digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Stephen Colbert's joke is on the press

mediamatters.org — Think of the political press corps as that fat kid from Willy Wonka &The Chocolate Factory, Augustus Gloop, and the Colbert candidacy as Wonka's river of chocolate. The press seems to do everything it can to avoid campaign substance. Instead, it covers haircuts, laughs, cleavage, cats, and accents. Colbert's running gag is simply too tempting.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • understudy, on 11/01/2007, -5/+117Since this started, I hoped it was Colbert's way of making a statement about the ridiculous of modern political coverage in the media. Glad to see that he might be doing just that.

    Don't just digg this story, but really read the article. It's elucidating.

    _
    • Hoxie, on 10/31/2007, -8/+1You must have read this article:
      http://www.dsfanboy.com/2007/10/28/promotional-con ...
    • BedPost, on 10/31/2007, -5/+22Call me dumb, but what the hell does elucidating mean?
    • blaaguuu, on 10/31/2007, -4/+1I think it was a way to get ratings... But your idea is neat too...
    • theuniversal, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8Everything Colbert does is mocking the media. It's the whole point of his show.
    • pandazoomix, on 11/03/2007, -6/+1Don't be pompous.
      • Jomwilli, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2Don't dare to be smart. Stupid smart peoples, being smart and stuff.
    • HayString, on 11/01/2007, -3/+2"Glad to see that he might be doing just that."

      Great work Sherlock, nothing gets past you!
    • YogiWanKenobi, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2Polysyllabicism ftw!
    • heartcoldfusion, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Understudy's post reminds me of when someone with a poor vocabulary learns new words and insists on using those words, even though the words are awkward and unnecessary, and the same message could have been conveyed much more clearly with easier words. Although it must be quite elucidating to learn new words.
      • understudy, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1Oops! I forgot the digg rule of four syllables or less.

        But seriously, in your jab you failed to use your new word correctly. It essentially means 'clarifying' which would make your last sentence read ". . . it must be quite clarifying to learn new words"—which doesn't make the most sense. And yet somehow I'm the one with the poor vocabulary.

        Finally, it's much more concise and elegant to say that something is elucidating rather than saying that something 'gives an explanation that serves to clarify.' But there I go pontificating.

        _
    • kernco, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Wait...people digg things without reading the article!?
  • ZenMojo, on 11/04/2007, -5/+16Link FTA:
    http://journalism.org/node/8187

    It's interesting how little we know about Hilary Clinton's position on war and how much we know about her cleavage.
    • timjim31, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3another link FTA:
      http://catsinsinks.com/
      • nreynolds, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5that's the best website i've ever seen... and I'm not easily impressed - HEY A BLUE CAR!!!
      • sv650touring, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1do not want
    • AriaStar, on 11/03/2007, -13/+9She's trying to use sex to sell herself. Now if someone would just tell her that there's a reason her own husband didn't want to ***** her, we'd all be spared.
    • milliamp, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The people are so fixated on tabloid dirt that (sadly) election coverage follows the same format.
  • ggnictee, on 11/02/2007, -2/+51I'm afraid I agree with everything the author said about the press but I disagree on one point. I really do want Colbert to run, and I really do want him to win. Unfortunately I think he has a better chance of winning then Kucinich and he's a much, much lesser evil then any of the 'front runners.'
    Deep down I don't think he can win, but like i said, I'd rather have Colbert then Giuliani or Clinton.
    • gklitt, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Yeah, he would solve the whole North Korea thing just by joking around with Kim Jong Il for a while.
    • abcdigg, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4I want Kucinich :(

      People that intelligent, peaceful and caring simply don't run for president.
      It's an unheard of opportunity for us to elect someone who could actually make the whole world a lot better.

      Too bad most of the people who vote are semi-retarded.

      I too would take Colbert over Giuliani or Clinton though ... no second thoughts about it.
      • Jomwilli, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I want Kucinich's wife! The hawtness
      • ggnictee, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Yah i'm going to be sad when Kucinich losses :(
    • HayString, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2Now don't get me wrong, I'd suck on Stephen's balls just as quickly as the next Digger if given the opportunity, but you've gotta be an idiot to think that he would be a suitable president for our country.
    • acephreak, on 11/03/2007, -6/+1Ok, you wrote "better chance of winning then Kucinich". “Than” is the word you want when doing comparisons. But if you are talking about time, choose “then“: “First you separate the eggs; then you beat the whites.” Alexis is smarter than I, not “then I." - From http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/than.html
  • samurimaster, on 10/31/2007, -8/+19"The press seems to do everything it can to avoid campaign substance. Instead, it covers haircuts, laughs, cleavage, cats, and accents"- What the hell is wrong with cleavage ??
    • nonstop87, on 10/31/2007, -6/+29If its Hilary Clinton's many things.
    • monsterofNone, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2there's nothing wrong with cleavage at all.
    • wrongonce, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Cleavage, cats and accents was one of my favorite folk tunes.
  • sadsadrobot, on 10/31/2007, -25/+4Someone summarize the article... I'm interested, but not enough to read all those words.
    • ssn697, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9Steven salutes you!
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/31/2007, -0/+13Colbert would be proud. Honestly.
    • Narcowski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1That was the longest serious tl;dr I've ever seen.
  • JasonCox, on 11/02/2007, -9/+125Guliani = Bush on steroids
    Hillary = Bush in a dress
    Colbert = Electable
    • Identity4, on 11/01/2007, -3/+59Guliani = Bush in a dress
      Hillary = Bush in a dress
      Colbert = Truthiness :)
      • seventoes, on 10/31/2007, -2/+26Guliani = 9/11
        Hillary = Waffle
        Colbert = Majestic Eagle
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/31/2007, -16/+2and then ALONG COMES A BEAR! ZOMG ROFLZ
          • jjb123, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8You killed it.
          • Nekronaut, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1The Bear?!?! Thank god...i was getting scared for a second.
    • Detritus, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Exactly. Although the people who are making criticisms claim to be "fans", how can they possibly claim to "get it" when they're advocating just letting the fascist parties have their little waltz? Colbert coming along two-stepping all over their toes adds levity to what is shaping up to be a very sad election.
  • IDIGTHEDIGG, on 11/01/2007, -2/+12Colbert president in 08!!
  • thedarkrabbit, on 11/02/2007, -2/+16That was one very long article...
    • adambadam, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Wait, so Colbert isn't really running LOL
    • bonedead, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Yeah good thing I didn't read it, I might have learned something.
  • aburd, on 11/01/2007, -6/+13That was horrible. The guy thinks we don't need to distract from the asshats running in both primaries? The stakes are just too high to laugh a bit a long the way? And the irony of comparing the press to the fat kid no one likes when they are arguing for less laughs! This is just sad.

    Remember when Media Matters used to just point out when the talk-radio blowhards were lying? Those were the good old days...
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4Homie, the author wasn't criticizing Stephen T. Colbert. He was criticizing the media.
      • aburd, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Homie... I think he was doing both:

        "Both feared that Colbert would be an unnecessary distraction. Agreed. But the Colbert candidacy becomes a distraction only if the press allows it to. And the sad fact is the press already has allowed it to, because the press literally drives itself to distraction on the campaign trail. "
        • kublerross, on 10/31/2007, -0/+9a distraction from what? from electing one of 2 corporate clones who differ on only the most superficial of issues?
        • Sutanreyu, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1War is superficial?
  • monsterofNone, on 11/01/2007, -5/+50i think we ought to use colbert as a test of reasonableness. if a candidate can't do better than a comedian... he ought to bow out. if you're placing below a comedian... you're the joke.
    • strOphe, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6That's really the complete wrong way to take this. If the media cannot portray your qualifications in any reasonable light such that you obviously outweigh this so-called "joke candidate" it is those media sources which should bow out, for succumbing to the lowest-common-denominator tactics that make a "joke candidate" more compelling than a real one.
      • bizchris, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Wish I could Digg you up again and again. Along similar lines, what combination would be most likely to sell the most newspapers/get the most eyes? A Clinton/Giuliani rivalry. The most pure news on each candidate isn't what they're going for.
    • Shatzi, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5Hear! Hear!
    • NimbleRabit, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I think Colbert could be an interesting way to test the argument against true democracy that the people are unfit to choose, and they can succumb to candidates that have no business being president.
      • monsterofNone, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2"the people are unfit to choose"
        who would be fit to choose the kangaroos? what are the alternatives? democracy is the foramilzation of the fact that people always choose their leadership... either by vote or by acquiescence,
        • monsterofNone, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1that should be
          who would be fit to choose? the kangaroos?
          i don't know who would be fit to choose the kangaroos... but i'd bet an australian zoologist would be a good start.
          punctuation. it matters.
        • NimbleRabit, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The Electoral College would be, apparently. That's one of the primary arguments for it at least.
      • isellmacs, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0@NimbleRabit

        I think we already tested that argument in 2000 and again in 2004. I honestly think that Colbert would do a better job than the majority of canidates in this election, not that that is really saying much.
    • alpinweiss88, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul supporters wouldn't agree with you, because he would surely place below Colbert.
      • isellmacs, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0I support Ron Paul as he seems like he's actually got the integrity to not ***** the country for his own profit. I would support Colbert in the same way.

        Lets face it, our election process is already a joke. Most people just don't realize who the joke is on.

        We may already be passed the point of no return, but I would prefer any honest citizen in office as opposed to yet another corporate shill like most of the canidates on both sides.

        Sanity '08!
  • nwoantibody, on 11/01/2007, -17/+6Wow, Press is truly wonderful at pointing out dumb ***** and jokes of no importance while the country's collapsing.
    But Ron Paul who's proposing solutions gets censored. Sounds like everything is well in the land of broken dreams.
    • Totalchaos02, on 10/31/2007, -7/+21Not everything is about Ron Paul, please shut the ***** up.
    • supremebeing18, on 10/31/2007, -6/+7Ron Paul sucks. He is starting to get a lot of support from anti-war Democrats just because he is anti-war, but most people don't even know his other policies (which are terrible).
      • Shatzi, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3You are right. People need to read the whole book. Not just the cover.
        • chsbrgr, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1People won't go near that book, his overzealous followers have gone an' splooged all the pages together.
    • robphillips, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul: Republican Texan
      Bush: Republican Texan
      Both: Have steep promises before inauguration to get votes. Which is a practice amongst most politicians to promise things just to get elected.
      Both: Pretend to actually be Texan
      How come no one is seeing these connections?! Ron Paul would just be the new Bush.. ***** sake.
      • BrownBoognish, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3don't ***** sake, I like sake.
    • Tenbatsu404, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Your logic is seriously flawed.
    • pawnzRus, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Ron Paul's "solutions" are to privatize everything, which means handing more money/power over to the rich/elite. Sorry, the majority of us like the few things we still have.
  • justelite, on 11/01/2007, -2/+15Run, Colbert Run
  • cmpshotty, on 10/31/2007, -2/+24The response to Colbert is exactly the problem that candidates like Ron Paul and Kucinich face. It reeks of the media and political elitism that anoints candidates long before any vote casting has actually been cast. The tone of the article and some of the quotes from other media figures shows this, there are more important things to focus on. The focus on real candidates, those that are actually electable. So in turn they choose to ignore the Ron Pauls, Kucinich's and the Colberts out there, they will decide who can be elected, not you the voter. But them.
    • abcdigg, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4From the beginning, Time magazine has consistently excluded Kucinich in their campaign coverage.
      Clinton, Giuliani and Edwards become front runners because media outlets like Time magazine cover them as though they are front runners .. it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • GameMogul, on 10/31/2007, -5/+7All the other candidates suck... I wouldn't vote for a single one from any side. Therefore, vote Colbert! I'd put him as a write-in.
    • supremebeing18, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You must be pretty diverse in your opinions.
      • macweirdo42, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not really... I mean, we've got a field of liars and douchebags... Not really different than any other presidential election, I realize, but this time we actually have a choice.
  • TheBigPoppaJW, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1that was long...
  • Laughto, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6Huge fan of Colbert, was influenced to buy the book by the media hype of his campaign (specifically the 'meet the press' book promo/interview), but have to say I think this article gets it absolutely right.
  • A242, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6I was following the article and I understood his point, then he quoted a blog as a source to support his article. That was the point I stopped reading. Honestly, as cmpshotty said, the media chooses who out of the candidates we the people should vote for on both sides. Voting in this country is *****. And I know my vote doesn't count, especially living in a state whose votes are decided before the polls close in my area. With that said, I will vote for Colbert if I get the chance.
    • bizchris, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1"then he quoted a blog" - so, you would instead rather he quoted the media, despite your feeling that "the media chooses who out of the candidates we the people should vote for on both sides"? Not sure your logic holds up.
  • charlie55, on 10/31/2007, -7/+2the joke isnt on the media. they are the ones getting rich. the joke is on you idiots who watch the media or colbert. you should be beyond both. obviously the mainstream media is terrible. get over it and forget about it.
  • elect222, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8Wrist Strong
  • adminmatt, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3"Think of the political press corps as that fat kid from Willy Wonka &The Chocolate Factory, Augustus Gloop, and the Colbert candidacy as Wonka's river of chocolate."

    worst.analogy.ever
  • antiorblkflag9, on 10/31/2007, -1/+19"Gravel (we hope)" ?

    Why the hell do they have a problem with Gravel?
    • Shatzi, on 10/31/2007, -1/+12I agree. I think he makes people nervous because he's so much on point.
  • sadenshi, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Dugg understudy for an elucidating moment. Scrabulous, anyone?
  • topace3000, on 10/31/2007, -0/+12I found this article to be ironic.
    • orthodoxDrew, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1yeah, but he works for an organization that analyzes corporate media.
  • cambrown99, on 10/31/2007, -0/+12News isn't news. It's entertainment to sell commercial time. Odd that the entertainment that mocks the news (and now the presidential campaign) is more reliable for delivering news. http://www.cafepress.com/colbert08hq
    • charlie55, on 11/01/2007, -5/+1if i had a dime for every time i heard some ***** say "the fake news is better than the real news'. i know. the news sucks. is this some revelation to you people. virtually all news sources are terrible and only by putting together bits and pieces of multiple sources can you come close to getting things accurate. it is the nature of news. we act like this is something we just ***** discovered! colbert and stewart are stating the obvious and we act like they are geniuses for it?
      • kurttrail, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Comic Geniuses!

        The MSM is just part of the corporate cabal that has bought and paid for both Republicans & Democrats.

        We the People have the choice between a ***** sandwich and a giant douche, both of whom will be more beholden to corporations than We the People.

        Wake up America! We are no longer a country of the People, by the People, for the People!

        Vote "None of the Above!" '08!
        • charlie55, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1dont worry, you do not have convince young people to not vote. they never vote.
  • strOphe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+10"But the Colbert candidacy becomes a distraction only if the press allows it to. And the sad fact is the press already has allowed it to, because the press literally drives itself to distraction on the campaign trail. That's not an unfortunate side effect of the process. That's the goal."

    This needs to be said, and perhaps shouted from the mountaintops.
    • CorporateSlave, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1but no one can hear you from all the way up there, strOphe.
  • HanSolo69, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4It's not like anything is going to get done during the next presidential term no matter who wins. Colbert might as well go for it.
  • Bahimiron, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7I donno. I'd be far more apt to vote Colbert if he was sponsored by Cool Ranch Doritos rather than Nacho Cheese.
  • Suaves2102, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5How is Colbert not a serious candidate? From the satire on his show it would appear he knows exactly how crap should be handled, something the other candidates can't claim.
    • charlie55, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1he isnt a serious candidate because he isnt. he doesnt mean to be, are you a child? it is a joke candidacy!
  • andy80586, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Looks fine by me.. with any luck he will become one of the mainstream's "top-tier" candidates and siphon off some of the sheep from Hillary/Giuliani, thereby giving better candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich more of a chance to come up in the polls. If Colbert keeps this up, we might actually see the end of this retarded war somewhat soon.
  • Shatzi, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1What does Robin Williams have to say about all of this?
    • kurttrail, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3A lot. Most of which you cannot follow unless you are high on coke or meth.
  • supermanred, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2***** running Republican or Democrat, if he runs independant, he just might make a dent.
    • CorporateSlave, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5are you f***ing kidding me? no one pays attention to third parties in America. Our politics don't work like they do in Europe. You know, they got five main political parties all across the political spectrum and they each get equal funding and media attention. since we don't have that sort of system, all independent candidates are royally f***ed.
      • NimbleRabit, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Independents can't win, but they can indeed make "dents". In fact Independent candidates can sometimes be the deciding factor in which of the two "main" parties wins.
        • chsbrgr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2If an Independent candidate is strong among the Republican base it may dilute the vote enough for a Democrat advantage (and vice versa). 'Divide and conquer' as they say, many Dems like to see somone like RP having a strong effect on the Repub base. Oh yeah almost forgot - GO RON PAUL HAVE MAH BABIES!!!!one1!
  • JenThomas, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I Digg it. But dude needs to lighten up. Diane Sawyer said that "if [Colbert] keeps gaining at the rate he's gaining, by the end of November he could be the leading candidate" in good fun. I doubt she knew her comments would be taken literally, dissected and put into historical context. It's Good Morning America, not The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
    • charlie55, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2right, i dont think some of these people are aware that this isnt a real campaign.
  • damorend, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0The guy doesn't understand how the margin of error works.
    • Iamthechamp, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Yeah, he totally confused me with the way he stated that part. It didn't make any sense at all.
  • maggotsan, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Because Colbert isn't a politician yet makes him the only candidate worth voting for in my opinion. A multitude of reasons from my perspective would make him a good candidate but the one that I tell others is that he's the only one that even comes close to garnering any semblance of my trust. Too bad he's not really running. I doubt he would be allowed to succeed anyway. Colbert 08
  • salamibreath, on 10/31/2007, -10/+0I'm tired of Colbert's shopworn psuedo O'Reilly schtick. Its not funny anymore. Used to be when it was first on: 'hee hee, look at the flying eagle and the red and blue Faux colors, hee hee.'

    Now its just retreads.

    He also comes across as a prickish snob. Tom Green or Andy Dick or even Johnny 2 Time need to show up on his show and pretend to be republicans pretending to be him pretending to be a republican.

    The whole 9 fukin yards is tired.
    • SPARTACVS, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5I'm tired of you being a ***** douche.
      • golgotha, on 10/31/2007, -5/+0Glad to see that not only I think Colbert's entire concept is very tired.

        However, Colbert would appeal to me, if I was 15 years old.
  • Richandler, on 10/31/2007, -1/+17If the presidency was a serious issue to anyone Clinton and Giuliani would not be the front runners.
    • AntBing, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2The presidency IS a serious issue to the people who have the most at stake...corporations. Which is exactly why Clinton and Giuliani are front runner. The corporations make sure to donate to the candidate that will continue to help corporate America while ***** the average joe.
  • ujin1970, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Does this mess helps the left or the right? What is Colbert's agenda?
    I put this on skewz.com were we can all skew it to show where we think it falls on the political scale.
    http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/2182
  • juniorop, on 10/31/2007, -0/+11In 1964, during the Cold War, an anti-nuclear film was created. The director felt that the best way to explain to the world the seriousness of the situation was to turn it into an absurd comedy. The director was Stanley Kubrik and the film was Dr. Strangelove. Is Colbert moving towards something similar? A biting satire of our current political situation for display on the media stage? I sure hope so, otherwise it is just for ratings and a Doritos sponsorship...
  • SD70MACMAN, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Maybe if the issues were actually interesting, then people would give a *****. Personally, I'm sick and ***** tired of hearing about Iraq and terrorism. Yes, they're big issues, but theres more to electing a leader than that. Colbert (along w/ Obama, Kucinich, Paul, et al) forces the *sigh* main candidates to deviate from their warpaths of ***** and talk about something else.

    Hell, I'm more concerned with masturbating than the Iraq war. Iraq has turned into a ***** mess.
    • kurttrail, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The Iraq war was won long ago. What we have lost is the Iraqi occupation.
  • sloppychris, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3The press is what we allow it to be. If we continue buying their crap they're going to keep hawking it on the side of the road.
  • rupertmorris, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8FTA: "...There's a $46 billion war going on..."

    Uh, no. There's a $455 billion war going on, with no end in sight.
  • NimbleRabit, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The person who wrote this story tries to be entertaining as well. Sure he's giving us facts too, but perhaps he should take a step back and realize the article is insanely redundant and long winded in a (futile) attempt to be entertaining instead of just delivering the facts.
  • bluepepper, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6The article criticizes Colbert's candidacy because it makes politics and journalism less serious than they should be, according to the author. I think he's got it completely backwards!
    Colbert is pretending to be running? Like the others aren't? Some seem to be genuinely sincere in their ideals, like Paul, Gravel and maybe others. But the big shots are puppies of various lobbies, they lie and compromise to be politically correct. They're all pretending. That's sadly the only way to have a chance at winning.
    Colbert is making the press avoid the important issues? Like what, Paris Hilton? The press didn't wait for Colbert to stop addressing the important issues. The news industry has become an entertainment industry. People are fed with the info they want rather than the info they need or deserve. Isn't it an ironic sign of the times that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are actually more credible news shows than other "real" news shows?
    It's precisely because politics are a gigantic fraud, and because the news shows aren't news shows anymore, it's precisely for these reasons that Colbert's candidacy is oh so very necessary. I wouldn't want him as the US president, and neither would he, but his pointing of the pitfalls of the current system, under the cover of parody, is actually a very real political action and not only a joke.
    • allahuakbar, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Right on - it's not just in fun like the author tries to say. It's a very useful commentary on the current crap system that passes off as politics nowadays. Colbert is very smart, he's making a point with his running, and a lot of older people especially don't realize that.
    • pawnzRus, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0BINGO!!! On the nose!!! And how many people are actually seeing what is right in front of their noses? Hopefully ALOT more than the impressions I'm getting. I'm still seeing a bunch of people with us vs. them syndrome and not enough people seem to understand that we're all in the same boat. If you vote for one to get back at the other, you'll sink us all.
      If more people voted on the ISSUES instead of the candidates that raise the most money, boom, right then we'd have more choices than the same 2 parties year after SINCE THE CIVIL WAR! If Republicans believed in the issues that they say they are, they would become Reformists, Neoconservatives, Constitution Party and Libertarians. If Democrats believed in what they say, they would become Reformists, Socialists and Green party and there's still room left over for Independents too.
      The largest class of people in this country that gets the least amount of representation is the working class. If for whatever reason you are incapable of voting on the issues, instead of the candidate, then you should vote for the candidates that have the LEAST amount of campaign funding as these ARE the people most qualified to represent the working class.
      If someone has to be a professional bum to get elected and you wonder why they still act like a bum after elected, quit voting for the bums.
  • yunus, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4The author saying its time for candidates like Gravel, Kucindich to get out of the way and let the big names get the attention is crazy. Thats the reason that no third party candidate will ever have a chance. If the media only focuses on the top 2 candidates in the top 2 parties the mold will never be broken because no one will know the name of anyone else.
  • uselessexpert, on 10/31/2007, -4/+3***** MEDIA MATTERS!
  • multitude, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2The article gives too much credit to the autonomy of those working in media. Really, because of the dependence on increasing profits, the structure of the media is such that real change is impossible. In other words, the problem with the article is that it focuses on "problematic personalities" of individual authors, instead of looking at how our society has changed. The real problem is the disappearance of the public sphere for debate, which has been caused primarily by the corporatization of our culture. Colbert is a serious force in politics, partially because he plays into the trivialization of news by media as the author mentions, but primarily because he makes us focus on how politics is a theatre of the absurd (as the author also mentions). Where we need to go beyond the article is in recognizing that this "theatre of the absurd" in the political arena of our society didn't just emerge because of dumb journalists. They are an effect, not the primary cause. If the campaign of Colbert gets this across to the apathetic public, I say, "Go Colbert '08!"
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1What people really need to be looking at is this http://digg.com/political_opinion/Declaration_of_W ...
    This is the Radicalized Homegrown Terrorist Act. They're going to start coming after us. This bill defines anyone who apposes the government as a terrorist.

    You need to read the bill on http://www.dailykos.com/ or go to govtrack.us This has passed Congress, and it's before the Senate right now.

    We need to call our Senators and our local Radio stations. People need to know. You can use Congres.org to find who your Senators are.
  • shauncorleone, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2This article points out the big problem with its own suggestion that the so-called "lower-tier" candidates drop out. The media is part of the problem with limiting feasible options during primary season. They turn the top 2 or 3 candidates into veritable rock stars and saves those candidates from going to the trouble to actually addressing issues. Aside from her ludicrous "free" money proposals ($5000 to every newborn child, $1000 to every American to invest in retirement, etc) what do you know about Clinton? I personally have to sift through tons of information online simply to decide my preference for the Republican Primary. It's media coverage that helps the rock star candidates garner more campaign contributions and leaves viable, often more qualified candidates behind in the dust.
    I can tell you one thing: I'm much more likely to initially prefer a former-governor as a Presidential candidate rather than a member of the House or Senate just for sheer leadership experience, but how many of those types have a semi-realistic shot in either major party? Right, just one.
  • cakeychan, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Google Ron Paul
    • pawnzRus, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Then follow with a quick Google of Privatization...
      Then think to yourself; "Hmmm, do I really want give more money/power to the corporations?"
      If you answer yes, then I'm sorry to hear about your lobotomy
      If you say no, then vote 3rd party...please please please people...for once in your lives, vote for something different...for a CHANGE!
  • ronaldinho, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Our media is a ***** mess.......let's just not vote for Giuliani and Clinton just to spite them. And neither candidate impressed me at all either on their political platform, more importantly. I really like Gravel and Kucinich, but often times, the candidates who make an awful lot of sense are the ones left out. The US is really messed up in that regard.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.