When a network lays off one of America’s greatest satirists, it’s not because he failed. It’s because he succeeded too loudly.
@godpod As God is my witness, Stephen Colbert is not a satirist. He's a topical humorist. The two things are not the same.
@fgbjr are you telling me that the Colbert Report was not satire?

@lackthereof Back in the day? That was. Light satire.

Context: A conservative relative (now MAGA) enjoyed the Report, thought it was funny. She was later dismayed to find that Stephen Colbert despises the cruelty of the Republican Party. She had understood the Report to be harmlessly poking at the innocent foibles of the heros presented on Fox News.

Full blown satire collapses those two impressions into a single experience, trapping us into confronting our own venality.

@fgbjr

I wasn't aware that it's up to the consumer of the satire to be smart enough to understand that it's satire before it can count as satire. (Some venality just can't be reached.)

@lackthereof

@nyquildotorg @lackthereof The point is not about King Consumer, it's about the author, and authorial intent. But we're speaking at cross purposes. To say that something is not satire isn't to call it's quality into question. Colbert is a talented political commentator and humorist with a powerful and effective voice. I enjoy his work. It's not designed to inspire doubt and self reflection in his target audience, and *that's okay*. Because that's a different mode of discourse.