Alert Media Smartie Eric Budd offers the following
Eric writes: “I thought you would appreciate this if you hadn’t seen it already.” Colbert Testifies on Capitol Hill: Migrant Workers.
I urge all Smarties to check out Eric’s post. Things to think about as you do:
1) If you don’t know the background of this testimony and why Stephen Colbert is testifying before Congress, find out.
2) What is Colbert’s e
xpertise in migrant labor?3) For the media-literate among us, why is Colbert’s engagement with this issue more than a comic riff?
4) What is your reaction to the process of Congressional process, as reflected by this item (and whatever else you can find related to this hearing)? (and how come so few of the people behind Colbert have smile muscles?)
5) Congressman Conyers (from what state? What political party?) makes these statements: a) he asks Colbert to leave the room, and b) he commends Colbert on his planned event on Oct. 30 in DC. What is that?
From a Smartie perspective: What strikes you about this as a part of the role of the mass media in the political process and public engagement with an issue?
Seriously. What is “truth” and what is “truthiness,” and how does this example of the political process move either forward?
I listened to the testimony yesterday - the bottom line being that when invited to take the jobs of migrant workers, only something like 16 people answered the call. Colbert was one of them and his point was that it was not work he cared to do again, ever. His suggestion was that we provide work visas for the people who do want those jobs, that or give up eating vegetables, or genetically engineer vegetables that pick themselves. The message does come through despite the sarcasm and comedy. Interesting that congress would give a comedian a platform like this, but he was after all one of the few people who actually answered the call to try out those jobs, and in his fashion, he reported on his experience. Do Americans need to be entertained in order to be informed? Does congress?
ReplyDeleteSince our lives are consumed by the media now... I think Americans do need to be entertained other wise they won't give a damn. We get bored quickly because new technology and "toys" keep coming out making 2009 I-phone worthless compared to the 2010 and something as old as immigration (It's been talked about for a while now) "so yesterday." Colbert made a smart move for all of us because now people are talking about immigration in a new light because of him. Plus, it was entertaining listening to him because of his humor, instead of falling asleep on an issue that is not new.
ReplyDeleteRomina Nedakovic
There is no doubt that involving a celebrity attracts viewers; the court room had not been that full since the Clinton debacle. But the real question is how much of Colbert's testimony was "truth" and how much was "truthiness"? Since my brother-in-law owns a farm in Idaho, I probed him for answers. Does he have immigrants working for him, and if so how many? What is the hourly wage of an immigrant compaired to a non-immigrant? What is the difference in work quality between the two? Could the farming community realistically function without immigrants? I left the conversation feeling like immigrants are a vital part of agriculture. Without them, farms would yeild far less profit and have to "dry up" some of their land.
ReplyDeleteThen I started to think about the king crab fishermen in Alaska. That is supposedly the deadliest job in the nation. Yet because it pays so well, people are willing to risk their lives. Farm work is not life-threatning, but it is hard. If the price was right, however, there wouldn't be a problem filling the jobs.
I feel Colbert's testimony was a combination of "truths" and "truthiness". There will always be two sides to every story though. The most important thing Colbert accomplished was getting society, the media, and congress to THINK. That is progress.
Breck Perkins