Colbert did a Colbert Report the other night, including a satire of Dan Snyder's Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. As part of the show, Colbert introduced his own "charitable organization", Ching Chong Ding Dong's Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.

You can view the show here:
http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/614237#i0,p8,d0

The Colbert Report twitter account tweeted on the "Foundation", which resulted in a major backlash, headed up by activist Suey Park.

There's an interview on Huffington Post which seems to really stumble ungracefully over the issue here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY


If you want to keep it short, check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTJZKCh7NQ8
I don't like the guy's comments. Cut it at 10:40. But it includes Colbert's clip and the HuffPo interview all in one piece.


I'm really curious what people think on this.

Who is in the wrong? Was Colbert offensive? Was it justified?

A. He was trying to be offensive to underline a point.  "What X is doing is offensive, it's as offensive as [this]."
B. He's just making a point, in my opinion, it's no big deal.  We understood during the show that he was just being purposefully outrageous.  That's kind of the raison d'être of the show.
C. The Twitter account shouldn't have continued the joke.  Shows over, it's done, let it go.
D. The first major person to respond (that journalist) responded poorly.  She said she didn't really want to advocate for the Colbert show to be canceled, she just wanted to make a splash and use that tweet to draw more attention to Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskins.  So she was basically outrageous and provocative to call attention to someone being outrageous and provocative.  She also focused attention on Colbert instead of Snyder, so that sort of backfired.
E. Then people who didn't like Colbert (some "conservative" news outlets, for instance), took the issue and heavily publicized it because now there was an obvious victim that they could point to.

Can we just say that the Colbert show may have made an offensive joke, but that they make all sorts of offensive jokes and lampoon many people?  It's like those comics who make fun of murder, torture, etc., and then people inexplicably get really upset when they make fun of rape.  Hello, there was just a joke about mass genocide that you laughed at but because the show isn't broadcast to Rwandans that's ok to make fun of?

I totally did not get point D. While she did say she campaigned against the Redskins, nothing she said told me "didn't want to get the show cancelled" or her intent with that particular campaign was to actually draw attention to the skins.

She did, toward the end of the interview, say that she had blown the whole thing out of proportion in order to gain some sort of awareness.

I guess I interpreted that as referring to making racist jokes, i.e. she was genuinely upset with Colbert, not with Snyder.

I'm inclined to agree with you she didn't actually want the show cancelled, since some of her tweets demanded an apology, which is a lot more reasonable.

Was Colbert offensive?  Absolutely.  I can't get through his bit without choking back bile, and Colbert does these sort of things on purpose.  He wanted to be offensive, and he did it purposely.  There is no conceivable way this can be viewed as inoffensive.  I was not a big fan of Colbert before this, and I'm even less so now.

Was it justified?  Well, he was trying to make a point; even if I think he did so badly, people have the right to free speech.  I don't think he was "justified" in his choice of language, that implies I approve of it.  However, he did have a right to say what he did.  Offensive speech is still free.

Who is in the wrong?  Honestly, they all kind of are here.  Colbert crossed into new levels of offensiveness; while he has the right to do so, he still should not have gone so far.  The reporter, instead of using it as a platform to build real awareness, turned things into a three-ring circus.  Instead of taking the high ground, she made things even more outrageous.  And then there's the media outlets, who also could have made this into a case for more racial sensitivity in this country.  They should have taken the high ground, not tried to replace Kanye and Kim in the headlines.

Were Asian-Americans upset at Colbert's act?

I don't find anything he did there racist or offensive in the slightest, but I'm also not asian.

I heard an interview with her on NPR yesterday, basically it was what TheMonk said.

If you want to say/do inflammatory things in an attempt to stir up publicity to get your point across, well, you can't be too surprised if it occasionally blows up in your face.  I think this applies both to Colbert and that person who started the #CancelColbert tag, whose name I don't remember at the moment.  If you don't want a show to be canceled, don't start calling for its cancellation.

Stephen Colbert does a pretty good job of usually only making fun of the "bad" people, the people and situations that society (or at least the society that avidly watches his show) have deemed is "ok" to make fun of.  Occasionally he also makes fun of something that some people would rather that he not make fun of, but you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, right?  Did Vladimir Putin and his supporters find the Winter Games bits on the Colbert show to be offensive and demeaning to Russians?  Probably.  That's kind of how the show goes.  Remember when Colbert roasted President Bush at the White House Correspondent's dinner and some of Bush's aides and friends walked out on the dinner because of that?  "But it's ok to make fun of those people because we don't like them."  Really?  That's where you're going with this?  No, it's not ok to make fun of people just because you don't like them, that's mean spirited.  No, we can have some fun making fun of ourselves, of things we'd like to change, of things we acknowledge that we wish were different, of how people portray themselves and how people are perceived as being portrayed, you don't just pick and choose and only make fun of those things you really don't like.  I think Colbert does a pretty good job of roasting people equally enough, of not just roasting things that he doesn't like, but things that he likes too.  Am I misremembering him making some jokes about when he went out to perform for the US Armed Forces in, was that Iraq?  I thought he was pretty sincere about that performance.

I don't know, maybe I'm not clarifying my thoughts well enough.  What do you all think about what I'm saying?

Yes.  Some are taking it with a grain of humor, but it's the kind of embarrassed humor you have when someone says "Wow, your English is really good!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWynJkN5HbQ: This is the kind of humor I mean.  You're still offended, but at least you can joke about it, and maybe make a point as well.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:32, Tue 01 Apr 2014.

I find these discussions really hard to know how to deal with because I am a white male who makes good money with the typical 2 kids, a house, 2 cars, a heated garage etc.

So for the most part my opinions are invalidated because 'I just don't get it.' and frankly, that's probably true.

I enjoy his show (I don't watch it frequently though) and love how he uses humour to point out absurdities in real life.  I suppose people may get upset though and I don't know what the proper response should be.

In this case I feel that it was important that the audience be offended by his remarks. If you weren't it wouldn't be good satire. The point was to say that "Original Americans" was just as offensive of a phrase as "Ching Chong Ding Dong" is.

Satire is fine.  Satire is meant to illustrate a problem in society.  Jon Stewart is probably today's master of satire, and while he offends people, he doesn't usually cross the line into offensive humor.

Offensive humor is different.  It's meant to shock and anger people.  Early Dennis Leary, Andrew Dice Clay, these guys made a career out of offending everyone they could.

I don't watch Colbert much (I don't really watch much TV at all), but for the most part, what I've seen is him aiming for Jon Stewart levels of satire, and mostly hitting it.  This time, however, he went way across the line.  This joke was meant to be as insulting and offensive as anything Sam Kinnison could have come up with-- Colbert isn't an idiot, he had to know people would get angry.

That said, there is a place in this world for shock-jocks.  We have the right to free speech in this country, and that includes the right to offend as many people as you like.  Likewise, if someone offends me, I have the right to a lot of responses: turning off his show, petitioning for his cancellation, starting flame wars on the internet-- they're also fair game.  Ultimately, you decide what your response should be, based on how offended you are.  I'm offended enough that I'm probably not going to watch the Colbert Report ever again; but since I never watched it much in the first place, that's kinda a meaningless gesture.

A fair enough opinion.  I really didn't find it offensive, but not surprised some are.

Fixed the other offensive phrase for you. :)

I was wondering if I was behind and 'original Americans' was now considered offensive as well :)

In response to GMC:

I do watch Colbert Report pretty much religiously. That section was the first one I can recall where I felt pretty uncomfortable. However, I also recognized that the intent was specifically for me, the viewer, to say 'wow, this is crazy, HOWEVER he doesn't actually believe this, he's obviously trying to get me to think and talk about this subject, specifically about the Redskins'. And on that point, he's correct; I don't normally give 'Redskins' two thoughts. I grew up with it; it's just part of the culture and the language. But this I thought about (and obviously, am talking about).

I do think Ms. Park was totally over the top. Trying to get him cancelled is ridiculous. If it was a show, I didn't get that because she didn't establish the sort of character that Colbert does (but I also don't follow Park, so we don't have that rapport. Maybe she regularly overstates things and her audience just knows that? I don't know.) However, that doesn't mean her core point is invalidated. Is it wrong to make racial jokes, even in the attempt to address racial issues? I don't know (hence the thread).

I will say, your bringing up the Daily Show surprises me. Colbert presents himself consistently as a caricature (and he lampoons EVERYONE). At his best, he lets his subjects hang themselves by their own words. Stewart presents himself as a serious moral authority, and uses his platform to sling mud at others, without giving them space to defend themselves (excepting his actual, on-stage interviews, where he really does excel). I am REGULARLY offended by Stewart, as he frequently misrepresents or demeans his opponents, while trying to present it as objective fact. When Colbert oversteps, he does it as a clown. Stewart does it as a liar.

Like I said, I don't follow much TV at all, and I've only seen the Colbert Report a few times.  From what I've seen, I think he mostly aims at satire, and mostly hits it, in his own method.  However, this time around, I cannot see any other explanation except that he was going for shock and outrage.  He wanted people to be shocked and outraged, and so in this regard, he's no different than any other shock comic out there.

Now, people have different opinions of shock comics.  Some people really like them, and think they highlight important issues; others hate them and think they're worthless.  Everyone's entitled to their opinion.  But whatever you think of them, Colbert is now joining their ranks.

I don't follow Park either.  That said, she has the right to free speech too; if someone throws a comment meant to shock and anger people, you have the right to throw one right back at them.  I don't know if calling for Colbert's cancellation is the "right" move, but it is her right to do so.

As for your second question-- is it wrong to make racial jokes, even in the attempt to address racial issues-- I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I would say "handle with care".  It's kinda like this: imagine you're protesting a company's illegal toxic waste dumping.  As part of a protest, you could bring some barrels of their toxic waste along, but the risks of things going horribly wrong are huge.

In this case, Colbert didn't handle it right.  I linked to a video earlier of how to do it right; They made light of the issues without stigmatizing or offending a lot of people.


You're also a conservative, and Stewart's targets for skewering are conservatives.  You're more likely to be offended by him.  Rush Limbaugh does the same thing to liberals, except he's less likely to stick to the facts and go for sound bites.

The only difference I see between the video you linked (BTW, thank you for the note. I had totally missed it) and Colbert is, in that video they have a clear fall guy who we know is a caricature, whereas with Colbert, Colbert himself is the fall guy. In the video, it was, well, a little unsophisticated, to the point that anyone can tell it's a silly, one-dimensional caricature, whereas with Colbert he plays his character well enough that people are regularly confused between who is the 'real' Colbert and who is the actor.

Would you agree with that assessment?

If so, is that the issue, how confident the viewers need to be that the speaker is not serious?

Or is it that we see him get his comeuppance (in your video, he got treated exactly how he treats others, Colbert meanwhile gets cheering and fame)? Would it be alright if the Colbert character got somehow 'punished' for his racism?

[quote]You're also a conservative, and Stewart's targets for skewering are conservatives.  You're more likely to be offended by him.  Rush Limbaugh does the same thing to liberals, except he's less likely to stick to the facts and go for sound bites.
</quote>

You're right. Well, I assume you're right :) I've never seen a comedian like Stewart but speaking from the conservative side, so I've never had a chance to test it.

The comparison to Limbaugh or to Bill O'Reilly are good ones. If we took that as an example, I can say that I personally detest both of them more than I get upset with Stewart. I've never listened to more than 30 seconds of Limbaugh. Stewart may be a self-interested, blindered talking head, but at least he's funny.

But then again, Colbert is also liberal. He mostly lampoons conservatives. To take an easy example, Stewart did a three-piece examination of gun control, and Colbert regularly regularly lampoons gun control as well, both supporting increased gun control. I'll be honest, I think gun control is misguided and broken as a concept (in the US). So I disagree with both of them. However, Stewart left me hot around the collar, whereas Colbert I laughed, disagreed, and forgot about it. I think there's something about Colbert's style which makes it more easily dismissed. He doesn't take himself seriously, so why should anyone else?

The differences are, firstly, that the asshole in the video acts out of ignorance.  He's stupid, not cruel.  Second, the comeuppance isn't mean-spirited either; it is responding in kind, but it's doing so with the intent to be humorous, not cruel back.  IMO, that's how Colbert and Park should have handled things: Colbert could have made his point less offensively, and the response could have been less heavy-handed and still made a point.

Well, Stewart does present himself more seriously than Colbert.  And honestly, I can see how Stewart can come across as a pompous ass, he does act pretentious at times.  That said, people take comedians seriously all the time.  Fox News tried to blast Stewart in a televised interview, and his response was mostly: "I do this for laughs, you guys are actually serious!"

Or, if you want to go back a ways, do you remember when Dan Quayle called out the Murphy Brown comedy TV show?  He seriously attacked them for showing a single, unwed woman deciding to become a mother.  Up till then, no one took the humor on Murphy Brown seriously; but when they responded and lampooned Dan Quayle, the VP took a beating over it.  (Admittedly, Dan Quayle's reputation was none to stellar to begin with, but still....)  Murphy Brown wasn't taking itself seriously, but other people were-- and that included the Vice President of the United States.

Forgot to mention something:

The video I linked to has a greater appeal than Colbert's crack.  Every Asian American has been through something like that; people say "Your English is wonderful!"  or "No, really, where are you from?" all the time.  It happens so often, it's a running gag among Asian Americans.  Thus, that joke is appealing, because it's based in a shared experience.

On the other hand, flat-out racist comments, even in jest, don't happen much anymore.  I haven't heard anyone use the term "chink" as a perjorative since the early 80's.  And even then, it was a highly offensive term, even when use jokingly.  Colbert isn't an idiot, he knew that his line was offensive.  He deliberately used it, showing that he's willing to use offensive humor, like a shock jock comic.

But: the response is the video is also the right one.  When a minority is confronted by a racist joke, you're in a hard place.  If you call them on it, they can say "It was just a joke!" and you look like the humorless stuffed shirt.  This is basically what just happened with Park.  If you ignore it, you tacitly support the racism, by letting it happen.  The best response, if you've got a good sense of humor, it to joke right back at them, not just one-upping them, but showing them what they did wrong.  Of course, if you don't have a good sense of humor, that can fall flat.  Personally, I would like to see Margaret Cho turn the tables on Colbert for this one, I think it'd be hilarious and educational.

I heard someone on NPR today get offended that someone had gone up to them and told them how well they spoke, how fluent they were.  Sheesh, I wish someone would come up and tell me that.  Next time I say that to someone, I'm going to have to add some self-referencing remark to emphasize that I'm not saying it to be demeaning, I really do mean it.  It'll be something like,

"Wow, that was great, you're so fluent, you're such a great speaker.  I thought my mom was one of the best speakers I'd heard, but you're hands above better."