Talk:The Colbert Report

Talk Archive 1 (October 2005 - February 2006)

Fighting districts

I'm reasonably sure that for every congressional district piece, the district is referred to as the "fighting X", e.g. Colorado's second district, "the fighting second". Anyone else noticed this? And if it's true, could it be put in the congressional districts segment?--PIngp0NG 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am also somewhat certain that he refers to the districts as "fightin'" districts. i cannot speak positively on whether or not he has done it since the first, however.

Yes he's done it for every single one. Comedy gold. --149.167.134.107 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also called Ben Franklin "Battlin' Ben" in the Better Know a Founding Father segment. If I recall correctly. --JGGardiner 07:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert on Wikipedia?

This is already mentioned in the truthiness article. Is this section really necessary? 70.225.231.57 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - Nevermind, edited out 70.225.231.57 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content

After Ash Wednesday's show, perhaps it's time to add a section specifically on Colbert's spirituality. He frequently mentions that he is a practicing Catholic in interviews, does segments on religion, and hosts religious guests (not all of whom are Christian). Is this all that different from Jon Stewart's frequent references to Judaism? To me, those reference seem more ethnic than religious. At the very least, Colbert's easy invocations of Jesus and references to scripture set him apart from the great majority of television hosts (the exceptions being televangelists), and that seems notable. --Tysto 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has more to do with his character associating himself with the Christian right --FD

He exaggerates the religious practice of his character in the same way as his political views - though he also joked that Pope Benedict used to be a Nazi. - Reaverdrop 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Cobert Code

How did he predict all the oscars perfectly? Does anyone else think he might of had some inside knowledge? (Along with his ability to see into the future of course).Dapoloplayer 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty eery that Stephen got the winners right for the oscars. Even "crash" though at that moment it appeared he was improvising because he got tongue tied. Or may be that was an act. However getting the winners right more likely proves how predictable award shows have gotten. No wonder no one watches. Does anyone know yet who watched the oscars ? I didn't watch and I agree with Stephen about all award shows.--Tjkphilosofe 11:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting under the skin of mainstream

I read on the weekend Howard Kurtz did a response to a comment that Stephen made about Kurtz and CNN Reliable Sources.

Not only will Stephen pay attention to comments made about himself will come back swinging and attack. Stephen is getting under the skin of the mainstream pundits and journalists.--Tjkphilosofe 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Jansen - Alpha Squad 7 - Lady Nocturne - A Tek Jansen Adventure

The Parody of The O'Reilly Factor section lists the Tek Jansen book as a parody of Oriley's book Those Who Trespass, but the title and plot seem to more closely resemble the cheezy sci-fi thriller novels like tekwar or Alpha Squad. Tho he does try and sell it in an oriley paroding way, I think this should be edited. The text on the page [tekjansen.com] seems to support this.

tekjansen.com is (at least appears to me) to be unlicensed. It may need to be marked as unofficial since, like Colbert Nation, the proof as to its ownership is difficult to determine with absolute certainty. 65.198.167.147 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big revision

I've done a big revision in which I've reorganized the sections and removed a lot of redundant material, trivia, and breathless "this one time..." anecdotes you would never find in a print encyclopedia. Find it at The Colbert Report/edit. I'm tempted to go further and, for example, strip out the whole section on TCR in Canada—lots of shows are seen in numerous countries. If there is a consensus that the edited version is an improvement, I'll move it over. --Tysto 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me. Lambertman 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the big revision over to the main space. I chopped a lot out of the article and reorganized it somewhat. It was way too full of trivial bits and pieces. I also left out the recent revisions that added extensive detail to Colbert's Oscar predictions. He just got lucky with an educated guess. For future edits: please keep in mind that there are several other articles related to the show that may already have your detail in it. Stephen Colbert, Truthiness, List of The Colbert Report episodes, and the very extensive The Colbert Report recurring elements. --Tysto 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the Show

I am having a problem with this section and all the additions to it like The Word, Da Colbert Code, Better Know A District, etc. This stuff should belong on The Colbert Report recurring elements page and already do. Now I don't want to go ahead and delete it because it has become a big section and we would still need to keep the Format of the Show section itself. I just don't know how to revise it. What do you guys think? --Barinade2151 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything after the bulleted list can be removed and merged with reoccuring elements. --waffle iron 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them and added an invisible note to other editors to please not re-add them. --Tysto 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also was wondering if either in this section or the section on reoccuring elements we mention the other cast members, like "Bobby the stagehand" who's become a regular on the show. Could there be room to at leats mention him in the article somewhere? Skuzabut 11:41, 2 April 2006 (EST)

Colbert, not Stephen

I'd like to just remind editors that when referring to the host of this show by only one name, we should (almost) always use his last name, Colbert, not his first name. The only exceptions are when his first name is directly relevant to the aspect of the show being discussed (e.g., in segment titles, when he refers to himself on the show, etc.) - dcljr (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of names, who is "stage manager bobby" really?--210.176.49.217 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly's O'Reaction

Did anyone confirm O'Reilly's quote in Newsweek? I thought Colbert made it up, but I don't have that Feb 2006 issue. --68.249.8.204 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on the web and added a link to the article. I used a cite tag for the first time, so perhaps I didn't get it quite right. The URL I gave is for the webpage (the second of three that constitute the article) that contains the quote. I didn't give a pagenumber or a publisher. I hope this is an improvement, though. Tim Ivorson 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's good enough for me. I don't know how to cite either.--68.249.237.53 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so O'Reilly has said even on his program that he was going to go home, watch the Daily Show and Colbert and go to sleep. J. M. 07:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan links?

An IP keeps adding "fan links". A fan petition is hardly notable or useful. Get a blog. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle

Has a Bald Eagle really been named after him, or is just a running joke?

Yes, the San Francisco zoo has offered to name a baby Bald Eagle after him. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=412827 Bob schwartz 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced right-wing with conservative

I believe most of colbert's views would more likely follow those of modern american conservatives as opposed to the more extreme right-wingers. As well he is based alot upon bill o'reilly who would likely be reffered to more as a conservative as opposed to someone who is 'right wing' as well someone like Joe scarbourough would very rarely be reffered to as a right-wing mdeia personality. -Brodey

Huh? Most people don't split hairs between right-wing and conservative, or liberal and left-wing. They're synonyms, particularly if you understand the origin of the terms. --128.205.218.25 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, even William Safire got the origin of left- and right-wing wrong in his On Language column (which he acknowledged after I corrected him). - Reaverdrop 03:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Jansen

http://www.tekjansen.com/index.php

That website is link to as being extended chapters of the book but, quite frankly, the whole thing appears to be just a fan of Colbert's trying to get his stories read by ripping off Colbert's ideas.

Reasons Why It Seems Fake:

1. The various idioms "Stephen" uses on there are often ones that would be out of character yet the whole site is supposed to be in character, with even whole pages about Charlene and bears. These idioms are usually Southern ones which would make sense if Colbert was out of character except this Colbert is in character and the real Stephen has said in interviews that he decided at an early age he wasn't going to have a South Carolina accent and doesn't naturally have one, so why would he type with one?

2. The fact that he remains in character constantly on the website is odd since, even though the book is a creation of the character Stephen Colbert, Stephen's never worked hard to maintain his character in various interviews or anything so why would he here?

3. With the amount of detail applied to it and the length of it, when would Stephen have found the time to write this?

4. The book he "reads" from on the show looks to be just a prop.

5. "Stephen" says that he can't directly admit whether he's Stephen Colbert for legal reasons and goes by the pseudonym of "Tyrone", which is the real Stephen Colbert's middle name however that's common knowledge to anyone on the net.

6. Tyrone posts on the board and updates the website very frequently and at all different hours of the day and the night, such as 2:00 AM. Along with this, the site is very poorly made on a free server. Stephen Colbert is a TV show host. I'm sure he can afford a cheap website and I'm sure he could hire a web designer. Not only that but Tyrone actually ASKS FOR DONATIONS. Stephen must not get paid much if he actually needs people to donate money to him.

7. Tyrone has talked bad about http://www.colbertnation.com/ saying it's just a fake fan site created by the suits of Comedy Central. First off, Stephen has repeatedly mentioned the website on his show. Secondly, why would Stephen say bad things about the network that airs his show?

8. Tyrone has actually gotten rude to people that didn't believe he was Stephen Colbert, even with all the proof against it. Stephen himself seems to be intelligent enough to realize you can trust everything you read on the net, especially with people that refuse to confirm or deny their identity. Tyrone's not so understanding.

9. Excerpts read by Stephen on the show that weren't in the so-called "extended" chapters on Tyrone's website have been hastily added with a comment by him that the chapters were still not complete as to what's in the book.

10. Tyrone avoids at all costs ever presenting any proof to his identity, demanding blind acceptance that he is Stephen Colbert.

With all this, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that this "Tyrone" is the real Stephen Colbert and that this site has any affiliation with Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, or Comedy Central.

That being said, it doesn't seem that this has any place in an encyclopedic article or at least should have a note by it like "(This website is of questionable authenticity.)" or something.

I've personally e-mailed both http://www.colbertnation.com/ and http://www.comedycentral.com/ about the site in the hopes that if it's authentic, they will confirm, or if it's just some loser trying to impersonate Stephen, they will shut it down.

It's most certainly a phony: when Colbert refers to the book, it's always "Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad 7", with the emphasis on the "Stephen Colbert's". Even on the book prop his name dominates the cover. It's all part of Colbert's huge ego character, a point which is missed entirely by the author of that site. – Clockwork Soul 06:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________

The points listed regarding the validity or lack of validity of TekJansen.com are unqualified and largely inaccurate. The arguments listed above by ClockworkSoul are without merit, steeped in opinion and read as if they are emotionally charged. I would suggest these comments be taken as opinion unless they can verified. Observations I would make to the contrary include

TEK JANSEN MUST BE A LEGITIMATE SITE BECAUSE-

1 - Despite direct complaints and many months in existence (including links on Fark.com, ZFilter.com and Madville.com) it has not been shut down.

2 - It is covered with ads for Comedy Central's primetime shows.

3 - The other ads are the same as the ones shown on Comedy Central (dating, products, etc.)

4 - There is a Comedy Central picture on the front page with a logo.

5 - Many chapters published on TekJansen BEFORE ColbertNation.

6 - Chapter 2 published on Colbert Nation then removed, but still appears on TekJansen.com

7 - Site is NOT hosting on a "free host"

8 - The design appears entirely unique, custom and dynamic.

9 - Refusal to claim ownership of the site is nearly identical to that of ColberNation.com

1. I would presume Comedy Central does not scour the net for links to a phony Colbert site. COMMENT - Except that every page of TekJansen.com directly links back to Comedy Central, so it would show up in their logs. More importantly, since you filed a complaint they must surely already know it exists.

2. Anybody that knows anything about advertising on the net would know that advertisements are placed based on the content of a website. Because it's conent is about Colbert and Comedy Central, ads are about Colbert and Comedy Central. COMMENT - That is incorrect. Ads are placed through networks and by direct sales, only Google delivers contextual ads with the exception of Yahoo! content ads, which is still in beta. Contextual "Colbert" ads could only be delivered if Comedy Central was paying for these placements.

3. My second point applies here too. I would also say that anybody with a little knowledge about computers could replicate those ads. COMMENT - But why a "ripoff" would directly link back to Comedy Central is difficult to imagine and could only cause further problems with copyright.

4. Anybody could steal that picture or create one of their own. COMMENT - I agree, this is true. In either case if it is copyright infringement it could be shut down for that, but it hasn't.

5. And these chapters that are posted before ColbertNation might not be real. Plus, chapter one on Tek Jansen was NOTHING like on ColbertNation until after ColbertNation added it. Chapter one was later extended with ColbertNation's addition. COMMENT - If this is true it could prove the case. This should be the basis for your argument rather than the ads and other things it seems you're not as expert in.

6. Anybody could've saved that chapter before it went down. Hell, I saved it myself before it went down. Also, it's still on the server, just not linked to. http://www.colbertnation.com/colbertnation/novel_2.jhtml COMMENT - Correct, I just ask why Colbert Nation removed it but Tek Jansen did not.

7. Yes. It is. A paid website doesn't have ads from Google on them. Google ads are included on free websites. And paid websites don't have major pop-up ads. COMMENT - That is incorrect and I can't imagine where this information comes from. Read this news article http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/14548102.htm and observe that this Knight-Ridder owned newspaper with a daily print edition has both Google Ads and popups. It's a matter of revenue generation, not of free hosting.

8. What does the design have to do with anything? Literally anybody can build a website. COMMENT - This was in response to the orginal argument against it, not a point I believed in.

9. Except that ColbertNation is on the Comedy Central server, Stephen has mentioned it on the show, it never denies it's affiliated with Stephen. I mean, look at their new ad on the side. It says "When Stephen (yes, the Stephen) needed a new laser printer for his office at the Colbert Report, he asked me to buy a bunch and put them through his patented laser printer test!". Though it presents itself as a fan site, it still claims affiliation with Stephen himself. Tek Jansen refuses to do that. COMMENT - I'm as curious as anybody (except you) who runs the sites and more importantly who it is that writes the content, but attacks agaisnt a business need a stronger foundation in fact than you are putting forward. There are surely ways to reach these conclusions and obviously there are a good many people who could legitimately confirm or deny its affiliation, ownership, origin and purpose. You and I are not among those people.

It may be wise to begin consolidating this discussion down to a more compact level. Though the debate is interesting I think there are points (such as 8) that could use to be removed if we can agree on that. Also perhaps wise to do further reading before making points like 2 and 7. I don't watch as much Colbert Nation as you so there are many points that sound valid that I can't talk about. Let's try to stick to our area of expertise and maybe get this figured out or just agree that we're not going to be able to.

Critism

why isnt there any critism of his show here?

Is there really a significant criticism of Colbert other than "not funny"? If so, we should be adding very long criticism sections to a lot of comedians. Carlos Mencia comes readily to mind. --Trafton 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Word WP Ref today

Is it notable that he used Wikipedia on air? -- Tawker 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the accurate parts", eh? No, not really. He just mentioned us in a single joke (even if it did make me laugh) – Clockwork Soul 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, he did make fun us!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was also mentioned January 31st [1][2]. While it's fun that it's received some attention on the show, I don't think we should inflate the importance of items relevant to the encyclopedia (i.e., the fact that anything else was mentioned twice on the show, would not be worth including in the article). Therefore it's my opinion that we shouldn't include the Wikipedia references in the article. FAL 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the addition of the Wikipedia reference in the trivia section. It's not a big deal, but I stand by what I said above. There are many potential trivia items that would be more notable or equally notable to the non-Wikipedian, and I don't think we should give Wiki-relevant facts priority, as it makes the encyclopedia look less professional. If we are going to keep it in the trivia section though, perhaps the prior mention of Wikipedia (see my comment above) should be included. FAL 01:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It's a little insular, but there's no real harm. --Trafton 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he has reason to question the accuracy of wikipedia, at least in articles about him/ the report. For example, the article on the report claims he is deaf in his right ear, however his personal article claims that is not so! Cite sources for that sort of thing maybe? otherwise don't cry about your reputation. Basschron 06:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Colbert is forty-one, a native of South Carolina, one of eleven children, the father of three, a suburban guy, and deaf in one ear. 'I had this weird tumor as a kid, and they scooped it out with a melon baller.' " -The New Yorker, July 25, 2005[3] The bit about the melon baller is obviously a joke. And the tumor was mentioned on the show once. He told the audience, as his character, that he did not have a tumor. But Stephen Colbert, the actor, apparently did have a tumor. Curious enough. The New Yorker did report, however, that he was deaf in one ear. Basschron is right: we need verification of the facts, and this article, or the Stephen Colbert article needs to be fixed. Finally, as far as crying about the mention...I think that most everyone here can laugh at what he said. Most of us are here because we're fans, and it was pretty funny.--Ryan! 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to Wikipedia should stay in the article. I've seen every one of the shows, but I am also heavily into Wikipedia (my edit count is over 4,000, as you can see from one of my user boxes about wasting too much time on Wikipedia). I laughed hard at the metion of Wikipedia. Let's face it - there is a lot of plain nonsense on Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political slant to show?

There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor. Nevertheless, the show itself, despite Colbert's personal leanings, seems rather apolitical, and if not apolitical, then lacking in a viewpoint, to me. The article doesn't help me clear up any of these thoughts, which I have no basis for making rather than suspicion and the feeling I get from watching The Colbert Report.

Could someone clarify and perhaps change the article to make it clearer in these respects?