Creative Destruction

May 11, 2006

And speaking of Stephen Colbert…

Filed under: Politics — bazzer @ 10:21 am

Speaking of Stephen Colbert and related items, I am outraged that the press is ignoring this web-circulated animation of Bush falling through bubbles. The creator of this brilliant and important political parody is speaking truth to power, and the fact that the New York Times didn't lead with this story today proves that the mainstream media is in this administration's pocket.

Make sure you share this animation with all your friends. Make sure you blog about it and download it furiously, and obsess about it giddily for weeks on end. And then send its creator flowers and "thank you!" messages. He is like Jesus.

And for those of you who don't find the animation particularly amusing, or think that it's an unoriginal knock-off of another, widely circulated animation that's been around for some time? Well, you're just tools of the administration too, and you suck Bush's ass.

Thank you, that is all.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. The first time I was sent this was back in 2001. It was the face of President Chirac on the same body… The bubbles were a different color.

    Comment by Vilon — May 11, 2006 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  2. Bazzer: And for those of you who don’t find the animation particularly amusing, or think that it’s an unoriginal knock-off of another, widely circulated animation that’s been around for some time? Well, you’re just tools of the administration too, and you suck Bush’s ass.

    I’m glad to see that you allow for a variety of response. According to you, I guess I’m a Bush ass sucker, since I found it only modestly amusing. Vilon already noted that it’s derivative.

    Beyond that, I can’t even say for sure that I understand how it functions as an important political parody. If you used George Clooney’s face instead, or Michael Moore’s, or anyone else’s who has public opinions, I would be just as unclear what it means.

    And if the mainstream media fails to report on it, why is that evidence that it is beholden to the Bush administration? Again, I don’t get it.

    Comment by Brutus — May 12, 2006 @ 1:29 am | Reply

  3. Brutus, old man, re-acquaint yourself with the ancient art of sarcasm and parody. 😉

    Comment by Robert — May 12, 2006 @ 3:22 am | Reply

  4. Brutus, old man, re-acquaint yourself with the ancient art of sarcasm and parody.

    As sarcasm and parody it fails. Nobody has suggested that Colbert’s presentation was newsworthy merely because it was “brilliant and important political parody”. They are saying that it was newsworthy because it brilliant and important political parody which was pitched directly to the president, and other political grandees.

    And they’re right. That is newsworthy, and it’s a measure of the conservative media bias that it hasn’t received coverage.

    Comment by Daran — May 12, 2006 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  5. Welcome to the world of large corporations… You want to know the truth? Can you handle the truth?

    Most large US news outlets no longer create their own feeds, they purchase them from smaller specialized outfits. That way there is only a single microphone, and not a wall of cameras on the back of the event. As a result, what ever channel you turn to, you see the same feed. But here is the beauty of this event.

    There is a little known exception in the US Copyright Act, the presidential image cannot be copyrighted. That means if your little outfit takes images of Steven Colbert and the President, you need to pay each time you air Steven, but showing the president is free. As a result, you just show the president.

    Comment by Vilon — May 12, 2006 @ 10:48 am | Reply

  6. There is a little known exception in the US Copyright Act, the presidential image cannot be copyrighted.

    Really? That’s news to me, and frankly sounds like baloney. Feel free to prove me wrong with an authoritative cite.

    That means if your little outfit takes images of Steven Colbert and the President, you need to pay each time you air Steven, but showing the president is free. As a result, you just show the president.

    That’s not how copyright works. If you take someone’s photo, then you own the copyright on that picture. You don’t have to pay anyone else. Other people have to pay you if they want to use it.

    Comment by Daran — May 13, 2006 @ 1:23 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: