Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Interpreting Jon Stewart's Politics
Any criticism of Jon Stewart must begin with enthusiastic praise: his Daily Show is where millions of people go for important news that is purposely ignored by the mainstream media. Consequently, both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have become icons of the political Left.
During the Bush administration, their shows highlighted the lies and hypocrisies used to engage in foreign wars while destroying the civil liberties in the United States; Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondence dinner - with Bush present - will go down in history as a moment of great courage and confrontation between a satiric comedian and a war criminal.
This incident, combined with the consistent exposing of lying politicians and the biased mainstream media, have earned Stewart and Colbert deep political respect.
It's in this context that their rally in Washington, D.C. - the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear - must be viewed. Millions of people were eager to see how Stewart's and Colbert's politics would manifest themselves in a political rally. To them, the rally was not a joke. The mainstream The New York Times is correct in saying:
"...it is perhaps a measure of the volatility of American politics that a television comedy show was able to tap something deep among American voters, who turned out in the tens of thousands on Saturday to add their voices to a national political debate that some said had left them behind."
and:
"Though it was billed as a gathering for civility - a party on a sunny Saturday for people to enjoy thoughtful conversation - for participants it was a serious political affair." (October 30, 2010).
Stewart's message was not a joke either. The rally was thus far the clearest expression of his political thought. The essence his political message was conveyed by a song performed by Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow (Stewart introduced the pair's song as being in sync with the purpose of the event). The chorus of the song includes the following lyrics:
"Yelling on the left/Screaming on the right/ I'm sitting in the middle trying to live my life."
This "middle" is where Jon Stewart's politics lie, between what he sees as an unreasonable left and right-wing of the political spectrum; a theme repeated throughout the event.
Later in the rally Stewart played a video compilation of left-wing and right-wing pundits, screaming insults at their political opposites. Stewart portrays his politics as an alternative - a rational-thinking middle-ground.
To prove his moderate politics and to fend off right-wing criticism, Stewart draped American flags around the stage and had musicians perform patriotic songs, including America the Beautiful and the National Anthem.
Sadly, Stewart went overboard to prove he wasn't overly progressive, when he specifically denounced Marxists as "attempting to subvert our constitution [?] " - an example of McCarthy Red-baiting at its worse.
Stewart's rally strongly implied that instead of political conflict, everyone should join him in the reasonable political center. One of his concluding remarks was: "It's a shame we can't work together to get things done."
If only politics were that simple.
In reality, society is torn apart by economic and social inequality, dominated by giant corporations that benefit from low wages and foreign wars. These same corporations - owned by super-rich individuals - also benefit from the lies, anger, and insanity broadcast by the mainstream media. The phenomenon of scare tactics directly benefits giant corporations who want a subdued populace so they can pursue their business-friendly agenda.
Stewart does his audience a great disservice by not recognizing the profit-motive behind the right-wing fear-mongers, who are paid large salaries by corporations to divide and confuse working people. We are instead led to believe that simple "insanity" is why our mainstream media allows figures such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin to preach hate and nonsense to millions of people.
In fact, these right-wingers are given such large venues because their politics are in line with the foreign and domestic policy interests of a number of very rich people who own TV channels and other corporations.
Stewart's rally signaled - whether consciously or not - a degree of political backpedaling on his part. During the Bush Administration, Stewart and Colbert's shows were incredibly radical, given the political circumstances; they exposed lies that cut deep into the Administration's heart. It was at this time that Stewart became globally famous, as millions around the world looked to his show to challenge the false narrative broadcast by the Bush government.
The Daily Show changed considerably when Obama became President. The criticisms became more mild mannered, even as Obama continued essentially the same policies as Bush. When Obama recently appeared on Stewart's Daily Show, not one question was asked about Obama's wars, while Obama was allowed to speak endlessly about all the great things he was doing for the country, in effect papering over his complete lack of action to create jobs.
Whether he acknowledges it or not, Jon Stewart is a political figure adored by millions on the left and ruthlessly hated by those on the right. The middle-ground that Stewart would like to base his politics on survives only in his head, and in the heads of others who would like to ignore the very real conflict between giant corporations versus tens of millions of working people.
Sides must be taken in this battle. But instead, Stewart preaches from the sidelines with a message that says, "No such battle is taking place." Unfortunately for Stewart, the politicians and mainstream media that he regularly thrashes fully embrace this perspective, for their own benefit.
86 Comments so far
Show AllHe's smarter than his critics give him credit for. He's expressing an ideal, not a perceived reality. He'd *like* people to be able to go about their lives; and he believes the average person can: as they merge seamlessly from 6 lanes into 2 lane tunnels in his example. He *knows* there are powerful interests manipulating all this. Even under Bush, my perception was that he was dragged unwillingly into taking a stand. As a comedian he *wants* to skewer everybody, so he keeps veering back to that. As a thoughtful human being, he clearly knows better. You can sense that when he attacks Olbermann, he's doing it for "balance". He's also smart enough to know that the audience he solicited will vote on what passes for the left in this country; and he just mobilized their vote, as much as anyone could; for one individual up against all those forces of evil, I think he just did pretty well.
"solicited will vote on what passes for the left in this country; and he just mobilized their vote, as much as anyone could; "
Mobilized their vote for what, to vote for the useless Democrats? Where will that get us?
Although Stewart makes liberals feel good when he "skewers" the Right, he never, ever goes all the way. He always comes up short. He wants to get paid, right? So, he straddles the middle, nibbling at the edges. Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Must have learned that skill from Obama.
And is he really up against those forces of evil, or is he beholden to them?
So, if he confronts Viacom and the media giants on whom he depends for his paycheck, and, if he loses his job, then what? Too many CD'ers never want to address that. Then what is not only his personal loss, but his ability to do what he is doing, such as it is. I don't know about sanity, too many overtones of civility, and I agree with the critics of that one, but I am all in favor of living in reality.
As Stephen Zunes stated today (Commondreams.org) in "My Support for Ralph Nader, Ten Years Later: Lessons Learned" , [It is important] "that, though the differences between Democrats and Republicans may be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, the power of U.S. government is so great that even small differences can make huge differences in the lives of many millions of people."
"So, if he confronts Viacom and the media giants on whom he depends for his paycheck, and, if he loses his job, then what?"
Join Democracy Now. Take a cut in pay, remove the shackles that hold you back and increase the visibility of the only true media outlet in the country.
Now, that would be providing a service to the country.
Reality check: both are good; who, however, reaches more people?
But reaching them with what........middle of the road crumbs? Take for example - the MidEast. When did you see Stewart discuss Israel/Gaza/Flotilla/Goldstone Report?
And if he has, he's extremely cautious.
I say his status could elevate a Democracy Now which would discuss the MidEast in a meaningful way.
Have to start small, but hopefully it would grow.
Exactly. And as someone mentioned a few days ago on this issue, Stewart is just a safety valve that allows people to think they are actually accomplishing something. What has all the "skewering" accomplished? Nothing.
The author writes, "When Obama recently appeared on Stewart's Daily Show, not one question was asked about Obama's wars, while Obama was allowed to speak endlessly about all the great things he was doing for the country, in effect papering over his complete lack of action to create jobs.
Exactly. Stewart isnt being civil because he is ssooo rational, he is being a freakin pussy. It's long past time for the Power Liberals - the ones with money and media platforms - to start creating the Progressive - not Democrat!! - counter to the Right-Wing-Corporate-Noise-Machine that dominates the media, going after it mercilessly!
Stewart is just continuing this bullsh** "bipartisanship" that the corporate elite just love!
Did Stewart once confront Obama on - not only the sick, insane wars - the corporate elite dominance of this country and on how that is destroying this country? No. I suppose to do so would be too "loud". Fu** Jon Stewart for helping propagate the lie of equivalancy and going after Code Pink. I wrote a whole post about it yesterday, so i am not repeating it here. What he is doing is disgusting. I doubt I will watch his show again.
"So Jon, for all the people in Iraq, Af-Pak and Gaza who have watched loved ones killed and maimed, F*** You!"
Post script:
"This country IS facing catastrophe, Jon. Open your damn eyes and educate yourself beyond this narcissistic, feel-good liberalism. Oh, but in doing that, you would have to face some hard truths about israel. oh well, forget i mentioned it. Likewise, i suppose talking about the horrible birth defects caused by the depleted uranium in US shells and missles would be just too "loud" and not "civil." Yes Jon, you and your audience should just go back to sleep. Just keep telling yourself: The corporate overlords will make everything all right, no need to feel any urgency. Just relax. And sleeeeeep"
Great comment. I feel the same way. I feel that Stewart, like also for example the PBS News Hour, is allowed a certain amount of leash, but no more, and the purpose is to be that safety valve; or like a bone, with no real meat on it, tossed to the Left and the antiwar crowd.
We hear that considerably more than half the people in the country want the wars to end, but if so, where is the noise about it? Not even on the Left's favored news outlets. And the rest of the media has collaborated with the wars of aggression and mostly still cheer-lead it; and always evade the critical, elephant in the room, kinds of questions.
Virtually all of the media is right of center, and most of it far right.
I remember real activism, way back when. Even then, it was far less of a success than one would hope it should be- (although that is an impossible judgment to make with precision and is always debatable). But eventually had a strong cumulative effect as more and more people were sickened by the war. But it is important to remember that back then, the media started revealing the war in its bad aspects, not like today's disgustingly fawning media.
Back then the media was more like Ben Bradlee but now it is like Ben Dover, I am sorry to say.
As we know, it took over 57,000 dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of wounded, and millions of Vietnamese dead, before the war ended.
Today the government seems self-protected from even large-scale protests, if there were any, but people have mostly given up due to the perceived ineffectiveness of protest.
We would never invest in a company that took the money and lost it and wasted it and used it for terrible things, even crimes, even torture. But we are required to invest in a government which does those things, with our money, the sweat of our brow. We should have a say if our hard-earned dollars are going to for example murder of foreign civilians who have never done any harm to the U.S. We must demand accountabilty, and we must demand it in large numbers. And we are not ready to do so yet. The suffering has not yet outweighed the sick "fun" or being in "a time of war", in the minds of far too many brainwashed Americans.
The wars are not even on the midterm elections radar. Instead we have this highly convenient bomb scare. Toner indeed. Maybe it's true and maybe not. The point is, I don't believe them any more than I did Bush, and that is sad.
An administration should have some credibility with the people and Obama's failure to do the most obvious and important thing this country needs to do- end the wars- has gravely disappointed me and millions of other citizens.
He has just been Bush 3, and there has hardly been any reduction of forces all in all, maybe even escalation in toto since he got to office.
So I assume he is either weak, or under a warning, or consciously on the side of the war lovers. I still find it hard to decide which.
The power to kill people is said to be quite intoxicating. It's not so great though for the people who are on the wrong end of the gun or bomb. They don't get the thrill of the kill.
Bush never seemed to get that and Obama doesn't either.
To be president of the U.S. means to agree to be an executive murderer, among other things.
Presidents have people killed one way or another, in all my living memory, and I'm sure before. People at the top sometimes play seriously rough and most of us civilians don't grasp that so well because of the illusion of a peaceful and civilized country we have.
--from this old hippie and draft dodger, who thought Vietnam could never happen again.
"So, if he confronts Viacom and the media giants on whom he depends for his paycheck, and, if he loses his job, then what?"
So, instead of just becoming irrelevant, he remains irrelevant with a paycheck.
Seems so, I don't know, middle-of-the-road.
Steward says he is fed up with the corruption of our national politics but really shows an acceptance of it. It is fodder for his mill and he understands it as a necessary part of doing business. When he asked Barrack about his Pharma deal he said he understood that the 80 billion in ten year savings in return for not being able to negotiate drug prices was, with a shrug of his shoulders, "OK." Indicating that its not ideal but practically a necessity. The discussion then went into a puff piece about how great the Health care reform bill was---. I'm going to put my foot down right there. I think this bargain was a huge sell out. I think it shows who Barrack's true masters are. I think there is an alternative which is telling the American public that these corporate for profit interests are high jacking meaningful reform. While I was at it I might even show some anger at the arrogance of Big Pharma to dictate public policy in its interests. (Gee-not very civil according to Steward.) If you are against the corruption of our national politics and want to reform it you do more than poke fun at it and then sullenly accept its reality when pressed. You provide to the public an alternative vision of how our national political life should be carried out. That means someone in power will have to cede it to a new force. That process is not always gentile or civil. Maybe all of those moderates down on the lawn wish it could be. Maybe they enjoy making fun of the way things are now but these are not the people who are actually going to create the change which would make their satirical signs unneeded. They along with Steward are the coalition of the willing but whining. I guess they have their place but it is not the place of hope and change and in its impotence it still condones what it criticizes.
But if stewart stood up for the truth, Obama wouldnt be appearing on his show. As you well know. As we all well know.
Your argument would carry a little more credibility if you could at least get his name right: Jon Stewart.
I see JS as a steward (of Isreal and his media masters).
Actually, I was surprised Obama did go on his show, being that Stewart was pointed out in a U.K. article -- here on CD -- as being highly critical of Obama. I figured he wouldn't want to be caught up in another "Velma" moment. He should have showed Obama one of those biting montages he's done in the past few months. But Obama had nothing to worry about. He might as well have been interviewed by Brian Williams, or any of the other fawning media stars.
It's nice that Crow and Rock are "trying to live their lives" like good little affluent Boomer kinder.
If the song were less self-centered, the lyrics would have been,
"I'm at the bottom, tryin' to save my life"
And that's the difference between Jon Stewart's reality and mine.
This whole scene was soft-core corporate porn all the way.
I appreciate the times Stewart has done good over the years. But to rally for the sole purpose of telling people in my world to "shut up" and be nice when they're being proverbially butchered by power is several time zones from a noble idea.
See ya, Jon and Stephen. It's been fun more times than I can count. But as always, when the letters on the masters change, so do you.
DRONE: I agree (especially your 6th paragraph). Seems Stewart is charming the angry masses to instead channel all that angst into behaving like Good Germans. Obedience to what? Calm in the face of all the damage being done here and abroad? Stewart is promoting a sell-out that's marketed (if not masked) as "The Rebel's Alternative." Even Bernays would be shocked to witness the levels of crowd control now covertly in use. Prisoners, on occasion, are also known to laugh.
Yep. I agree with Drone too - especially the sixth paragraph.
I hate it when people say I'm too angry and "melodramatic" when I get upset over photos of dead and mangled bloody babies created by US invasions.
"Don't worry, be happy...." I know too many people who close their eyes, become deaf to all unpleasant things and go "la la la la la" and plug their ears when someone is telling them something too serious or upsetting.
Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way.
Hi Shamus,
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree with
your interpretation of Jon Stewart's speech.
You said that he denounced marxists.
This is what he actually said:
"If the picture of us were true, of course, our inability to solve
problems would actually be quite sane and reasonable.
Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our
Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but
their own? "
He's not saying there are Marxists actively subverting our
Constitution. He is saying that one side(the right) is saying there
are Marxists (us) and that they are just wrong.
You said "One of his concluding remarks was: "It's a shame we can't
work together to get things done."
But what he actually said - in the followup to his quote above - was:
"We hear every damn day about how fragile our country is-on the brink
of catastrophe-torn by polarizing hate
and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done,
but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every
damn day!"
I really think you need to step back and reread his speech to see
that what he is really saying is that we are being manipulated -
whether it's by the media, corporations out to steal us blind, or
purely crazy people - and we need to think for ourselves.
We need to not allow ourselves to be blindly pitted against each other.
It may be true that one side is being manipulated more than the other
but the left is also full of kooky ideas that annoy the H8*l out of
me (no, the fluoride in the water is not going to kill you - it's a
good thing)
I think you owe Jon a bit of an apology,
Respectfully yours,
Dani W
"Why would you work with Marxists actively subverting our
Constitution or racists and homophobes who see no one's humanity but
their own? "
I really can't find evidence for your interpreation of this remark at all.
Stewart is clearly hewing to the corporate media mandate for "balance", so, if he points out the existence of very-real racists and homophobes on the right, he as to make up a threat on the "left" to provide "balance". Of course, there is no examples of ongoing extremism on the US left at all, so a speculative one will have to do, in this case "Marxists subverting the constitution".
Earlier, when he first promoted this rally, he used a film clip of Ms. Benjaman and the Code Pink women waving fake-blood stained hands at a senate hearing on Afghanistan as an example of "unreasonable extremism on the left" to balance the extremism of the right - as if there is some equivalence between promoting xenophobia and a retreat to robber-barron-era economics and opposing murder in a far off land against a people who had no quarrel with us until we invaded them.
(Now, to digrss a bit, last I checked the US constitution does not specifiy any economic system, nor is ther anything in Marxist economics that opposes anything in the US constitution, including the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure how a Marxist would subvert the constitution. I know, because I'm a Marxist myself.)
edit: Well, on second thought certainly majorr parts of US constitution need revision - like getting rid of the the US senate for starters.
Also the fact that he has to use nonexistent, or completely non-equivalent examples of "unreasnableness" on the left kind of destroys his hypothesis that there is this unreasonable extremism on "both sides", doesn't it?
"nor is ther anything in Marxist economics that opposes anything in the US constitution, including the Bill of Rights"
If we equate Communist and Socialist, as was common in the 19th century, it is not hard to find a conflict between their ideas and the Constitution.
Madison was very concerned about the sanctity of private property. He was afraid that state legislatures would not be able to resist pressure from the voters to pass laws that would cause inflation and thereby reduce the value of property, which was the main measure of wealth at the time. So he tried to get the delegates to the Convention in 1787 to insert a clause allowing Congress to veto any bill passed by a state legislature. The delegates did not adopt the clause, thankfully, because the document would not have been ratified by the states if it had been adopted.
Socialists usually believe that most of society's ills are due to the unequal distribution of resources and income. That includes private property, so the "taking clause in the fifth amendment would seem to conflict with Socialist ideals.
Ah, after doing some reading up I can see where you think Marxism may be interpreted as anti-constitutional.
But you are wrong.
If people are compensated for private property there is no problem. ( just like it is done now by capitalist governments )
And Marxists generally believe that compensation be paid.
My problem is with the word compensation. To compensate someone for something requires giving the person something of equal value. But to truly compensate someone requires that the two things be commensurate, not equivalent or equal. Commensurate things are measured on the same scale.
If the state wants to take my property, it must offer me some money. But is a wad of money really commensurate with the property which allows me to sit on the back porch and look at a pond, listen to the frogs in the mud, watch a rabbit scurry across the field, watch a neighbor's horses grazing in an adjacent pasture, watch my flock of sheep grazing in my pastures, etc., etc.?
Can money really "compenstate" me for the intangible pleasures my property gives me? This meandering argument pertains to both capitalism and marxism. The price system offends me but I do not know of anything better.
You are also making the mistake of thinking marxism is statism, ie the state owns the means of production.
Workers buy the means of production in a socialist state.
And don't workers also have an intangible stake in the means of production?
So there is no conflict between the US constitution and marxism.
So the only way you can "sit on the back porch and look at a pond, listen to the frogs in the mud, watch a rabbit scurry across the field, watch ... horses grazing in an adjacent pasture, watch ... sheep grazing ..." etc, etc, is if you own the property, the horse, the sheep?
And you want this so, what?, you can deny the same pleasures to someone else?
Spoken like a true capitalist, a term not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Nor is the right to private property, only compensation for a taking of such.
In fact, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the vast majority of those destined to become U. S. citizens, with all the rights enumerated in that Constitution, and a slew of others, not mentioned, had no private property.
Socialism isn't about personal property, it's about ownership of the means of production.
At least that's my reading of it.
I hope I don't sound mean, but, I wasn't speaking to you.
As far as socialism goes, I'm probably left of Trotsky. I think food should be free, and if you're going to own a business you bettter share the profits evenly with all your employees.
I'm not sure how private property fits in. Obviously, we could envision a social organization where no one NEEDED to actually own anything, but there are certain practicalities that make it pretty silly to think the state should own my computer, my pots and pans, my guitar or the family photos.
I suppose we must think in terms of the large-scale infrastructure, and as far as owning the substances and production of social necessities like food, water, energy, clean air, I think that's best left to the collective commons.
I can't see denying people the right to their homes. Even tribal people owned their own teepees. But where the "means of production" ends and a place to rest my butt begins is still a bit vague in pure socialist theory, I guess.
phineas, it's all good.
:D
Very good post with respect to the false equivalencies of right and left!
But regarding, "nor is there anything in Marxist economics that opposes anything in the US constitution", I have to agree with Sheepherder.
I *heart* you, Dani.
//Stewart portrays his politics as an alternative - a rational-thinking middle-ground. //
I don't see the alternative or the rational-thinking of Stewart's politics when it comes to the question of what happened on 9/11.
Stewart & Chomsky, they are quite effective at setting the limits of dissent.
"Stewart & Chomsky, they are quite effective at setting the limits of dissent."
indeed.
recently, chomsky called himself a "progressive anarchist" or some such nonsense, when pressed.
Chomsky has been aggresively ignored by the MSM for decades. He sets the limits of precisely nothing.
who's talking about MSM?
I would have loved to see the late George Carlin instead of Stewart. Then we would have had some thing to talk about today.
Hoa binh
If only...George Carlin were still with us!
I'm not exactly connected into the world of comedians, and recently, one of my friends asked me if I knew of anyone, amongst comedians, who is speaking out like George Carlin always did. I had NO answer for my friend. Of course, George Carlin did all of his own research and wrote his own sketches -- which placed him in a class of his own.
Bill Hicks would be another (late) comedian who spoke truth about power.
And if it had been Bill Hicks instead, most of us would still be trying to get our heads around what he said and wouldn't really be able to talk about it yet.
I think you're okay until you begin to discuss rebellion against the landholding banker, and the wealthy class attending...
if you support private property, and the basics of industrial employment, you're on the team...the appearance of dissent, to a point, behooves the process...
the halo on the constitution doesn't hold up under scrutiny...to stroll along pretending, and publicly declaring, otherwise imp*lies agenda...
Remember, also, that the constitution applied to about 5% of the population (white, land owning males) at the time it was ratified.
I find it rather revealing that people are upset with Stewart for trying to identify himself with middle America. I see his work as mainstreaming an awful lot of leftist thought. Yes, he's not going to use his show to promote a left agenda and that's what makes him preferable to the rabid right, in the eyes of those don't identify with the left but nonetheless accept an awful lot of its tenets.
He is moving the center to the left, people. We should rejoice that.
It depends on what your definition of left is.
Left of fascism doesn't really cut it.
Bingo, Morticia.
"He is moving the center to the left." Stewart is not coming anywhere near in doing that when he totally neglects to bring up the words Afghanistan and Iraq, either at his rally or on his program when he interviewed Obama and conveniently omitted any reference to the murderous policies of what Obama is doing to the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.
What Stewart refuses to recognize is that a warmonger is a warmonger, no matter if the warmongering is done by a Democrat or a Republican.
grist
grist for his mill
fodder is for cattle and guns
And fuck Stewart and his red baiting.
That statement he made will do immeasurable harm by reinforcing the propaganda and prejudices of the past century.
I won't be watching the show again. Ever.
And will start Stewart baiting.
Hear hear, Morticia! ("And fuck Stewart and his red baiting.")
Stewart's remark about Marxists was just plain silly. Where are they? Show me the way!
I also distinctly recall Stewart once saying, when the issue of torture was being actively debated during the Bush years, that "Israel does not torture."
If he'd taken the time to do a little reading, he would know that many of the torture techniques used in the phony "War on Terror" are straight out of Israel's playbook.
The guy is funny sometimes, but usually not very hard hitting. And he basically sees what he wants to see. I'll take him any day over Bill Maher, but, as someone here said, he pales next to the likes of Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, or George Carlin.
And his fatuous rally is simply another exercise, a la Glenn Beck, in the power of celebrity. And like Beck's it keeps alive the illusion of an alternative between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, when, in fact, with statements like the ignorant one he made on Marxism and the constitution, he merely nullifies, or tries to, the opportunity for real alternatives.
Did you know that Jon Stewarts'(Leibowitz) brother is The COO of NYSE? You ought to see what else he did!
http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Lawrence_Leibowitz
No wonder Julian Assange appeared on his cohorts (Colbert) show and Oprah gave away trips to this event.