What is it about Jon Stewart, KO or RM that gets people so giddy?

[newtothegame]

Sure, the topics on their shows are up our alley, but what they do isn't particularly brave. In the case of Jon Stewart in particular, his audience would worship him no matter what he said. They break into hysterical laughter from just the looks he gives the camera. None of these 3 are speaking truth to power in any sense; they're entertaining adoring fans.

Code Pink, on the other hand, speaks truth to power on a daily basis. They go to the lion's den, and face jail time and abuse for their actions. Yet noone adores. Noone worships. Stories about Code Pink never include words like OWNS, or BASHES, or RIPS APART, like all the stories about Jon, Keith or Rachel. And yet they're the only ones that are actually doing anything brave at all. You don't "own" somebody by inviting them on your show in front of your adoring audience and then grilling them. You own someone by going into their house (as Code Pink does on Capitol Hill) and showing them what's up.

[valerief]

1. Didn't know it was either or. Code Pink is terrific! nt

[Uncle Joe]

22. I feel the same way.

I can appreciate Code Pink's work and Stewart's Satire.

I see them as working toward many of the same goals but from different angles.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Code Pink is detrimental to their own cause.

They're no better the PETA.

[earth mom]

4. You are wrong. Period. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

8. You are probably right. You can't shit the middle to the left when the left looks like lunatics

[eowyn_of_rohan]

10. Some of their "antics" have been brilliant, others obnoxious

all depends on the branch (they have branches all over the country) and the individuals involved

[Catherina]

11. How humorous. As if you had any cause in common. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. If the "cause" is making one's self out to be an ass and do nothing useful to end a war, then no.

I don't care to have that in common.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Did you see Rob Riggle interview Code Pink?

It was pretty bad.

[earth mom]

3. Code Pink kicks serious a$$, but they are not on t.v. and they are not well known.

I don't think I've seen much on t.v. about them, though that said, I don't watch the bullshit corporate news if I can help it.

I think we need both-Code Pink AND Stewart, Olbermann, Maddow and anyone else who speaks truth to power.

[KeepItReal]

5. The fact that they exist and thrive in spite of corporate owned media outlets

Not to diminish Code Pink, *every* citizen has the right to organize and protest.

Almost nobody can get a show on cable TV and use it as a platform to air the truth.

Phil Donahue was the highest rated show on MSNBC during the run up to the Iraq invasion, and he got yanked, only because he dared to question the motives for and possible aftermath of a war.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Code Pink isn't funny. Well, not funny "ha ha."

Neither is Stewart for that matter, but he's got a studio audience that laughs. So people laugh too.

[Greyhound]

7. The fact that they are a tiny minority, liberals with a microphone.

Ask Phil Donahue or Bill Maher what the price of speaking truth on the air is.

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. I think its pretty brave to get serious and frequent death threats

and still continue to tell the truth. KO has done that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. I think Stewart has probably changed more minds than Code Pink has.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. You mean, the minds of all those conservatives who tune in to the

'Daily Show' and 'Colbert Report'?

Seriously, they are about as likely to watch him as I am to watch Glen Beck.

He's not there to change minds. He's there to comment on our society from a liberal viewpoint, 99% playing to the believers.

Not denigrating what he does - I watch him damn near every night - but Code Pink goes to the people who DON'T want to meet them. They might not change minds either, but they bring attention to issues that their targets would just as soon ignore.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. No. Changed the minds of the young audience members that watch him

We always had TDS on in the common area of my dorm. A lot of kids weren't committed one way or the other. But Jon Stewart changed that.

[Radical Activist]

30. I don't think conservatives have their mind changed by

an aging hippie making disruptions in public meetings as a publicity stunt. I doubt anyone beyond the left notices them anyway. There are more effective ways to stop a war if they wanted to move beyond theatrical gimmicks.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Getting the truth out to the masses and in a manner that is digestible is not

something can be overstated or overrated in the present and worse environments.

Perhaps the people in Code Pink have the greater courage but it is pretending to act like they have more impact and pretty much poppycock that they are anywhere near as effective.

[WCGreen]

20. the efficacy of any movement is determined by how they effect change...

I see no evidence to that affect from the actions of Code Pink or PETA or any of the other protesters who call more attention to themselves than to the cause they are promoting.

Nothing wrong with this and I can see that people who feel so disenfranchised would gravitate toward the fringe if they find no relief from the mainstream.

Change is hard to effect in this country. It takes years and dedication and being able to settle for incremental progress.

Like it or not, that is how the country works.

Look at how long the conservatives were in the wilderness. More than five decades before they were finally able to cobble together a coalition that was really based more on changing circumstance than on any ideological fealty.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I wasn't making a case for Pink, rather a side note of respect in a larger point.

You don't have to preach incrementalisim to me. My concerns other than a couple that time isn't forgiving toward are about the direction of the increments and that some seem more placebo than actual movement.

I do wonder if incrementalism has become something clever to say to duck any genuine efforts.

Incrementalism requires a goal and that a series of steps be taken to reach the destination. It is not supposed to bea covering tactic for weak, fake, or counter-productive efforts.

[WCGreen]

31. Incrementalism is the only way to get things done unless there is

an realigning election.

The last real realigning election occurred with Ronald Reagan. The Conservative movement was basically relegated to the fringe outside of a few outliers like the Blacklisting of the 50's and the racially motivated election of Nixon, who, btw, enacted more liberal legislation than Clinton.

Incrementalism puts an idea or a goal into play so that when a realignment does occur, the stage is set to take advantage.

What I think Obama is trying to do is change the whole way we look at certain issues, to shore up the implementation of certain governmental activities that will ultimately lead to change.

The problem with this strategy is that with the mood of the republicans to attack anything he does, there seems to be little chance that he can count on a supportive Congress next term of even if he can win a second term himself.

If he does loose, I fear that will bring about a realigning election that will last well into the 2020's and that would be a disaster for this country and the world.

[TheKentuckian]

33. We had a shot at one but the winner is a Reagan paradigm believer

If Reagan had come in and just worked within the existing New Deal/Great Society framework and only sought to do a little house cleaning then he would not have been transformative.

Reagan's policies were never popular but he pushed his ideology and policies without much regard about how they would poll or if people were "ready" for them or not.

Still, my issues are mostly with the direction of the increments and in some cases the increments are too puny to ever reach the goals.
We need larger steps on energy and environmental protection or we won't be here to see the finish line. On civil liberties there is no excuse, Reagan didn't do that. Bush forced distortions that have never been apart of of our cultural fabric and should be utterly rejected as criminal.

[Lemonwurst]

17. I believe Rachel Maddow is a bit different from KO and JS

Though I agree with your points about Code Pink being relatively brave and paying full price for their actions, I believe Rachel Maddow has effectively used her forum at MSNBC to shine a light on activities that otherwise would've flown beneath the radar. And in doing so, she may have been the catalyst for some significant change. For instance:

1) She hammered away for weeks at the secrecy and possible political influence of C-street organizations and tenants; during that period (last summer, I believe) C-street lost their tax-exempt "church" status by 66% (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/c_street_house_no_longer_tax_exempt.php)

2) She also highlighted Uganda's proposed "Kill The Gays" bill (maybe she even invented that catch phrase), to the point where both politicians and other media outlets could no longer ignore or bury it as an issue. The attention and pressure stemming from her dogged reporting has resulted in a Uganda-based commission recommending that it be withdrawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill)

3) More recently, she cornered newly-minted Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul with her head-on question about his view on the Civil Rights Act law extending to private businesses. While we won't know for several months what this does to his election chances, the exposure has certainly soiled regular citizens' view of this Tea Party darling, and by extension, makes it harder to media to celebrate the Teabaggers as "regular folks who are just fed up". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html).

4) Senate-hopeful Sue Lowden from Nevada is no longer all that hopeful because of her ridiculous Pay Your Doctor With a Chicken remarks regarding the healthcare reform debate. Certainly Rachel wasn't the only one in the media to run with such a crazy-fun scoop, but with Lowden out of the way, Harry Reid probably has a better chance squaring off against wacky teabagger Sharron Angle. And Rachel will no doubt keep the heat on Angle, which again is the best way to counter the notion that the Tea Party is made up of individuals with mainstream beliefs and solutions.

In my youth, the mainstream media was a dependable set of eyes and ears for the public, possibly because the journalistic talent bar was set so high with so few slots to occupy on the three major networks. That and the idea that news wasn't like fast-food to be served every minute, but prepared carefully in advance, and regarded as a public service as a form of repayment for using the public's airwaves. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with all the technical advancements of the digital age and don't think of the 60's or 70's as a more enlightened age. But even when you speak of Code Pink, our current media is a problem, not a solution, for those who choose to speak truth to power.

And I believe Rachel is one example of a true journalist who "gets it", and accordingly will continue to have some influence despite having to pander to a select audience now and then.

[lurky]

19. I've thought a lot about this re Stewart.

He provides a service that the "serious" press is too chickenshit to do: He shows us when our leaders are lying. This can involve "before and after" clips where public figures are clearly lying their asses off, or this can involve pointing out the disparity between words and actions of politicians, corporations, and governments, or it may be just be demonstrating the total, blatant falsehood of some claim that is made by leaders on a daily basis. Additionally, he exposes the workings of the political message machine and the biases and BS that pervade our media.

You will never see this done in a major newspaper or broadcast news program. They are so worried about maintaining "access" and pleasing the powers-that-be, that they frame everything in false equivalency. All statements are "matters of debate", no matter how demonstrably false they are. Embarrassing a public figure by showing them to be a liar is just not done. Then they might stop giving you valuable quotes and tips, or worse yet, stop coming on your show for interviews or "analysis".

I think what he does is important. Who cares what his fans cheer about? They are a studio audience who are fluffed and primed and encouraged to laugh and make noise.

[walldude]

21. I see.. so Jon Stewart is doing it wrong and Code Pink is doing it right.

Anything else? Are my shoes too blue? Am I giving Obama enough credit? Am I being to mean to the Democrats? Are there any other things I need to learn from you? Because I have to tell you without you telling me that people are "giddy" about some "not particularly brave" people, I would have never had known that my enjoyment of a late night comedian was an affront to Code Pink.

[EC]

23. Take a guess,

Could it be that Jon, Keith and Rachel have a platform? They actually can get attention, since they have TV programs? And they do speak truth to power - Jon doesn't go easy on RW guests, he often zings them good. Keith and Rachel both get the truth out there even when it's not popular...As for Code Pink...they have successfully been marginized...the general public does not see them and most have never heard of them...

[Scuba]

24. I admire both....

Stewart and staff do an incredible job of lampooning, saving their best for the right-wingers and MSM.

Code Pink members show incredible courage to raise awareness where none exists.

[Berry Cool]

26. Is this a freaking contest or something?

Olbermann and Stewart have both had envelopes of white powder sent to them by nutjobs. Olbermann is actively hated and attacked by nutjobs all the time. These guys have earned their stripes as far as bravery is concerned. Especially Olbermann--he gets threats all the time. And why? Because, like Stewart, he speaks truths they don't want to hear. They are both way, way more than just entertainers of "adoring fans." So let go of your snit about how Code Pink is sooooooo way better than they are and doesn't get adored and worshiped. Or call the waaahmbulance.

Code Pink is not "the only ones" doing ANYTHING.

[newtothegame]

27. Wow, find some happiness friend. Watch a sunset. Hug a puppy. Something. nt

[KonaKane]

28. They are first and foremost entertainers.

Not to play that down, that is to their credit. Not everyone can be entertainers. But lets be real here and realize who is who. Entertainers do their thing, Code Pink are street theater activists. They do their job very well too. I appreciate them all for what they bring to the fight.

[cwydro]

29. Well, just about everyone on DU loved them

during the Bush regime.

Now that they might possibly say something about President Obama (and have), people don't like them so much anymore.

[mdmc]

32. talent

Code pink is cool but where is the change?
TDS and Countdown can make a change..

[Uzybone]

34. KnR

As much as I love Jon Stewart, he will be quick to remind all that he is a comedian with a show on Comedy Central.

The fact is that some liberals are just as easily enraptured by media personalities as the knuckle draggers on the right are.

[donheld]

35. K & U