Does the Truth Smirk?

As you may know, I am a big fan of The Daily Show, I suspect that this is largely due to the way that it's brand of sarcasm appeals to my Gen-X sensibility.  I have often told people that the only television news show I watch is The Daily Show, which is actually not true, but it sounds funny, and I like to be funny.  A while back though I noticed that people were actually starting to assign Jon Stewart some sort of social spokesperson role, a role which he didn't seem to want, and which probably definitely should not have been given to him.  Yes, he and his protege Stephen Colbert are insightful as satirists and, yes, they may even serve as a voice for some part of a generation, but they are not advocates, as in being a voice for the powerless, and they should not be trusted as such.
Sojourners magazine put Stewart on the cover one month with the tag line "The Truth Smirks." The content of the cover story counted examples of times when Jon Stewart had spoken truth to power, challenged propaganda and asked some very hard questions of politicians and public figures.  Which he does, sometimes, in some ways.  But for all my years of watching the show, I have never been duly impressed by his interviews.  They're just not that funny or insightful, except when he has the chance to zing one of his clear antagonists (i.e. Bill O'Reilly, one of the only right wingers with the sheer audacity to go toe to toe with a seasoned comedian and try to peddle his political dogma).
There is a rather long and somewhat twisty article that actually describes quite adequately the flaws of The Daily Show as a motivator of social change.  Indeed the scoffers and the cynics can rarely come away from their mountains of derision to actually make a difference.  It will actually be interesting to see if Stephen Colbert, the real Stephen Colbert, maintains any of his edge once he is absorbed by the warm embrace of the mainstream when he takes his seat behind David Letterman's desk (Letterman sure didn't).  The thing is, I don't think either one of them actually want to make a difference beyond making people laugh and perhaps deflating some of the dogmatic angst that dominates our politics.
I will say this for them though, they do often come across as a voice of reason, and often times a little humor and a little distance do help you see the problems more clearly.  However, perspective is not the only thing that is needed.
I'm still thinking about my experience with the local do-gooders (and I mean that entirely as a compliment).  We had lots of talk about some very real problems, but there was also a great deal of front-line awareness about what can and cannot be done.  And this is where the nitty-gritty of advocacy and activism comes in, it is not enough to tear into a politician with your rapier wit and insightful criticism.  That sort of thing will not get you on the docket of the next county council meeting.  It is not helpful to the poor to eviscerate the "sinister" corporate influences that drive the back room deals.  You need to know that most politicians will do the "right" thing if they have political cover to do it, and they will just as easily do the "wrong" thing as long as there is political cover to do it.  Successful activism and advocacy must accept this reality.  It is much more helpful to know who is holding the leash than it is to shout insults at the dog.
There is a real need for ideologically neutral journalists (or as close to ideologically neutral as is humanly possible), and indeed the likes of Fox news and MSNBC aren't exactly even trying for that.  But that doesn't meant the job can or should be handed to clowns, just because in the process of going for a laugh they can sometimes tell the truth.
We need truth tellers to some extent, but it helps when the ones telling the truth actually care enough to get involved.  In my area of expertise, we talk about prophets.  Prophets were people who called the nation of Israel back to it's covenant relationship with God.  There were prophets who spoke with an air of disconnection and some level of smirking.  I'm actually a fan of Amos, who was probably the best example of that style, but I find there to be much more power and impact in the messages of prophets who knew they would share the fate of the people: Ezekiel, Jeremiah.  Hosea actually demonstrated God's predicament by marrying an unfaithful woman and maintaining his righteousness in that relationship even when she did not.  That, friends and neighbors, is commitment to a cultural criticism.
That is the sort of thing that might actually change things: someone who sees clearly, and is willing to care enough not just to laugh it off.