Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

193 comments

WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720125)

This is good to know about and all, but...

WHY IS THIS ON SLASHDOT!?

Re:WTF? (5, Funny)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#46720145)

This is good to know about and all, but...

WHY IS THIS ON SLASHDOT!?

Because it's Truthy.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 4 months ago | (#46720177)

And because most of us like Stephen Colbert. It fits under the "news for nerds" criteria.

Re:WTF? (4, Informative)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#46720405)

And if that isn't nerd news enough for you, you might prefer his RSA keynote [youtube.com] instead.

Re:WTF? (3, Interesting)

recharged95 (782975) | about 4 months ago | (#46720641)

Also, he's the only guy that:
a. does the liberal/liberation spin that IS silicon valley
b. actually talks about tech like DRONES, along with BEARS.
c. has writers that are very, very tech savvy, much like the Simpsons and Futurama
d. Michael Stipe and Patrick Steward as continuing guests. That is /.... but Need I say more?

Re:WTF? (4, Funny)

Zynder (2773551) | about 4 months ago | (#46720757)

Patrick STEWARD????? What? Is he the caretaker of the Enterprise until the day comes that the one true Captain returns to claim his rightful chair?

Re:WTF? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 4 months ago | (#46721591)

Also, he's the only guy that: a. does the liberal/liberation spin that IS silicon valley b. actually talks about tech like DRONES, along with BEARS. c. has writers that are very, very tech savvy, much like the Simpsons and Futurama d. Michael Stipe and Patrick Steward as continuing guests. That is /.... but Need I say more?

no sharks with lasers, I don't know...
Well, it is true he was effective against the laser bears!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJmWN1eMLi4 [youtube.com]

Re:WTF? (-1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 4 months ago | (#46720989)

Because he's a Lefty.

And we must be totalitarian ... all life is politics, you know.

Re:WTF? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46722075)

Letterman was lefty but I liked him fine. Colbert is lefty but he's got a weird quirky humor that is sometimes hilarious but often falls flat. Also he's not going to pick at the left's silliness like Dave often did, he's one sided and people will tire of the bias. He will lose a huge chunk of people that loved Letterman and I doubt he'll be able to make up the difference. Time will tell.

Re:WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720185)

Because Dice Holdings.

Re:WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720295)

because dogecoin.

Re:WTF? (1, Insightful)

pseudofrog (570061) | about 4 months ago | (#46720345)

Erm...people watch it on their computers? So it's...tech-related?

Re:WTF? (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46721103)

"news for nerds, stuff that matters" used to be at the top of the home page

this is both

Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (1, Flamebait)

Nehmo (757404) | about 4 months ago | (#46721077)

WHY IS THIS ON SLASHDOT!?

Colbert didn't observe the boycott and spoke at the RSA Conference where he said, among other incomprehensible statements, that Snowden was " practically a war criminal". In terms of government use of computer technology to control its people, the Snowden revelations are the most important in history. Colbert's ascension to the Letterman position means that the NSA and its accomplices don't need to worry about criticism from that quarter.

Colbert noted. [theregister.co.uk]
"I see the Norwegians gave Snowden 30 Nobel Prize nominations. The guy's practically a war criminal - I don't understand how they could put him up for the same prize they once gave to Henry Kissinger."

Stephen Colbert's not a fan of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing [cnet.com] Stephen Colbert's not a fan of Edward Snowden's whistleblowing
Colbert said. Snowden, he said, should be taken to court over the espionage charges.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 4 months ago | (#46721205)

Colbert noted. "I see the Norwegians gave Snowden 30 Nobel Prize nominations. The guy's practically a war criminal - I don't understand how they could put him up for the same prize they once gave to Henry Kissinger."

That whooshing sound you hear? That's Colbert's satire going right over your head. If the Kissinger/peace prize reference didn't tip you off, consider that he said it at the same event that he said "I'm sure that under enhanced liberty you can have all the privacy that you want, just like under enhanced interrogation you can breathe all the water you want."

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (0, Troll)

Nehmo (757404) | about 4 months ago | (#46721561)

The Kissinger comment inclusion is simply sloppy mixing. Colbert is also criticizing the Nobel people - that's all. It's wishful thinking to conclude that that negates his stand on Snowden.

However, I believe Colbert doesn't even understand fully what the Snowden revelations were about. Some of his humor is so lame from a tech perspective, you must give him a rather low rating in terms of understanding.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721665)

God, you are an idiot.

Just think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722747)

Not the only one out there. Not be a longshot.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (4, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 months ago | (#46721879)

Steven Colbert's entire schtick is about double standards and how absurd some people can get. I seriously doubt you are getting the humor of his persona (and that is all that it is) of his Colbert Report.

The interesting thing is to see how much of that persona is going to carry on with the Late Show or if he will be more himself.

This has actually been studied (2)

Wolvey (918106) | about 4 months ago | (#46722527)

That's the cunning appeal of Colbert. Both conservatives and liberals love him but for completely different reasons. This has actually been studied:

Summary: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report [sagepub.com]
Full Study: The Irony of Satire [democracynow.org]

Kissinger as "War Criminal" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722061)

It isn't sloppy mixing at all. Kissinger has also been accused of being "practically a war criminal". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger. Whether you agree with the accusations or not (much the same could be said about Snowden), the parallels are there; hence the double standards satire reference.

Re:Kissinger as "War Criminal" (-1)

Nehmo (757404) | about 4 months ago | (#46722297)

Let me get this straight. You believe one ambiguous clause about Kissinger is the hint that clarifies that Colbert's position on Snowden is sarcastic, that is, the opposite of what Colbert actually is saying. And somehow numerous tech site authors missed this obvious clue. Furthermore, you somehow believe Colbert has decided to perpetuate this misunderstanding for some reason.

The "war criminal" line is at 13:54 in this vid [youtube.com] .

Re:Kissinger as "War Criminal" (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about 4 months ago | (#46722495)

You believe one ambiguous clause about Kissinger is the hint that clarifies that Colbert's position on Snowden is sarcastic, that is, the opposite of what Colbert actually is saying.

Well, that, and having an even passing familiarity with his work for the past 8 years...

Re:Kissinger as "War Criminal" (1)

HuDongQing (824333) | about 4 months ago | (#46722503)

My god. Have you ever watched Colbert or did you just read the transcript? Or did you just read an article written by someone else who never watched Colbert?

Almost *everything* he says is satire. If he says "A" it's a good bet he believes "not A". If he says Snowdon is a virtually a war criminal, what he means is "there's a bunch of crazy people who think Snowdon is virtually a war criminal and these people have such distorted sense of perspective that they deserve to mocked and ridiculed by an international celebrity."

Get a grip, seriously.

Re:Kissinger as "War Criminal" (4, Interesting)

HuDongQing (824333) | about 4 months ago | (#46722737)

Unbelievable. I have to wonder if you're deliberately trolling.

That whole speech is a critique of the NSA and invasions of privacy. It also includes a defence of Snowdon. You really need to take a moment to think about the role of satire.

He mocked the FBI Director for saying invasions of privacy were an attempt to "enhance liberty" by equating "enhanced liberty" to "enhanced interrogation".
He pointed out the role of elections and the ability of the public to demand their representatives ensure their privacy.
He went to the conference of cryptographers and told them it's their responsibility to think about how their industry impacts critical social values.
He talked about the importance of oversight of the NSA "All these revelations... of NSA survaliance just prove that when you give someone unlimited power and no supervision the results are always fantastic. You know the saying, 'absolute power succeeds absolutely'".
He pointed out the total lack of value the NSA snooping has "We have absolute proof this program has saved... zero lives."
He constantly reminded everyone the NSA is invading your privacy "it shouldn't bother you if you're not hiding anything, and since nothing can be hidden from the NSA nothing is bothering you."

He also mocked the marketing spin of the security industry.

I read your comment a few posts down saying "I previsously was a Colbert fan, and I fully understand his style of humor and method of message. In this case, I tried hard to find a way to extortionate Colbert, but he provides nothing. It is possible to distill the seriousness from the fake-seriousness in what Colbert says, and Colbert is seriously taking an anti-Snowden position.

Colbert also states [slate.com] (by joking on the square) that his opinion is for sale. "...my conscience is clear, as long as the check clears."

I can say with 100% certainty that you do not understand his style of humour at all, nor his method of message. Your entire interpretation is 100% backwards. Maybe when you used to be a fan you still had a sense of humour and have subsequently lost it? I don't know. But your criticism is so incredibly moronic that I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually trying to engage in satire yourself.

Re:Kissinger as "War Criminal" (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | about 4 months ago | (#46722749)

It's clearly satire. You're wrong on this.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721239)

LOL. It's like reading from a news site that believes his satirical alter ego. Nice work, sir.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721371)

Everything Colbert says is double dipped in sarcasm. None of it should be taken at face value. Watch his show sometimes. Comedy Central streams all the episodes.

Re:Snowden, that's why it's relevant to /.ers. (0)

Nehmo (757404) | about 4 months ago | (#46721489)

Everything Colbert says is double dipped in sarcasm. None of it should be taken at face value...

I previously was a Colbert fan, and I fully understand his style of humor and method of message. In this case, I tried hard to find a way to extortionate Colbert, but he provides nothing. It is possible to distill the seriousness from the fake-seriousness in what Colbert says, and Colbert is seriously taking an anti-Snowden position.

Colbert also states [slate.com] (by joking on the square) that his opinion is for sale. "...my conscience is clear, as long as the check clears."

If you have something that indicates otherwise, you may post.

You come off like a twat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722793)

Oh we may post? Love how in another post, you tell the parent what their opinion is.

You're taking what Colbert says far too literally. He's lampooning people that believe that A) Snowden truly is a war criminal (when reality suggests otherwise) B) people that believe Kissinger is not a war criminal (likewise, reality suggests otherwise).

In your next snippet, he's lampooning the notion that all we should aspire to is making money.

It seems you've begun to believe Colbert really is the character. And that has somehow turned you off to him.

Re:You come off like a twat... (0)

Nehmo (757404) | about 4 months ago | (#46723273)

Oh we may post?

My statement was elliptical. I apologize if I didn't make it so you understood. I mean you may post a *reference* (the "something" I referred to). IOW, ideally, if you have a cite of somewhere where Colbert states he is truly a Snowden supporter, then post it.

You *do* realize my estimate of Colbert position is the prevailing one, don't you? Colbert must, as I suppose he reads about himself. And that being the case, I would suppose he would want to correct the prevailing (as you see it) misconception.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721117)

Because Stephen Colbert is a nerd.

So no change then (0, Troll)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#46720165)

So no change then. One boring excuse for a comedian that I haven't watched in years being swapped in for another boring comedian that I haven't watched in decades.

Re:So no change then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720239)

Colbert is funny, so that makes him a comedian.

But is letterman funny or a comedian? Not at all.

Letterman is pants.

Re:So no change then (5, Funny)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 4 months ago | (#46720491)

Colbert is funny, so that makes him a comedian.

But is letterman funny or a comedian? Not at all.

Letterman is pants.

Letterman is WORLDWIDE PANTS

Re:So no change then (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 months ago | (#46721083)

Well played. Well played, indeed.

Re:So no change then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720301)

Quick, go and tell them, I'm sure they'll change their mind.

Re:So no change then (1)

xevioso (598654) | about 4 months ago | (#46720311)

If you havent watched either one in years or decades, how do you know they are boring? Maybe it's you.

Re:So no change then (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#46721419)

People post clips. I start the clips. I shut them off less than half way through.

They're not funny. Letterman especially reminds me of a high school smart-ass more than a comedian. He thinks he's funny, but what everyone is laughing at is the pissed off teacher.

Re:So no change then (1)

rockout (1039072) | about 4 months ago | (#46721979)

You think he's not funny. But don't assume that you know what the rest of us are laughing at.

Comedy is more subjective than food. You can certainly disagree with what millions of people find funny about Letterman, and you can voice your opinion of those people for enjoying his humor, but when you make a statement about WHY those people are laughing, you reveal more about your own ignorance.

Re:So no change then (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 4 months ago | (#46720845)

Has Colbert been on for decades?
He looks too new to have been on for decades.

Re:So no change then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721387)

His show is a spin off from the daily show. He started on the daily show in the late 90s. He started his career earlier though I believe.

Re:So no change then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721181)

So who would you like to see in a late night slot? Or maybe you're just a big Craig Ferguson fan.

Re:So no change then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721523)

So who would you like to see in a late night slot? Or maybe you're just a big Craig Ferguson fan.

Rush Limbaugh. Now that fucker's FUNNY!

From the Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720223)

"Some media commentators hoped that CBS would inject some diversity into the late-night lineup by replacing Letterman with the first host who was not a straight, white man. Maybe next time."

Arsenio Hall?

Re:From the Article (1)

used2win32 (531824) | about 4 months ago | (#46720307)

Do you mean AAAAAAArrrsseeennnniioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Haaaalllllll?

Good (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 4 months ago | (#46720233)

So much for #cancelcolbert and the looney tune behind it.

Re:Good (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#46720355)

Probably a win for them, actually. I imagine CBS will put more limitations on what Colbert can say than Viacom did.

Note to those who think Viacom owns CBS - Viacom spun CBS off in 2006.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721195)

CBS and Viacom are both controlled by National Amusements, Inc. which is owned by the Redstone family.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721301)

Which is owned by....Haliburton!

Re:Good (2)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 4 months ago | (#46720615)

I thought that entire thing was kind of overblown. But I do kind of wonder what would have happened what would have happened if someone had flipped the switch with a conservative comedian making this kind of statement. I honestly think there there would still be people bitching about it.

Of course... about the only conservative comedian I can think of off the top of my head is Larry the Cable guy. Don't think he has the wit to pull something like that off.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720733)

First you'll have to wait for a conservative comedian to be critical (rather than defensive) of a sports team with a racist name. I expect you'll be waiting a long time.

There are right-of-center comedians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721253)

Some, like Bill Engvall and Jeff Foxworthy are usually recognized by the general public, but there are others. Some show up late at night on Greg Gutfeld's "Red Eye" show. And there are others, like Evan Sayet, who conservatives know but who otherwise simply never seem to get air time where the general public would see them.

Re:There are right-of-center comedians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721451)

Dennis Miller.

Re:There are right-of-center comedians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721541)

Dennis Miller.

About as funny as Fred Phelps.

Re:There are right-of-center comedians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721675)

Comedians have to be funny? When did this start!?

Re:There are right-of-center comedians (4, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | about 4 months ago | (#46721695)

Nah, Dennis miller is a conservative former comedian. Back when he was still doing comedy, it was pretty centrist, with the social aspect leaning a bit to the left.

After 9/11 made him shit his pants, he started being conservative, and stopped being a comedian, opting to move his "big words and obscure references" style into punditry, where it works about as well as you might expect.

Ultimate irony (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#46720639)

#cancelcolbert gets SC off of CC and the show dies...but only because he got promoted to a prime network spot with more visibility and more money.

Colbert's writers couldn't have scripted this as well as it was performed in real life.

Which is it? (-1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#46720241)

I'm told mainstream media outfits like CBS are the exclusive property of profits-before-all Corporate America and its free market, planet wrecking, right wing fat-cat captain of industry one-percent types.

So, either Colbert is a sell-out, or the MSM is nothing like as hostile to libtards as is claimed.

Which is it?

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720347)

Oh no, it is EGO over profit all the time. Why else would they come up with so many unwatchable, yet highly applauded shows?

They like Colbert because he acts the way the suits like.

BUT, if he doesn't pull the ratings, he will be gone. With a golden parachute that would choke Secretariat, but still gone.

The entertainment business is so strange I no longer think it should be called an "entertainment" or a "business."

free-market competition (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 4 months ago | (#46721057)

So, either Colbert is a sell-out, or the MSM is nothing like as hostile to libtards as is claimed.

Viacom and CBS are owned (majority shareholder) by National Amusements, conservative financier/Billionaire Sumner Redstone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

They are oligarchs, but they ***still have to make a profit*** the game is rigged but not that rigged

NBC is #1 and Fallon gets the ratings/advertising

Colbert is, from a **COMPLETELY FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE** a great choice.

He's a proven commodity across media and with young and old. Comedy Central is youth demographic 'central' and Colbert is at the top of the product chain there. He's sold books, audio, and gets things like a *treadmill on the ISS named after him.*

Dont tell me Craig Ferguson or Chelsea Handler can come anywhere near that marketshare/reach. Colbert pwns.

So "which is it?"

Neither...Oligarchs still have to play the money game just like everyone else. Colbert pulled it off.

"News for nerds, stuff that matters" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720247)

Kind of like Google's "Do no evil", right?

We Want Strangers With Candy!!! (1)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 4 months ago | (#46720255)

Not a fake politik trying to do candy....

WHy would he do it? (1)

koan (80826) | about 4 months ago | (#46720285)

It's a step down IMO.

Re:WHy would he do it? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#46720473)

His bank account will see a significant step up.

Re:WHy would he do it? (4, Informative)

bscott (460706) | about 4 months ago | (#46722631)

> His bank account will see a significant step up

Not as much as you might think. He makes more than half what Letterman does now ($8 mil/yr vs Dave's ~$15mil) and it's unlikely CBS will pay him as much as they paid Dave, at least not to begin with.

Since Dave (and Leno for that matter) took pay cuts a few years back due to declining audiences across the board, Jon Stewart has been the highest-paid talk show host on the air.

Re:WHy would he do it? (1)

linuxguy (98493) | about 4 months ago | (#46721191)

More money and a wider audience.

Genuine? (5, Interesting)

multi io (640409) | about 4 months ago | (#46720373)

"Simply being a guest on David Letterman’s show has been a highlight of my career"

Wait...he really meant that. It's kinda creepy when Colbert makes out-of-character statements. And now there's gonna be a whole show full of those? Ugh...

Re:Genuine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720423)

Is he still going to do the Rapport, or is Viacom going to have to find a replacement for Steve too?

Re:Genuine? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46721029)

Replacement. Too bad John Oliver's on HBO now.

Re:Genuine? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721549)

I would love to see a Jason Jones and Samantha Bee news anchor duo. Picturing Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone like antics.

Will he still be an egomaniac? (5, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 months ago | (#46720447)

They said he is dropping the conservative character he portrays on The Colbert Report, but they didn't say if he will stop being the egomaniac part. That could make for good television. He could, after all, still be a liberal egomaniac...

(and I know, the slashdot chorus will chime in and declare that to be redundant)

Re:Will he still be an egomaniac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722587)

steven colbert doesn't even have an 'act' without his schtick.. and with or without it, he's gonna crash and burn, conan-style, in the big chair. i give it a year, tops, before someone else is brought in and colbert is chased back to cable.

Slashdot has gone down the tubes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720497)

WTF does this have to do with Slashdot?

Strangers With Candy (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#46720501)

If you like Stephen Colbert, go watch Strangers With Candy. It was one of the first Comedy Central shows and it's just amazing.

Re:Strangers With Candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720775)

My mom always told me to stay away from strangers with candy

Re:Strangers With Candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722705)

I'm a stranger, but I don't have any candy. You can stay with me.

Re:Strangers With Candy (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 4 months ago | (#46721065)

Great show, Amy Sedaris (David Sedaris' sister, I've seen him speak/read 4 times now) was awesome.

I also recommend Upright Citizen's Brigade, specifically the Ass Pennies skit, my self esteem and confidence has never been higher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

But Bong Boy was my favorite character in UCB, always showing up when there was human suffering...

Re:Strangers With Candy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721321)

When some friends of mine recently bought a new house, I asked them if they were concerned that now that they had kids they shouldn't be buying one with a bucket of truth in it.

It's French Bitch (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 4 months ago | (#46720527)

I remember the first Colbert Report teaser on the Daily Show, and then a few months later it was a real show. And it was awesome.

Go Stephen! Hate you see you leave the Central, but you need to be exposed to a wider audience.

There is no doubt he is an entertainer.

Meanwhile, at CONACO (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#46720549)

Meanwhile at CONACO:http://conanhuman.ytmnd.com/

Conan should've fought to jump into bed with Fox when they were mulling the idea over, affiliate issues be damned. It's not like it's a live show, let them air it whenever the fuck their news block ends. Fox is the only network that can actually harness his demo and generate ad revenue (via traditional broadcast ratings or "rich media integration" or whatever they call the internet today).
He was dead at TBS before he started, just as we was in the earlier hour on The Tonight Show. NBC offering to push The Tonight Show back an hour and give him his old time slot back was actually very generous. But Conan wanted an ideal of The Tonight Show that didn't exist anymore. Anyone who watched Leno (or his audience) over the years would have known that.

failzorS... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46720697)

, a proud member claim t4at BSD is a 3onfirmed that *BSD exactly what you've OS. Now BSDI is

The only stereotyp Suey park fought (1)

markass530 (870112) | about 4 months ago | (#46721113)

The only stereotype Suey park fought with #CancelColbert was the one that Asians are smart

Re:The only stereotyp Suey park fought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721481)

The greater crime is that she also promoted the stereotype that Asians have no sense of humor.

I haven't seen Colbert out of character (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721119)

Anyone link to a gig of his where he's not playing the conservative republican on his show?

Funny host (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 4 months ago | (#46721185)

Woot!

The late show will finally be funny.

Letterman and his backup band are so predictable, so bland, and so American-Cheesy, its unwatchable for the rest of us.

To be fair, the only truly funny regular joke is in the opening credits where New York is described as the best city in the world.

Re:Funny host (1)

itchybrain (2538928) | about 4 months ago | (#46721247)

It could still bomb.

As I understand it, Colbert will have to don on a new persona for the Late Show gig.

Re:Funny host (1)

treeves (963993) | about 4 months ago | (#46721399)

It used to be funny. Back when it started and for a while after that. I stopped watching, oh, in the mid nineties?

Re:Funny host (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 4 months ago | (#46722963)

I figured that it was what people wanted, it being 100% predictable. There are no surprises, it's the same stuff over and over again like those stupid top 10 lists.

This isn't appropriate for Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721361)

Slashdot is about tech news and tech developments (or it's supposed to be anyway). I'm sure many nerds/geeks watch and appreciate Mr. Colbert, but that in itself doesn't provide a legitimate segue into posting it as a story on Slashdot. This story belongs more on general entertainment sites, not Slashdot.

Making topics of discussion too broad on a niche site like Slashdot dilutes the value of Slashdot. You might argue "what's the harm?" Well, if Slashdot becomes too much like any other site, there's no reason to stay since its identity is lost. The comments here are barely enough to hold it together, and even that's fading fast as people care less about Linux and truly nerdy stuff and become more accepting of Microsoft and DRM (stuff that I never would have though a Slashdot audience would actually like or think were good things). We aren't like other sites and shouldn't report on every single thing which has only a tenuous connection to tech.

Re:This isn't appropriate for Slashdot (1)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 4 months ago | (#46722037)

Totally agree. I'd much rather read more Q&A's from McAfee.

Disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721625)

Very disappointing. I had read that Chelsea Handler was a candidate. Was hoping they'd finally put a woman in charge of one of these shows.

Re:Disappointed (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#46722087)

I think they're afraid of Chelsea. Terrified more likely.

#BanLateNightWithStephenColbert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46721951)

Trend it!

Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722137)

Now that Colbert is a self-described pothead pushing unscientific pro-drug agenda on his show, he deserves to be on a show that's increasingly out of touch with younger viewers. That way nobody susceptible has to hear his drug-addled banter.

Colbert can go fuck himself.

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722191)

...who really gives a flying fuck?

Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722201)

Wasn't funny on his show, won't be funny on this one either.

That's the end of that show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46722409)

Colbert is a glorified jester in the court and circus that is American politics. He only serves to make the bread and laughs go around, and keep the circus going. How does he think he can replace David Letterman? Wow.

Who ? (0)

dargaud (518470) | about 4 months ago | (#46722585)

Am I the only one who, as a foreigner, has no idea who David Letterman is ? I've seen plenty of clips of gifs of Colbert on the 'Net though. He certainly is a lot more relevant than whoever Letterman is/was.

Thanks for the warning. (1)

David Govett (2825317) | about 4 months ago | (#46722881)

Crypto-ideologue replaced by overt ideologue.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...