Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [24]
I’ll tell the Today Show and Good Morning America why congressmen want to come on my show. Because this show is the news. Not only is this show “the news,” evidently it is news. It’s gotta be news, because you morning shows are the news, and you’re doing reports on it. So I guess congressmen come on my show in the hopes that you’ll use their appearance on my show on your show.39
First, Colbert illustrates the trouble with looking only to authorities like the news media to tell you what’s valuable or newsworthy. If all you seek is someone else’s validation, then you reinforce shows that focus exclusively on giving you that validation.
Being analytical would require not just taking statements from authorities at face value, but also asking tough questions of them. Colbert then goes on to say those shows might be right:
COLBERT: I could be asking the wrong questions. I asked U.S. congressmen Lynn Westmoreland, who proposed requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate chambers, if he could name the Ten Commandments. What I should have asked him was this—
NEWSCLIP: Is it possible that tanning is addictive?
NEWSCLIP: How long does it take you to grow that thing?
NEWSCLIP: Do you really need to wait a half hour after you eat to go swimming?
COLBERT: Mea culpa.40
With his mock resignation, Colbert suggests that he’s been bested at asking dumb questions by the regular news shows, whose questions actually make his absurd ones look almost reasonable. The escalation moves further and further away from breaking down arguments, as the typical news shows assume viewers want only questions that ask nothing, and thus demand nothing of your mind. The final irony comes with Colbert’s admitting “Mea culpa” (Latin for “my fault”)—reminding the viewer of how pundits rarely if ever alter their judgments, let alone admit fault.
Anti-Judicious: Giving You the Chance to See Why You’re Wrong
Judicious:
• understanding of the opinions of other people
• fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
• meta-cognitive self-regulation, or self-conscious monitoring and correcting of one’s reasoning
When a guest wants to retire the penny (Colbert’s rejoinder: “Then what am I supposed to use for tipping?”), Colbert banters with him, “I’ll tell you why. You wanna know why? You tell me why and then I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.” Then Colbert smirks and adds under his breath, “I think I should say that at the beginning of every interview” (April 9th, 2008). He begins by pretending to seek a fair-minded exchange, inviting the guest to express his opinion. But then Colbert reveals his deeper interest in asserting his own position rather than actually discussing more than one position with any fairness.
A related revelation came when interviewing former presidential candidate George McGovern:
MCGOVERN: If you will concede that idealists can also be realists, …
COLBERT: I will not concede anything. You’re on the wrong show.41
By not even implying but instead boldly admitting he does not make concessions or attempt to acknowledge the views of others, Colbert asserts his desire to avoid appraising his own reasoning. This directly contradicts the habit of being judicious, which asks us to first try and understand opposing views, and even be able to summarize them ourselves, before we disagree with them.
In an edition of “Formidable Opponent,” Colbert takes on his own alter-ego, portrayed from an opposing camera angle—one Colbert wears a blue tie and tries to convince the other, wearing a red tie, that U.S. troops should remain in Iraq:
COLBERT (BLUE): Building a stable democracy takes time. Let’s say you’re baking a cake. You like cake, right?
COLBERT (RED): Who doesn’t?
COLBERT (BLUE): Terrorists. They hate it. Because in this case, the cake represents democracy.
COLBERT (RED): Mmm, sounds delicious.
COLBERT (BLUE): And you have to wait for the cake of a democratic Middle East to rise.