Talk:The Colbert Report
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Colbert Report article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|The Colbert Report was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|The Colbert Report was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Presented as non-satirical journalism
- 2 Satirizing O' Reilly
- 3 Contact
- 4 Philanthropy, Support of the Military, etc.
- 5 Anonymous hack
- 6 Colbert Movie?
- 7 Introduction
- 8 Super PAC?
- 9 Show cancelled for rest of the week. (16-02-2012)
- 10 The Banquet
- 11 Superb Owl
- 12 2014 Twitter Controversy Mention?
- 13 Colbert Report#Other honors: off topic , redundant section
- 14 Massive re-write
- 15 Joe Antonetti
Presented as non-satirical journalism
perhaps something should also be added concerning the study done at ohio state university?
shows how conservatives don't "get" the satire.
original study here:
- Yea, I might be able to add it later. And usually the "targets" of satire often miss the real point and everyone else can laugh at them. Deserted Cities 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- yes, i know lots of times the targets remain unaware. just thought it would be a relevant addition to the article. i originally glanced across a blurb in a time magazine graphic that mentioned this phenomenon many months ago, but was unaware there was an actual academic study done on this, with test subjects and all. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Satirizing O' Reilly
I know there's a section on how The O' Reilly Factor influenced Colbert's show, but what about the fact that Colbert keeps ribbing and satirizing O' Reilly for things like his primitive scientific views ("Tide comes in. Tides goes out. Never a missed communication.")? On a show just last week he says something like, "You are like St. Augustine in that your scientific views are also from the 13th century." He does this throughout the series.
So the question is, should there be a paragraph added to the section on The O' Reilly Factor or perhaps a new section added on how Colbert often subtly criticizes many of those he claims to admire? Sarah Palin is another glaring example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmond Dantes (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently, The Colbert Report used this photo from Commons. If anyone knows how I may contact the show directly regarding that, please send me a message through my user email. Jonathunder (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Philanthropy, Support of the Military, etc.
Colbert has gone beyond the customary simple limits in his support of the military and other charities, but individual examples are only mentioned in passing. He has done enough that his *real* work in raising money, support, and public knowledge of these topics should be acknowledged with it's own section showing the trend over time. He does all this even under the guise of his character, and he continues to do so, and it is not merely a passing joke he uses on the show but rather an admirable result that he manages to work into his character and humor routines even while making a real difference. His repeated support of military personnel, whether you support the military itself or not, is itself a noteworthy topic and is not even mentioned in the article. I personally lack the ability to write such a section, and don't have the time to argue all the subtle points such as is going on in the topics below, so I will just leave this note and hope someone else agrees and is able to take up the task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Should there be something here about the recent event in which some frames from the Colbert Report were supposedly hacked by the group known as Anonymous to superimpose a Guy Fawkes mask over Colbert's face? Master z0b (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not until we figure out what -really- happened. For all we know, Colbert could have had his people fake the image himself for the sake of a joke. Lots42 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The section on the Colbert movie provides no links to sources and I could find know mention of it on a quick google search. Can we check its authenticity or delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I also did some research but i did more than just a "quick google search" and I found some good resources about this movie. I also found out that Rob Reiner is directing the film, and I think this should be added to the article.23:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Anonymous 6:32 P.M. July 3, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
Seeing as we all know that this is a satirical TV Show, shouldn't we also know that the name of the show is *not* "the Colbert Report (pronounced /koʊlˈbɛər rəˈpɔr/ kohl-bair rə-por – the t is silent in both "Colbert" and "Report?"" This is simply a spoof. Stephen Colbert is using a false french pronunciation of report to humorously and egotistically rhyme with his french heritage name. I vote that we change it to reflect that. Bendgoman (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you want to remove that information about the pronunciation? When it's accurate and legitimate? Here's a conuter-idea: how about you find a source discussing how the pronunciation is a spoof and we include a comment about that in the body of the article? DP76764 (Talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This is how you pronounce Report. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report Click on the little button with a speaker symbol. Here is a NY times article on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/arts/television/04come.html?ex=1272859200&en=6c08458b36d1de64&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Bendgoman (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is another article about the pronunciation. From Northwestern University. http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/winter2010/feature/the-real-stephen-colbert.html Bendgoman (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- The NYT article might help for clarifying that the pronunciation is satire, but we'd need another source to get a little more specific. They don't say flat out that it's a satire but they note the pronunciation is different than the norm. As I said though, we still need a source specifying the pronunciation as satire. It may seem obvious to many of us who watch the show, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Millahnna (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well we can clean up the satire later and either remove the artificial pronunciation or clarify that it is deliberate. Because it is colloquially known as "repore" when it is legally and linguistically Report Bendgoman (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that NYT article should be good for clarifying that the pronunciation is deliberate. That's a good word choice; "deliberately mispronounced (pronunciation key with screwy phonetic symbols)" or some such. We DO mention already, however, the intentional mispronunciation several times in the article in various contexts. I'm not certain that it needs more clarification on that point. Unless you feel like we should note that in the lead? I don't feel like it's really critical enough a point -- in the overall scheme of our coverage of the show at large -- to warrant summarizing in the lead. But I guess an argument could be made that it could be a point of confusion to someone reading about but not actually familiar with the show. Millahnna (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would say there's no question that it's deliberately mispronounced, as the French word is "rapport" anyway. But that still doesn't mean it's not the real name of the show (since the whole thing is satire anyway). I figured it was just a play on the host character's dim-wittedness.
As per this edit conflict, I wanted to try to discuss this and maybe establish some consensus one way or the other. Per WP:SEEALSO, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." This certainly seems to fit this criteria, as it is tied in with the show to some degree, as demonstrated in the source seen in the diff ("Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow may be a running gag on “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central...") Is there any other reason I'm not aware of as to why this shouldn't be included in the article? - SudoGhost 07:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it should be listed, as (at the least the anon) only provided evidence that it was associated with the actual Colbert, not with the the fictional Colbert. Hence the connection chain:
- The Colbert Report → [[Stephen Colbert (character) → Stephen Colbert → Colbert super PAC. But, if you say there are sources that it's a running gag on the show, it's marginally appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Show cancelled for rest of the week. (16-02-2012)
"Stephen Colbert has suspended taping of The Colbert Report for the rest of the week. Viewers expecting a new episode of The Colbert Report last night were disappointed to turn on a re-run instead, and audience members had been sent an email earlier in the day reading, “Due to unforeseen circumstances, we have canceled our taping for the date of your ticket reservation, Feb. 15, 2012. We are very sorry for any inconvenience.”
Not sure if it should be included in the article now. It's something to watch out for. Also someone edited the article to suggest that Stephen had died. Watch out for such vandalism. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- per WP:NOTNEWS we don't list breaking events or speculate on what it might mean. not until it becomes a major event, at least. if this is a non-event, it'll be forgotten in a week. DP76764 (Talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I came here to see if there was any clarification... (Yeah, NOTNEWS, but WP is often faster than the news). HuffPo says his mom is sick. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/colbert-report-suspends-production_n_1280913.html#11_colberts-mother-seriously-ill-report-sources-close-to-the-show Ronabop (talk)
2014 Twitter Controversy Mention?
Shouldn't there be a mention of the recent twitter controversy that originated from this show? I believe it has attracted enough attention from media outlets as well as a high trending topic #cancelcolbert, to justify at least a small mention on the page. Thehack771 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Colbert Report#Other honors: off topic , redundant section
The section Colbert Report#Other honors is predominantly about honors bestowed to Stephen Colbert, not to the show, nor Stephen Colbert (character), and much of the material is already covered in greater depth in Stephen Colbert#Awards and honors, where it properly belongs. Thus, I believe the section in this article largely strays off-topic for an article about a television show, and should be judiciously trimmed, with any notable, non-redundant content instead being incorporated under Stephen Colbert#Awards and honors. Importantly, any content mentioning what Colbert said on his show (e.g. "Colbert announced on February 5, 2009..." should be supported or balanced by reliable secondary sources to clearly differentiate reality from comedic fiction. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Colbert, but it seems this page hasn't seen much updating since 2008. The page goes way into unnecessary detail; was the "Green Screen Challenge" that important to the show's overall run? Do readers need to know two and a half paragraphs on Colbert's broken wrist and fictional addiction? Does Colbert accessing control of a Twitter account warrant a mention in the lead when his co-hosting of a rally that attracted hundreds of thousands of people is mentioned nowhere in the article?
As the show is preparing to head off the air, I'm revising the page considerably in all areas, which include, in order:
- Background: This section primarily summarizes the show's origins and run. Like a Cliff Notes version of the page that is a little more detailed than the lead, before we jump into more detail-heavy areas.
- Production: This section is split into three areas:
- Development: As the page's previous incarnation lacks any information on how the show got on the air or even how the character was created, I've given this its own section.
- Writing: This functions both as a summary of the show's writing style and an average day of production, gathered from various places.
- set: Self-explanatory.
- Format: Info on the show structure. Currently all unsourced info, but I'm working to improve that.
- Character: The previous page had a very well-composed section on the fictional "Stephen" character, albeit one I felt ran a little long and/or had information misplaced. I'm cleaning it up, using elements from the previous incarnation of the page and new sources.
- Themes: New section, detailing analysis on the show's tone and themes. Such sections are commonplace in other television-related articles (see The Simpsons, The Wire) and I've decided to add one here.
- Notable episodes: Instead of going on for three paragraphs on the Green Screen Battle, let's skim over that here. This section includes small details on noteworthy moments in the show's run.
- Critical response: More substantial information on critical reviews throughout the show's run.
- Ratings: Self-explanatory.
- Controversy: The show has had its fair share of controversy, so I've included some info on that here.
- Cultural impact
Can anyone provide a reliable source for this guy? In 2012 an anon user added his name to the page (here), and recently his name was removed by a different anon, then restored by another anon. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)