Why So Defensive?

"[H]e is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country."

The authors of The Washington Post's gossip column were Live Online yesterday.

Roxanne Roberts: "The fact is that, sitting in the ballroom, Colbert's act just wasn't that funny. The persona he uses so effectively on Comedy Central didn't work nearly as well in a stand up format. There were a few good one liners, but it failed to capture the crowd. It may have played better on television."

Amy Argetsinger: "Here's the thing: This insular world of Beltway journalists ADORES Steve Colbert. That's why you saw so many profiles of the guy as he launched his show, and that's why he was invited to perform at the dinner, duh. So to say that the crowd was offended by him. . . . I don't think so."

Alternative Media: Here's What's Not Funny

Joan Walsh writes in Salon: "This is a battle that can't really be won -- you either got it Saturday night (or Sunday morning, or whenever your life was made a little brighter by viewing Colbert's performance) or you didn't. Personally, I'm enjoying watching apologists for the status quo wear themselves out explaining why Colbert wasn't funny. It's extending the reach of his performance by days without either side breaking character -- the mighty Colbert or the clueless, self-important media elite he was satirizing. For those who think the media shamed itself by rolling over for this administration, especially in the run-up to the Iraq war, Colbert's skit is the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you, Stephen Colbert!"

Former Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "Some in the press understand the peril posed to the First Amendment by an imperial president trying to smother the constitutional system of checks and balances. For those of the Washington press corps who reproved a court jester for his irreverence, the game of status is apparently more urgent than the danger to liberty. But it's no laughing matter."

Woof!

Perfect timing: Eric Boehlert today publishes a lengthy excerpt from his new book, "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush," in Salon: "Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest."

Kill the Dinner?

Rem Rieder writes for the American Journalism Review: "This dinner has been an embarrassment for years. . . .

"The problem is that this black tie underscores the notion that journalists are part of a wealthy elite, completely out of touch with ordinary Americans -- their audience."

Gas Price Watch

Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write for Newsweek: "President Bush has a big problem with high gas prices. Either the public isn't listening to him, or they don't believe what he's saying. . . .

"Bush's aides are convinced that their biggest problem, besides Iraq, is the price of gasoline. . . .

"Their solution: keep talking about it. The favored approach is to lay out a policy and repeatedly place the president in situations -- like alternative-energy labs -- to remind the public about that policy. Bush's aides say there's little they can do to affect prices; all they can do is try to affect public perceptions of the president's performance. 'The public is smart enough to know that we didn't get into this quickly and we're not going to get out of it quickly,' said one senior Bush aide. 'But that doesn't mean we're not trying.'