I wish we could cover Stephen Colbert and the Colbert Report more but I guess he’s not officially mainstream media.
Well, on Thursday night he did a bit on the Lambeth Conference, of all things. It wasn’t just entertaining, it featured New York Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein! Anyway, the piece is hilarious and well worth watching for Colbert’s omnipresent sense of Roman Catholic supremacy, the familiar soap opera history of the Anglican Communion, discussion of the complex Anglican polity and hilarious lines that I won’t give away.
So, why is it that the Colbert Report, as with many of the topics it covers, manages to be more informative than most anything else you can catch on television about the conference?
That is if you can even catch anything about the conference in the mainstream. The whole event seems deliberately, remarkably un-newsy. I’m sure that was the plan and all but I was hoping for more coverage to look into. I have been following my regular sources for Anglican information as well as the British press. One thing that popped up was this blog account of disgruntlement over how the U.S. Bishops are playing their cards. One report, which was not attributed to the bishop in question by prior agreement, was interesting. It dealt with how the “indaba” small group discussions are going:
“Well, the funny thing is,” began one bishop, “The Americans here have this cheat sheet that they use in our group. It has statements on it that justify their decisions in the last two conventions that led to the consecration of Gene Robinson and same-sex marriage. It is a prioritized list of talking points and the one in our group reads off this thing every day.”
It was as if someone dropped a bomb in the room. Was I surprised that my church would utilize a tactic of this nature to persuade the rest of the Communion? No, I was not. Was I surprised that one of those same bishops would bring the document and read from it in a forum such as the Indaba group? No, I was not. Was I surprised by the strong counter reaction of the other bishops in the room, who considered this to be almost treachery? Yes.
The British media is covering the talking points and political machinations of various groups. You’ve got Ruth Gledhill’s Lambeth Diary and the Guardian’s Riazat Butt:
A US bishop yesterday accused his own church of manipulating the Lambeth summit by providing its 125 representatives with briefing notes explaining how to promote liberal attitudes towards gay clergy.
The US Episcopal church has the largest presence at Lambeth, a once-a-decade gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops in Canterbury, and the Americans have provided each of their bishops with a “messaging strategy” that tells them how to present a cogent, persuasive argument in favour of diversity and tolerance in their discussions with other bishops.
Liberals form the majority voice in the wealthy US church and are eager to liberalise attitudes towards sexuality, given the divisive furore that has ensued following the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire.
Butt’s piece gives some examples from the document, which you can actually read in PDF form here:
The document, entitled Lambeth Talking Points, also provides advice for bishops when dealing with journalists: “A good message will reach the audience without giving the media more than they need or can use.”
There is some criticism of the approach being used by the U.S. bishops as well as news of some politics from those opposed to them:
One US bishop, Keith Ackerman from the diocese of Quincy, said the document was “embarrassing”… .
“The Episcopal church is attempting to manipulate this conference. It was hoping to convince the rest of the Anglican Communion that its innovations should be incorporated and respected.”
News of the document has spread throughout the Kent campus and, late on Wednesday night, conservatives launched their own strategy to counter the prevailing liberal tone of Lambeth.
At a meeting attended by diocesan bishops from around the world, one conservative evangelical recommended: “In group after group, find out how many people support resolution 1.10 [the one from Lambeth 1998 enforcing a traditional stance on gay sex].
Such drama! It’s good to see that the media covering Lambeth are hip to the media and political strategies being used by various groups. Please let us know if you see any particularly good or bad stories coming out of the conference.
The art, by the way, is an advertisement for The Episcopal Church from 1986.
 | Posted at 12:09 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (21) |
July 26, 2008, at 12:54 pm
“Episcopal bishops” as opposed to what other kind? Diaconal bishops? AARRGGHHH!
July 26, 2008, at 12:56 pm
Ha! I was trying to single out the bishops of the Episcopal Church as opposed to the larger Anglican Communion. I’ll clarify …
July 26, 2008, at 1:44 pm
I actually said to my husband Thursday night, “After reading ‘Got Religion’ for several months now, I really am amazed at how well Stephen Colbert is able to convey what really is going on through humor than most journalists are who are seriously covering this thing.”
July 26, 2008, at 2:59 pm
Using words like “cheat sheet” to describe the talking points of the American bishops, one can immediately tell that this is a fairminded account.
July 26, 2008, at 4:16 pm
Jay — I’m with you but one has to learn to view the foreign press through a different prism than the American press. The two groups adhere to different standards.
July 26, 2008, at 4:33 pm
Colbert’s grasp of the issues was impressive I thought. The humor was decidedly pro-Catholic, for the most part — something one never ordinarily sees in a comedy act. If I were an Anglican I think I might have been offended by some of it. It’s not something you hear much of: Catholic anti-Anglicanism.
July 26, 2008, at 4:53 pm
Dan, among the ways Colbert is a genius is that it is impossible to tell who is the real butt of his humor. His persona is that of a dimwitted doofus, so if he seems pro-Catholic that can be interpreted as part of his dim-wittedness. In addition, his zingers get everyone (I doubt that many Catholics like being reminded that most of their priests are gay even if they aren’t allowed to talk about it or many Anglicans like being reminded of the origins of their church in Henry VIII’s need for a divorce). I think that is one reason he is able to be so funny and so subversive at the same time.
July 26, 2008, at 4:59 pm
I also think Colbert was hugely entertaining — and his Catholic condescension was clearly tongue-in-cheek, as was the rest of the act. However, as Rebellious said (3) he did manage to encapsulate the issues, in a funny way, like few other in the “real” media are doing. Why is that, I wonder?
I suspect it has to do with the fact that it’s easier in some ways to broach serious issues through humor.
As a person with PR experience, I agree that a Talking Points memo (or “cheat sheet”) is a great way to get everyone on the same page, literally. It’s rather breathtaking to see it distributed to a group gathered together who are so OBVIOUSLY NOT on the same page, however, and seems like a huge misstep, and a rather inapprpriate one.
I’m sure there’s coverage of this and it does need to be explored.
July 26, 2008, at 7:22 pm
Mollie, this is an interesting point to me. What do you see as the different standards and which do you prefer? One reason I ask this is that my perspective has the British press at least being both better and worse than ours depending on which papers (etc) you look at.
July 26, 2008, at 9:50 pm
I’m a Roman Catholic-turned-Anglican and I thought Colbert was a hoot. Of course, I’m also a big cynic.
July 26, 2008, at 10:33 pm
Stephen Colbert is actually a pretty devout Catholic. He frequently made an issue of it when he was on The Daily Show, and I remember seeing a story on the role he played in his daughter’s confirmation education.
I think he picks and chooses his doctrine - liberal in his politics, possibly pro-choice, and will mock the pope as likely as he will defend him (usually tongue in cheek). But he has a very deep understanding of the Catholic Church’s teachings, an understanding that extends to Church History and doctrinal issues, and that comes out very frequently.
When he started his show, he had a list of people that he would put “on notice.” and He’d bring out the list every once in a while. He had Lutherans on notice just because of the Reformation.
July 26, 2008, at 11:00 pm
Rebellious, I’ve never seen Colbert NOT in character - especially on his show, not to say some of it doesn’t come through, but he’s known to be mocking political conservatism by pretending to be a conservative.
His recent interview in Equire magazine was totally in character as the bigoted, ignorant conservative. Like some actors (I could also name Robin Williams, an extreme case) it’s incredibly hard to nail them down as a real person and “out” of character.
Has he spoken on TV or in print about his faith anywhere? You’ve apparently seen it and I’ve missed it.
July 27, 2008, at 8:09 am
Head on over to CatholicColbert.com
And dig around a bit in here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&q=Colbert%2C+Catholic&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web
July 27, 2008, at 12:17 pm
What’s derogatory about “cheat sheet”? Does anybody really call it “a brief digest of notes”, outside of Victorian novels?
July 27, 2008, at 12:29 pm
Where is the Bishop of Rum-ti-foo when we need him?
Was Colbert’s reference to “interNicene debate” deliberate?
July 27, 2008, at 12:32 pm
I guess you haven’t heard the GTS fight song:
I am an Anglican - Pure C of E
I am High Church, not Low Church
In communion with Canterbury
Not a Presby, nor a Luth’ran,
nor a Baptist white with foam…
I am an Anglican, one step from Rome!
July 27, 2008, at 3:18 pm
Terry thanks for the link to some interviews Colbert has given about his faith. Clearly, it indicates a serious Catholic, though obviously a cafeteria Catholic (aka “American Catholic” who chooses which parts of “dogma” and doctrine he’s going to accept.
It helps to know where he’s coming from, and I find his interviews on religion hillarious and actually informative, because he really knows his history.
Though I wonder how many in his audience got the “interNicene debate” joke?
July 27, 2008, at 5:40 pm
This was my first ever time watching the Colberr Reporrr (I know, I’m slow, but things take time to cross the Pond these days), and lo! it pops up on GR! Made me feel like my finger was spot on the pulse …
Anyway, what I was going to say was maybe - just maybe - in a world where doctrinal differences can and do cause division and suffering and death and stuff, maybe laughing at EVERY side of the argument is the best way to report even-handedly. I mean, who else has summed up this whole shism/skism thing remotely as well in five minutes? And all they needed to do was to compare the Anglican Hierachy with the UN!
The test of a good religion is whether or not it can laugh at itself
July 27, 2008, at 8:44 pm
As Oscar Wilde would say, the only thing worse than being satirized on television is not being satirized on television.
July 27, 2008, at 9:11 pm
I don’t know how many would get his “Inter-Nicene debate” joke, but his audience is diverse and it definitely caught the attention of those who do know religion!
Colbert definitely is liberal and if you watch for a while, you can tell where his agenda is. But as a conservative, I find his agenda less “in your face” and much more creatively expressed than I do “The Daily Show.” I used to love it, but now it is often too obvious and painfully biased to watch. Colbert often still gives a conservative guest time to watch.
July 27, 2008, at 10:26 pm
Colbert has a http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4464017" rel="nofollow">good interview with Fresh Air’s Terry Gross quite awhile ago. There maybe a more recent version, although that may just because Fresh Air likes to replay interviews a lot.
I remember in this interview Colbert going into his personal faith in a rather open manner.