Chaplains worry about DADT repeal implications (CT)Senate Reps block DADT repeal (CP)
Obamas go to church (CP)
Colbert at Congress? (CSM)
Repubs unveil “Pledge to America” (CBS)
Islam, immigration, and Catholics (CT)
Sesame Street cuts Katy Perry segment (AP)
6 in UK arrested for Quran burning (AP)
Fed up Mexicans turning to vigilante justice (CSM)
Physical explanation for parting of Red Sea? (CSM)
FL court strikes down gay adoption ban (CNN)
For many, health care relief begins today (NYT)
ADF supports AZ return to spouse-only benefits (ADF)
AZ to assess gas-pipe safety (AZR)
AZ docs may face marijuana dilemma (AZR)
Thieves cart off St. Louis bricks (NYT)
Colvin and maple bats (ASU State Press)
Do Senators understand homosexual conduct? (Townhall)
Dream Act derailed (AZR)
Dream Act stalls in Senate (Color Lines)
2 comments:
Like you, was befuddled about the Stephen Colbert Congress testimony, but this article offered a different perspective on the matter:
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/092610b.html
Let’s face it: Some in the Washington press corps still resent Stephen Colbert because he so brilliantly lampooned them to their faces at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner over their coziness with the Bush White House.
On Friday, some elite journalists couldn’t contain their anger after Colbert testified before Congress on behalf of immigrant farm workers — mostly in character (with some funny and not-so-funny jokes) and partly in total seriousness:
“I like talking about people who don’t have any power and it seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are the migrant workers who come and do our work and don’t have any rights as a result . And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave.”
Thanks to Colbert, a hearing on migrant workers that would have been ignored by mainstream journalists was jam-packed with mainstream journalists.
I think this guy's analysis is probably correct. How do you get people to pay attention to the powerless? Well, you both make a mockery out of America's preference for satire over substance and also get a roomfull of reporters to cover it because it's "so outrageous." Then again, what's outrageous is someone saying "this is too important an issue to trivialize this way" but then not apparently beleiving it's significant enough to really cover on its own merits.
Post a Comment