I straddle the Colbert and South Park age demographics. While I love Stephen Colbert, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are willing to "go there" effectively in a way that Colbert just isn't. Some of that is function of being on broadcast TV, but it's mostly because Colbert is just too subtle and refined (and maybe even kind and decent to the point of being ... effete) to engage in the outrageous, bare-knuckle tactics needed to do a successful Trump take down. I'm looking forward to further outrageous "PSAs" from Stone and Parker--there are 49 more to go, and I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing more from Trump's tiny member.
Yeah, I agree it was an unnecessary hit piece on Colbert. It would be nice if the writers here could try to be transgenerational and unifying rather than stuck in their own cultural bubbles. CBS already has hurt its news operation by hamstringing 60 Minutes a couple months ago. It was in all the papers, or at least whatever few credible papers remain.
I don’t know why a celebration of South Park’s brilliant take down of Trump must be coupled with a hit piece on Colbert that comes straight from the right wing corporate playbook. Colbert is brilliant, brave and extremely popular. He was sacrificed solely to appease the racist felon in chief and that is the story, not a lot of mumbo limbo designed to justify and rationalize this action.
Sonny, you are out of Colbert's demo so it's understandable you prefer South Park. I am in Colbert's wheelhouse (or vice versa?) so I prefer Colbert any day of the week. I've tried but never could appreciate South Park and find it rather vulgar with moments of hilarity. The Trump episode was funny in a sophomoric kind of way and I'm glad I watched, but probably won't catch their follow-on episodes.
Re the "matter of taste": I guess it's an age thing. I much prefer Stephen's ability to snarkily and sardonically speak truth to power. He's funny and intelligent all at the same time. (I'm not 68 though!)
Great article, thanks. Will have to go dig up Dirty Work.
One wonders if perhaps the other secret ingredient for South Park is that they are fighting fire with fire. Like Trump, they are shameless; happy to "go there".
Plenty of pundits suggest that Trump's super power is his shamelessness. No one on the political scene (of significance) is willing to one-up him. Nor late-night comedians; certainly not Colbert. Then this episode of South Park comes along.
It's a really awful race to the bottom, but I'm happy that Stone and Parker are willing to step up. Just as long as they aren't our next president and VP. :-)
YES! Humor of all kinds can also buoy the courage of people who may otherwise be scared to act. It is an equalizer that, at its best, cuts powerful, awful figures like Trump down to the size of the rest of us. He’s just another aging baby boomer worried about the size of his dick. He’s just like every other insecure ass hat bro out there, despite having access to the nuclear launch codes. It’s not going to solve US right wing fascism, but it’s a nice reminder in uncertain times.
Sonny, your review of Colbert sounds like to just read the headlines. I don’t accept your view of the economics of The Late Show with Steven Colbert. Funny that just a few days after Colbert was fired, the deal with its new owners was approved. I also don’t understand why, if television is dying, does anyone want to acquire it?
If there's one thing that Paramount knows cold, it's Hollywood Accounting. I assume that's what the "losses" on The Late Show are until I see the receipts.
Sonny, don't over emphasize demographics. I'm 68, don't watch Colbert, but do watch Kimmel monologues on Youtube. I have, however, been a big fan of South Park since day 1. Though, I suppose I was the right demographic back then. Come to think of it, that may be the secret to their success.
Sonny the whole first half of your article was like being shot several times. I agree with your overall argument on sustainability, but man Stephen Colbert brightens my day with his comedy. I've never cared for metrics. In a business, it matters. South Park raised me so them hitting the note on point was no surprise. They are worth the deal.
The *decision* to cancel the Late Show was almost certainly based on the financials.
The *timing* of the announcement was almost certainly pathetic sucking up to Trump and was shameful. Announce it five months from now. What was the rush? It's not like they were embarking on a year long search to find a new host.
The decision to cancel the Late Show can be *justified* based on the financials. That doesn’t mean that was, in fact, the actual reason or that CBS isn’t using it as a pretext to cover for its actual motives. Highlighting the financials, no matter how accurate they may be, and insisting that they are, in fact, in reason for the first cancellation of a big three broadcast networks’ flagship late night show assumes facts not in evidence and gives the benefit of the doubt to a network that has already given up the right or expectation to that benefit.
Yes, the timing makes it extremely suspect, but so do the developments at 60 minutes, where the long time executive producer resigned in April citing a loss of journalistic independence amidst political interference from corporate leadership, in addition to the lawsuit settlement and the need for approval by Trump’s FCC.
And all of this follows the familiar pattern of the Trump era, which is to argue over Trump’s motives and actions in relation to scandalous activity that gives Trump’s actions and motives unreasonable, unjustified, and uncalled for deference that ignores his own express words and actions, such as the fact that Trump has already been publicly boasting about Colbert’s cancellation and expressly taking credit for it in politically motivated terms, while the only people trying to claim it was a wholly financial decision is CBS themselves.
One mistake that those who accept CBS at their word and provide explanations like this to support them continue to make is to ignore all other important context, such as the fact that the financial decision rationale is not being pushed by anyone other than CBS, and absolutely nobody, on either political side of this, believes them anyway. The timing stinks. Trump is expressly taking credit. His FCC chair is openly boasting about the need to use government power to reign in anti-Trump viewpoints on broadcast television. And influential right wing commentators and talking heads mostly don’t even bother with offering any denials or neutral justifications for CBS’s actions, they go right to why a political motivation was wholly justified and totally the right thing for CBS to do. The only ones outside CBS who are holding to this line are those like Bunch, who tend to ignore that Colbert is the ratings leader on late night, a 30 year show has brand value and is in large part used to cross-promote other media through its guest selection, and CBS could have attempted to cut costs before it chose to become the first network to end its flagship late night program. Its frankly not clear why he bothers with this effort in the face of all the evidence that the motive was, in fact, political.
I really enjoyed your interview with Julia Alexander about Jubilee. I think I watched parts of one of those videos a few months ago. It’s such an interesting concept but rarely do I find anything thoughtful in the “debates.” Julia was spot-on about the deterioration of social media and decadence of society.
Frankly I am worried that Tulsi Gabbard is abusing her office to make claims that former President Obama committed treason, and there is no official condemnation of these baseless claims. She is igniting a firestorm that will end in calamity.
Love your column Sonny. I will forever remember the South Park episode where the major was announced to be ‘polling the electorate”. Comic genius at the highest level! On another note, have you considered the parallels between the Burt Lancaster film “Elmer Gantry” and the current Republican cult/conspiracy adherence to a snake oil salesman? It even had Shirley Jones in a brilliant Oscar winning performance as a prostitute…
I straddle the Colbert and South Park age demographics. While I love Stephen Colbert, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are willing to "go there" effectively in a way that Colbert just isn't. Some of that is function of being on broadcast TV, but it's mostly because Colbert is just too subtle and refined (and maybe even kind and decent to the point of being ... effete) to engage in the outrageous, bare-knuckle tactics needed to do a successful Trump take down. I'm looking forward to further outrageous "PSAs" from Stone and Parker--there are 49 more to go, and I'm pretty sure we'll be hearing more from Trump's tiny member.
Yeah, I agree it was an unnecessary hit piece on Colbert. It would be nice if the writers here could try to be transgenerational and unifying rather than stuck in their own cultural bubbles. CBS already has hurt its news operation by hamstringing 60 Minutes a couple months ago. It was in all the papers, or at least whatever few credible papers remain.
I don’t know why a celebration of South Park’s brilliant take down of Trump must be coupled with a hit piece on Colbert that comes straight from the right wing corporate playbook. Colbert is brilliant, brave and extremely popular. He was sacrificed solely to appease the racist felon in chief and that is the story, not a lot of mumbo limbo designed to justify and rationalize this action.
Sonny, you are out of Colbert's demo so it's understandable you prefer South Park. I am in Colbert's wheelhouse (or vice versa?) so I prefer Colbert any day of the week. I've tried but never could appreciate South Park and find it rather vulgar with moments of hilarity. The Trump episode was funny in a sophomoric kind of way and I'm glad I watched, but probably won't catch their follow-on episodes.
Re the "matter of taste": I guess it's an age thing. I much prefer Stephen's ability to snarkily and sardonically speak truth to power. He's funny and intelligent all at the same time. (I'm not 68 though!)
Great article, thanks. Will have to go dig up Dirty Work.
One wonders if perhaps the other secret ingredient for South Park is that they are fighting fire with fire. Like Trump, they are shameless; happy to "go there".
Plenty of pundits suggest that Trump's super power is his shamelessness. No one on the political scene (of significance) is willing to one-up him. Nor late-night comedians; certainly not Colbert. Then this episode of South Park comes along.
It's a really awful race to the bottom, but I'm happy that Stone and Parker are willing to step up. Just as long as they aren't our next president and VP. :-)
Yeah, one thing I’ve always thought about Trump is that mocking him in the lowest brow way possible is the best way to neuter him. Mockery > fear.
Absolutely. He can’t stand being mocked or humiliated.
YES! Humor of all kinds can also buoy the courage of people who may otherwise be scared to act. It is an equalizer that, at its best, cuts powerful, awful figures like Trump down to the size of the rest of us. He’s just another aging baby boomer worried about the size of his dick. He’s just like every other insecure ass hat bro out there, despite having access to the nuclear launch codes. It’s not going to solve US right wing fascism, but it’s a nice reminder in uncertain times.
Sonny, your review of Colbert sounds like to just read the headlines. I don’t accept your view of the economics of The Late Show with Steven Colbert. Funny that just a few days after Colbert was fired, the deal with its new owners was approved. I also don’t understand why, if television is dying, does anyone want to acquire it?
If there's one thing that Paramount knows cold, it's Hollywood Accounting. I assume that's what the "losses" on The Late Show are until I see the receipts.
Sonny, don't over emphasize demographics. I'm 68, don't watch Colbert, but do watch Kimmel monologues on Youtube. I have, however, been a big fan of South Park since day 1. Though, I suppose I was the right demographic back then. Come to think of it, that may be the secret to their success.
Sonny the whole first half of your article was like being shot several times. I agree with your overall argument on sustainability, but man Stephen Colbert brightens my day with his comedy. I've never cared for metrics. In a business, it matters. South Park raised me so them hitting the note on point was no surprise. They are worth the deal.
The *decision* to cancel the Late Show was almost certainly based on the financials.
The *timing* of the announcement was almost certainly pathetic sucking up to Trump and was shameful. Announce it five months from now. What was the rush? It's not like they were embarking on a year long search to find a new host.
The decision to cancel the Late Show can be *justified* based on the financials. That doesn’t mean that was, in fact, the actual reason or that CBS isn’t using it as a pretext to cover for its actual motives. Highlighting the financials, no matter how accurate they may be, and insisting that they are, in fact, in reason for the first cancellation of a big three broadcast networks’ flagship late night show assumes facts not in evidence and gives the benefit of the doubt to a network that has already given up the right or expectation to that benefit.
Yes, the timing makes it extremely suspect, but so do the developments at 60 minutes, where the long time executive producer resigned in April citing a loss of journalistic independence amidst political interference from corporate leadership, in addition to the lawsuit settlement and the need for approval by Trump’s FCC.
And all of this follows the familiar pattern of the Trump era, which is to argue over Trump’s motives and actions in relation to scandalous activity that gives Trump’s actions and motives unreasonable, unjustified, and uncalled for deference that ignores his own express words and actions, such as the fact that Trump has already been publicly boasting about Colbert’s cancellation and expressly taking credit for it in politically motivated terms, while the only people trying to claim it was a wholly financial decision is CBS themselves.
One mistake that those who accept CBS at their word and provide explanations like this to support them continue to make is to ignore all other important context, such as the fact that the financial decision rationale is not being pushed by anyone other than CBS, and absolutely nobody, on either political side of this, believes them anyway. The timing stinks. Trump is expressly taking credit. His FCC chair is openly boasting about the need to use government power to reign in anti-Trump viewpoints on broadcast television. And influential right wing commentators and talking heads mostly don’t even bother with offering any denials or neutral justifications for CBS’s actions, they go right to why a political motivation was wholly justified and totally the right thing for CBS to do. The only ones outside CBS who are holding to this line are those like Bunch, who tend to ignore that Colbert is the ratings leader on late night, a 30 year show has brand value and is in large part used to cross-promote other media through its guest selection, and CBS could have attempted to cut costs before it chose to become the first network to end its flagship late night program. Its frankly not clear why he bothers with this effort in the face of all the evidence that the motive was, in fact, political.
Well, $1.5 billion for South Park seems to allow some wiggle room on the cost of Colbert.
It was $1.5B but your point is well taken.
Whoops. Thank you
I’ve never seen South Park. Now I can’t wait
I really enjoyed your interview with Julia Alexander about Jubilee. I think I watched parts of one of those videos a few months ago. It’s such an interesting concept but rarely do I find anything thoughtful in the “debates.” Julia was spot-on about the deterioration of social media and decadence of society.
Frankly I am worried that Tulsi Gabbard is abusing her office to make claims that former President Obama committed treason, and there is no official condemnation of these baseless claims. She is igniting a firestorm that will end in calamity.
Where in this Administration would you expect an official condemnation to come from?
Love your column Sonny. I will forever remember the South Park episode where the major was announced to be ‘polling the electorate”. Comic genius at the highest level! On another note, have you considered the parallels between the Burt Lancaster film “Elmer Gantry” and the current Republican cult/conspiracy adherence to a snake oil salesman? It even had Shirley Jones in a brilliant Oscar winning performance as a prostitute…
Trump is said to be furious! Bwah ha ha!
https://globalnews.ca/news/11302878/south-park-donald-trump-satan-white-house/amp/
Maybe the anatomical reference hits too close to home?
No doubt!
It would explain so much about him. Why he is the way he is.