Okay, I will send up a yellow caution light here.  This is going to be a rant.  I think it's a well-deserved rant, and I even go to great lengths to explain why in detail.  But a rant none-the-less.  You've been warned.

​I had another piece all set to go for this morning.  And then I read a front-page, "top of the fold" article titled, "'Saturday Night Live' And Stephen Colbert May be Further Dividing Americans," written by Sara Boboltz who's the Entertainment Editor of the Huffington Post.  It may be one of the most ridiculous articles I've read in the whole presidential election cycle over the past two years.  In fairness to Ms. Boboltz, she may not have written the headline, the words of which comes from an interview in the article and, being so confrontational, makes the whole thing worse.  But given the whole thing, which you can read here, that's small comfort.

The reference in question comes from Heather LaMarre of Temple University.  Just as a mere starting point to show you awful this article is -- and I apologize ahead of time for being so blunt and repetitive about using such expressions, but I can think of few other words to accurately describe it.  Ms. Boboltz is probably a fine writer and a very nice person and maybe was just having an off-day, as I do and so do we all, but I'm just not sure if political analysis is her strength -- she describes her source this way:  "To Heather LaMarre, who studies politics in entertainment media at Temple University..."  And my immediate thought was -- Say, what?  Wait, this is someone who just studies this?  She's a student??  You have to be kidding me?!!"  However, because I try to be diligent I took the effort to check things out -- something I'm going to guess most people reading the article didn't, as in 99.9999% didn't -- and I did my own research to check out who Heather LaMarre was at Temple.  And happily it turns out that she isn't a student, but teaches there and has a PhD.  Thankfully.  But seriously, how do you leave that out when the person is the source and focus of your information??

But this doesn't even touch on the point that Dr. LaMarre's expertise is not politics or sociology or psychology but rather mass communication.  That's okay, she at least studies communication in the political field which is substantive, it's just that the conclusions being drawn in the article seem far more about politics than communication.

And it's okay, too, that Dr. LaMarre is an assistant professor, not a full professor in the field.  That's absolutely fine. For all we know, Dr. LaMarre may be far more knowledgeable than those with more titles and experience, and ultimately she was merely asked her opinions and properly gave them.  Fair enough.  The problem is that it shows a weak effort by the reporter to make an established point and convince the reader that the conclusions are worth accepting.   However qualified an assistant professor may be (even if we all knew she was), readers need ballast to hang their trust on -- not only important titles that we accept as shorthand for one's background, but things like books written on the subject, a range of scholarly research, what career expertise exists and more.  And after tracking down Temple University's staff pages, I'm not sure if five published articles, the last of which was from four years ago is enough to make a conclusive, convincing point, even more so when the reader isn't told that, 

But to go further, the issue isn't just that one of the sources in the article is an assistant professor -- as I said, and honestly mean it, she really may be an expert in the field, for all we know, or not -- but rather the important issue is that she's the only source in the article, whatever her level of expertise, even the world's leading scholar.  There is no one else quoted in the article or even referenced to support the conclusions drawn.  There's no one else quoted to actually disagree with the point.  It makes for a very unconvincing premise to serve as the foundation of the article.

And that's just the premise.  The background.  We haven't even gotten to what's said in the article.  That's what's so head-banging here.  The premise?  That's just the title page.

Just a few examples of where the article goes deeply off-track into the weeds.

"But as biting as it can be," Ms. Boboltz writes, "the humor of 'SNL' and “'he Late Show' probably isn’t changing any minds.  If anything, the country’s love affair with political comedy may actually be deepening the divides that characterized the 2016 presidential election, according to one researcher."

Okay, swell, a blunt, provocative point.  Except -- there's no evidence presented to support this in the entire article.  I don't mean not enough evidence to be convincing, I mean literally none presented.  It's like if you were at a bus stop and some guy next to you blurted it out, and you said, "Well, okay, how do you know that?"  And that person then got on the bus and left.  I' suspect you wouldn't find it the most meaningful encounter.

All we get in the article after this initial opinion is the author telling us Dr. LaMarre's thoughts about political comedy in the past -- a time frame that is not even defined.  Is it five years?  A century?  We have no idea. That aside, there is nothing to support any research that's been done about this current situation and the public's actual reactions.  Nothing to show that no minds have been changed -- or have been changed, for all we know.  Nothing.  Zero.

(By the way, I would suggest that the current political climate in America is vastly different than anything this nation has seen not just in the recent past but ever.  That's just a guess -- though based on political commentary saying it for the last year -- but it does offer as much evidence as the article does on its conclusions.  And based of my guess, it would suggest that past models don't necessarily apply.)

Eventually, the article does actually finally quote Dr. LaMarre.

“'The people who were already anti-Trump are going to become more anti-Trump, and the people who are pro-Trump are not going to walk away from him just because of something a political comedian said,' LaMarre said."

Okay, swell.  But again -- do we have any evidence of this?  As in...any?  Any research, any studies?  Because it just comes across as a guess, even if an educated one.  But here's the significantly larger point --

Let's assume for the sake of argument that what is said here is valid, that neither side is going to be convinced by the humor.  (Not that that's necessarily the point of humor, but I digress.)  But the headline of this article, its very point, is that this TV humor "May Be Further Dividing Americans."  And yet nothing in this opinion which I quoted above supports that!  All she says is that it may be solidifying the opinion that already exists, not that it's dividing it further.  Those are two totally different things.

(And let us even gloss over the point that "may be" is a pretty banal and meaningless phrase, since...well, maybe it isn't.)

But even worse -- all that this "conclusion" looks at is people who are "already anti-Trump" and those "who are pro-Trump."  Well, gee, here's a question -- what about all those people, say, in the middle, probably about 40% of Americans who are still trying to figure things out??  Who don't already have a definitive opinion.  How does the TV political humor affect them?!  That middle is where most elections are won, by the way.  Swaying the independents and undecideds.  And the only people discussed here are the people who've already decided their opinions.  That's a massive, critical segment to leave out.  "Late-night TV probably isn't changing any minds" is how the sub-headline reads.  "Any"??  The entire middle of America is just an incomprehensibly large number to ignore.  They actually do count among "any."  And "probably" seems to require at least some evidence to support it.

Following this quote, incidentally, Dr. LaMarre adds, "Especially if they think of that comedian as a Hollywood elite."  Well...okay -- so, do they?  Does the viewing public think of Colbert and SNL and all the other many political humorists on TV (only Seth Meyers is mentioned once) think of them as Hollywood elites?  For that matter, Colbert and SNL -- and Seth Meyers -- aren't even in Hollywood, they're in New York.  Does the public differentiate between Hollywood elites and effete New York snobs?  And do they think of these people this way?  Or some other way entirely?  For that matter, James Corden is from London -- is he ignored for being an outsider, or seen as an objective voice?

The article pushes on, not particularly being convincing one way or the other -- since nothing is presented to support the opinions, and there are no opinions from others presented to put it all in perspective. (To be fair, Colbert is quoted once, talking to an audience, not making a scholarly point, and there is a Trump tweet quoted about how bad SNL is, not funny, really terrible television.  And all from the perspective of mass communications, not from the studied view of politics or sociology or psychology, or politics.  (Yes, I know I said "politics," already, but it strikes me as...well, really important.)  But in the end, the article finishes with something essential that is missing --

As noted, the headline point of the article is that all this TV political humor may be "dividing Americans."  And the implication (accepting for just the moment that "may be" turns out to be "is") is that the act of dividing Americans is a bad thing.  Which suggests therefore that, since it's bad for the country, all of these divisive TV comedians should stop making jokes about Trump and not divide America anymore.  Which strikes me as a horrific conclusion because that means leaving Trump on his own, without being chided or ridiculed as humorists have done towards politicians since the beginning of time.  Leave him alone, instead, to the serious political analysts to criticize and defend him -- although that appears to be pretty divisive on its own with partisan and official spokespeople defending their ground   So, maybe we should just leave Trump alone, period, and not critique or joke about him.  Give him the platform on his own and just let him talk and tweet away.

No, that isn't the point the article makes.  It's just the only logical conclusion it leads to.  As for it's point, I am yet to figure it out.

The other day, I mentioned going to an Audra McDonald concert.  One of the songs she sang was a wonderful comic piece called "Baltimore."  As I sat listening and enjoying it, I thought it had much of the same whimsy and charm of one of my favorite comic cabaret songs, "Taylor the Latte Boy," which I've posted a couple versions of her performed by Kristin Chenoweth, including here.

When she finished the number, to huge applause, Ms. McDonald mentioned how that song was written by Marcy Heisler and Zina Goldrich -- "who wrote 'Taylor the Latte Boy'"!!!  

Well, it turns out out I have a better ear than I thought....

There's a video of Audra McDonald singing it online, but it's a studio recording, and as wonderful as her performance is in the video, I think that the song itself suffers from not having an audience and reacting with laughter.  (What she did onstage with the song exploded the house.)  I was, however, able to track down another version, sung by Victoria Huston-Elem.  She's not as good as Audra McDonald -- hardly a fair comparison -- but she does a very fun job with the song, and it's a lively performance in concert.

Yesterday, I posted another video of Martin Short as Jiminy Glick doing one of his fatuous celebrity interviews.  I got a note from the inveterate Chris Dunn, expressing his heart-felt love of Jiminy, and adding with a quip (which he insists wasn't...) -- "Time to bring him back to do the Trump Inner Circle from Prison interviews."

Well, we like to serve our fine readers well here at Elisberg Industries.  After all, our company's Guarantee (as posted under "About Elisberg Industries") reads -- "Customer service is our number one priority, immediately after product development and a variety of fiscal responsibilities that are required by law.  We guarantee 100% satisfaction.  We will provide exactly the item contracted for.  If we don’t, we will set it right.  If we can’t, we will provide a reasonable replacement.  If a reasonable replacement is not available, we will deliver a heartfelt, personal apology on  hand-crafted stationery."

And no apology is necessary.  We aims to please.

(By the way, the sketch isn't great, but there are enough laughs to make it worthwhile.  I get the sense that it's partly written, and partly ad-libbed, which is where most of the laughs come from.  And though Fallon is out of his depths in that end, he has the good sense to know it and let Martin Short fly.)

If you haven’t seen it – just watch.  It’s only one minute.  And pretty close to perfect.  If ever a teaser lived up to its name, this is it.

If Democrats in Congress are looking for someone utterly, monumentally, relentlessly dogged to oversee an independent investigation of the Trump administration, who won't give up under any condition when wronged no matter how many roadblocks are put in his way, and will pursue his efforts to the ends of the earth until he gets a resolution, they might want to consider this little kid.

First things First, this is above all a Media Alert.  

Tonight (Tuesday), the scheduled guests on Stephen Colbert's show are Jon Stewart, Samantha Bee and John Oliver, as well as Ed Helm and Rob Cordry.  As the the expression goes, set your DVR.  If you've got one of those coal-driven models, start cranking it up now to get it all warmed up.

That's CBS at 11:35 PM on the West Coast and in the East.  10:35 PM in the Midwest.  And for all I know there are still some places where they don't try to eke out that extra five minutes of commercial time from their newscasts.  

It's especially good timing -- and does seem a matter of kismet, since bookings are made many weeks, if not months in advance.  And given how the Colbert fellow has been in the news the past few days, the schedule couldn't have worked out better.  I'm guessing that ratings will do quite nicely.

As you may have read, it was announced over the weekend that the FCC will be "investigating" Colbert for an off-color joke he make about Trump and how his mouth serves another function for a part of Vladimir Putin's anatomy.  Just to let you know, this couldn't not be further from the truth.  But don't take my word for it, Mark Evanier wrote about that here, when he wrote about how the FCC does not "investigate, but rather just reviews a matter when they get complaints -- and they get complaints all the time.  But don't take Mark's word for it.  After all, just yesterday, the FCC itself corrected remarks made by its chairman when a spokesman told CNNMoney, "We review all consumer complaints as a matter of standard practice and rely on the law to determine whether action is warranted. The fact that a complaint is reviewed doesn’t speak one way or another as to whether it has any merit.” And another spokesman said the same thing to Vanity Fair.

There are a few things about the outrage over the joke that strike me as loopy.

For starters, the FCC has very different broadcast standard during the day and during Prime Time than it does afterwards during late night, when it's presume most children are long-since in bed.

Also, if you've seen video of the joke, it got bleeped by CBS.  Which means that absolutely nothing went out over the air to the ears of Americans.  People can guess what was said, or presume it, and they're probably right.  But maybe not.  Maybe he said that Trump's mouth serves as a "cop's holster" for Vladimir Putin.  I serious doubt it, and I wouldn't take any bets, but the point is that it got censored by the network and nothing got heard.

In addition, what the continued outrage and protests to the FCC has done is keep the joke in the news long after its Use By date.  Gotten it shown repeatedly and discussed relentlessly, bring more and more attention to what was (presumably) said.

Moreover, it's more more attention to Colbert's show which has been getting its best ratings ever.  All of which, as fate would have it, brings the show to a peak tonight with its guests.  I wonder if anyone will bring up off-handed mention of the joke...?

Now, stepping back, I think it's safe to say that the joke was crude.  It was well-written and pretty funny, but it was definitely off-color.  Even at that, though, it could easily be said by a comic in a nightclub, and the FCC and most people wouldn't blink an eye, and you probably wouldn't ever of it.  So, it's not a matter of the joke not being allowed to be said, but just whether it should have been said on television, even having gotten bleeped.  Given the very late hour, the answer may well be "Yes, sure, not a problem."  Or not, we'll find out.  But -- the worst that will happen if it does get reviewed by the FCC and determined to have been against broadcast standards, even having gotten bleeped is...CBS will get fined and pay whatever the amount is, which likely won't be much, considering that it's coming from CBS's pockets, and considering that they'll be thrilled by all the free publicity their top-rated late night show is getting that's driving ratings even higher.

So, that's the result of all the continued outrage over the bleeped joke on late night TV.

By the way, I do understand why some people were bothered by the joke, wherever it was said, bleeped or otherwise.  It was, as I noted, crude.  It's not a joke I'd make, though I found it well-crafted, pointed and funny.  And I have no problem with people complaining about something they understandably don't like.  That said, I suspect most of those complaints were more political rather than semantic, given that the joke was said late at night, long after Prime Time and got bleeped.  But beyond that, I also reiterate what I said above, that for all the outrage and complaints to the FCC, they've been counter-productive and only served to keep the joke in the public ear.

I was very glad to see my guild, the WGA, speak out with a very strong defense and support of Stephen Colbert, who is a Guild member, saying the real outrage is not the joke, but that "What is obscene is not what Colbert said but any attempt by the government to stifle dissent and creativity.”

That said, I have the sense that the Guild's response was directed (rightly) by the erroneous reports that a government agency would be "investigating" Colbert, something that is chilling. If the first comments by the FCC commissioner Ajit Pai had accurate and said merely that the FCC review all complaints, it's probable that the Writers Guilds' response would have been muted, if not non-existent.  But when the FCC commissioner himself says his government agency will be "investigating" someone for joke, that does require a blunt response.

I also appreciate the notice that many have made of the irony of people on the far-right up in arms at Ann Coulter not being allowed to speak on a college campus, having her First Amendment rights abridged, but themselves outraged at Colbert's joke and calling for government involvement.  Never mind that Ms. Coulter was invited back to the campus, has countless opportunities to speak and the First Amendment only pertains to government making laws against speech, not private colleges -- and that the FCC actually is a government agency, making their involvement far closer to a real First Amendment violation.  Though for all that, I must say that I don't think the situations are the same, as much as some are trying to make them.  Forgetting that neither outrage may be appropriate, broadcasting does have a long history of FCC review oversight of standards since TV and radio operate on government licenses.  So, the comparisons don't really overlap.  But stepping back, and laws and standards and amendments aside, the imbalance of outrage from the far-right on two similar issues is, if not fully ironic, then delicious...

If you want to hear more about this, then you should probably tune in to CBS tonight, when Stephen Colbert's guests will be Jon Stewart, Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Ed Helm and Rob Cordry.  I'm guessing someone will bring it up.

In honor of April 15th Tax Day, here is a video of Stephen Colbert going undercover to work with H&R Block, training and then dealing with customers, preparing background information for their accounts before sending them on to the accountants.

It's at his best during his training, and I find the actual undercover work a too-far over-the-top, but it's all pretty enjoyable.