Talk:The Colbert Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleThe 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 6, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Presented as non-satirical journalism[edit]

perhaps something should also be added concerning the study done at ohio state university?

shows how conservatives don't "get" the satire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/colbert-study-conservativ_n_191899.html

http://www.miller-mccune.com/media/the-truthiness-of-the-colbert-report-1156

original study here:

http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212

221.221.24.130 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. 221.221.29.169 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm honestly surprised that this still doesn't seem to be included in the article. Why is this not considered significant? Tai4ji2x (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satirizing O' Reilly[edit]

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)[reply]

Contact[edit]

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)[reply]

Philanthropy, Support of the Military, etc.[edit]

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 75.148.165.45 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous hack[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Colbert Movie?[edit]

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 80.11.88.180 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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 184.33.47.154 (talk)

Introduction[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

Super PAC?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Done. See See also. 99.181.157.189 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show cancelled for rest of the week. (16-02-2012)[edit]

"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.”

Source

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, it shouldn't be included into the article. I'm just saying that we should watch out in case it does turn into something worth mentioning in the article, and that people may use this uncertainty to vandalize the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)

The Banquet[edit]

So... shouldn't this article mention the Chinese clone show that Colbert covered on the show? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superb Owl[edit]

Is Superb Owl significant enough for coverage? -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Twitter Controversy Mention?[edit]

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)[reply]

Colbert Report#Other honors: off topic , redundant section[edit]

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)[reply]

Massive re-write[edit]

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.
  • Episodes
    • 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.
  • Reception
    • Critical response: More substantial information on critical reviews throughout the show's run.
    • Ratings: Self-explanatory.
    • Awards
    • Controversy: The show has had its fair share of controversy, so I've included some info on that here.
  • Legacy
    • Cultural impact

That should be about it. This revising will be implemented over the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk • contribs)

  • Quick thought: the wrist thing is probably worth keeping, despite fading in later years, you may notice that he keeps wearing the wrist bracelet. That said, it certainly could be cleaned up. DP76764 (Talk) 04:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Antonetti[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Colbert Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Colbert Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Colbert Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Colbert Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Colbert Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add book to further reading section[edit]

I'd like to add my forthcoming book: America's Most Famous Catholic (According to Himself) to the further reading section. https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Famous-Catholic-According-Himself-dp-0823285308/dp/0823285308/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1553181927

America’s Most Famous Catholic (According to Himself): Stephen Colbert and American Religion in the Twenty-First Century by Stephanie N. Brehm Fordham University Press ISBN: 978-0823285303 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephbrehm (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add section about "Daft Punk canceling 'Colbert Report' appearance for MTV VMA slot" ?[edit]

24.7.104.84 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephen Colbert of "The Late Show." Stephen and I talk about our days working together on "The Daily Show," his experiences leading up to working on "The Daily Show" and how the "The Colbert Report" was created. Stephen also gives us a really cool, exclusive behind the scenes blow-by-blow of the Daft Punk controversy on his show..."
24.7.104.84 (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Freemerican victernity made in china" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Freemerican victernity made in china and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Freemerican victernity made in china until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 04:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Colbert_Report&oldid=1204688398"