About (Late) Last Night: Michael Moore calls Stephen Colbert a 'tool of Viacom'

 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Michael Moore
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Usually, when celebrities appear on late-night talk shows, they're there with one sole purpose: to plug their latest movie, television show or album. But leave it to Michael Moore to break the rules. On Monday night, the famed provocateur stopped by "The Colbert Report" not to promote one of his projects, but rather an endangered institution -- the American labor union.

After introducing his guest as "Roger Moore," Colbert dove right in. "Why are public-sector unions attacking Republican governors around the country?"

"I think it's the other way around," (Michael) Moore corrected him.

"That's not how I framed it," the host replied, his lightning wit on full display.

What followed was an entertaining, if not particularly instructive, segment in which Moore cited the  many compelling statistics of which he is very fond: The wealthy are sitting on $2 trillion; the wealthiest 400 Americans have more money than the bottom 150 million Americans combined; A person who works at McDonald's pays 3% more in taxes than Stephen Colbert. It almost makes you wish that Moore's interviews came with footnotes.

For the most of the interview, Colbert maintained the ironic guise he does so well, gently ribbing Moore's cultivated "average Joe" image ("Come on, the hat doesn't fool anybody," he joked) but, at about the 5:45 mark, Colbert's interrogation suddenly got more pointed: "Do you believe in the free-market system at all?" he asked.

To see how Moore responded -- and to watch him call Colbert a "tool of Viacom" -- watch the clip above.

As a host, Colbert is intentionally inscrutable, but it seemed as though he was a bit exasperated with Moore. What did you think?

-- Meredith Blake
Twitter.com / MeredithBlake

Comments

[Lisa]

I don't think he was exasperated at all. He was smiling to the end and was able to make many quips. That's what he does, while letting his audience become educated.

[Brett]

If he was exasperated by Moore, he certainly didn't show it, and his comeback to being called a "tool of Viacom" was funnier and more insightful than any Michael Moore documentary.

[Kathe Quinlin]

Stephen Colbert looked right at home last night with Michael Moore, leading thought provoking dicussion and allowing Moore's opinions to flow. I thought it was a good interview - funny, and especially hilarious when Moore jabbed about Colbert being a tool. Too funny!

[marty scorbassy]

It is both terrible and amazing that Colbert and Stewart are at the helm of the last thread of sanity in TV Journalism. Moore needed a little tough love, and that little plug of Moore's Blu-Ray DVD, ON AMAZON no less, right at the end was a great response to his Viacom remark. I am a proud tool of MY employer as well, and my kids love me for it! haha! If only we could all just go to film school.

[Trudy]

Colbert generally makes even his most intelligent guests appear clumsy, as they engage in his humor. Moore didn't bite, wasn't there to make nice or laugh with Colbert, was able to hold his line, and I think Colbert loved the hell out of it. Moore made a decent sparring partner.

[Chris Anderlik]

Colbert was rude and didn't give Michael Moore enough time to finish a sentence.
After all--Moore came a long distance--too far to be held off til the Last FEW MINUTES OF the SHOW and even then didn't give him a fair break!

[Andrew]

I think you sound, as many mainstream journalists do, like you have a knee-jerk hostility to Moore that comes out as snarky contempt in your writings--even when you admit to being impressed by his arguments. Also, and I can't believe there are some intelligent people who don't know this--Stephen Colbert is very liberal politically and probably agrees with and admires Moore for his work. His conservative persona is 100% an act that allows him to satirize the right and present liberal guests with an exaggerated form of opposition to crystallize their points. He was not "exasperated" with Moore, as much as you'd like him to be to validate your prejudice against the man. I wish a lot of journalists would stop drinking the kool-aid regarding Moore and really stop and think what possible reasons they'd have for hating someone who's only fault is standing up for poor people and making good movies.

[Meredith Blake]

@Andrew I'm aware that Colbert is a satirist and that he leans to the left. But I do think he seemed slightly frustrated with Moore's unwillingness to directly answer his questions, even when he posed them in the most blunt, un-ironic way possible. (I.e. "Do you believe in the free market?"). Personally, I'm torn when it comes to Moore, because, though I often agree with his underlying point, I don't like the way he frames the debate.

[Andrew]

@Meredith Blake,

Please elaborate. What do you not like about the way he "frames the debate"?

Though I would take issue with the idea that he "frames the debate" at all. His opinions are decidedly outside the mainstream. If anything, he attempts to communicate his thoughts in a debate already framed by the mainstream media. He must continually contend with a debate that is pre-framed against his viewpoints and, more shamefully, against him personally. Perhaps you didn't mean "frame the debate" but rather how he frames his own thoughts? Which, again, tends to be the standard reply from people (even liberals) who know they're supposed to dislike him, but don't have their own genuine reasons for doing so: "I agree with what he's trying to do, just not how he does it." When you press them further, they can't seem to come up with anything other than the baseless negative buzzwords that have been circulated: propagandist, self-promoter, elitist, etc.

I'm totally overreacting to your article, and I apologize. It's just one of my biggest media bugaboos, seeing otherwise intelligent people buy into the constructed media pressure to dislike someone for reasons that essentially are not their own. Look back at any mainstream (even centrist to left) coverage of Moore. It's always either outright negative or tainted with thinly veiled contempt and denegration. Always. It makes me sad.

[Andrew]

Watch the video again. Is Moore in any way expressing himself with any viciousness, self-righteousness, hostility, etc.? Is he behaving in a way that is somehow less acceptable than any opinionated person does on television? He says what he thinks, sure, but how many pundits, activists, commentators, etc. do that on TV all day, often with more histrionics and vociferousness and somehow are not condemned for it?

He is singled out because he is successful. He came closer than any person in my lifetime to invigorating a real liberal reawakening in this country and he was taken down so fast and so effectively that even people who agree with him are more likely to disparage him than support him because that's the common wisdom.

[cbt]

I LOVE YOU MICHAEL MOORE !!!!!!!! KEEP UP WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE!!!!! STEPHEN COLBERT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF AS THE 400 WEALTHY SHOULD ALSO BE ON THE TAXPAYERS DOLLARS!