that you are really, really funny. But I don’t trust you when you tell me whether something is funny or not. I’ll be the judge. No more “was he funny?” debate.

–Second, Colbert didn’t “bomb”. Re-watch the video. Knowing exactly what he was doing, he most obviously took the opportunity delivered to him (not “brave”, I agree, since he will suffer no consequences other than being freed of performing the same duty next year) to publicly humiliate the President and the Press. No conspiracy…just a chance to form a humble answer to granddaughters who will ask “what did you do to resist the Great Unraveling of the US Empire?”

–Third, Cohen’s Washington Post article, calling for preserving the civility and integrity of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (as opposed to, say, the Constitution, the United Nations, or even the Geneva Convention), was something I hope about which he will someday admit deep shame. It simply validates Colbert’s “comedy scetch”.

–Finally, and addressing the real issue, I am quite sure your journalist friends are intrepid. As someone who has personally and publicly been outed as being “incompetent” and “asleep at the wheel” on professional matters for taking diplomatically nuanced views, I understand what your friends are up against. But I also know when professional watchdogs are really asleep (are the words “Judith Miller” not enough?). Compare the press reaction to the now-ironically-amusing Watergate coverup (for those who can remember), Lewinsky (same), and WMD-torture-Iraq. Let’s please all recognize that the press, as a body, has failed miserably in calling this administration to task.