Jeffrey Fisher: Frankly, I find this reassuring. There are limits to what Stewart and Colbert do. But I think what they do is valuable, and if they adopt positions parallel to someone like Beck (a comparison I've seen more than once), all of that will go down the tubes. I'd rather have them doing what they do now and let other people do the other stuff.
=======
Cox: (I've never seen their program, so this isd not a direct comment on them -- I will take JF's word that _if_ it affects people, it affects them in the right direction.)
Now,independently of the objection I am about to make, I suspect a good case could be made out for JF's pleasure, but that case has to be radically different from what seems to me to be the implicit and wholly false premise of this thread: that their words will change people's minds!
I refer yuou to the thread recently mentioned, the debate between Miles & Julio a couple years ago. Miles was _wholly_ correct. "Persuasionss" plays NO ROLE in social change (though it is still necessary for other reasons. Hence the audience for this show will divide into two (and I think only two) sections: One will be people who already agree with them and merely delight in seeing their own opinions reflected. The other will be people who disagree with them but find them entertaining: Absolutely NO change will occur in their opinions.
Now I would like to see someone make the case (which I'm sure exists but I can't figure out) _why_, assuming my points above, Stewart's show is still socially of worth. (I could make an argument, somewhat wobbly but still not easy to refute) that left liberal TV shows, DP politicians, etc perhaps do more political damage than they do good: they transfer the energy of potential activists into passive enjoyment of "good opinions.')
Carrol