If even Jon Stewart's team hadn't picked up on SOPA, that goes a long way to suggest why a Wikipedia/Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc blackout would be useful. If they're not up to date, how could we expect any non industry insiders to be?
A brief blackout is like tapping the media on the shoulder.
"We'll be all, like, SOPA what? ... uh ... I have some reading to catch up on."
Nobody thinks about dial tone until it's not there.
If you think Mr. Stewart is simply behind in his reading, I have a nice bridge for you.
He's in entertainment, he comments endlessly about policy. You think he somehow missed the #1 policy initiative of his employer?
He is very well paid, with a large budget that employs a lot of people. But I don't think his show breaks even on its revenues, it is a tent-pole for his channel. He's paid not for his own audience but the larger strategic benefit he brings to his employer. So think on what might happen if he starts to pose still larger strategic problems for that employer? And what happens to Mr. Stewart should he want to move on from his current perch? [EDIT: As suggested below, the 'strategic benefit' payment is speculation. Probably a mistake to go there, b/c I think my point still stands: if he hurts a major legislative initiative of his industry, his life gets a lot harder and riskier.]
And while he himself seems reasonably secure, he has a staff of writers and producers, many of whom would like to move on to bigger and better things. Who will be greenlighting those various ventures?
Remember, Hollywood blacklisted people for (alleged) Communism. Those people lost their whole careers. Imagine what might happen to those who challenge the studios' interests still more directly.
I'd say this is the perfect moment for Mr. Stewart's reputed bravery, independence and courage.
Can we get a source on TDS not making money? It's one of the most popular shows on Comedy Central, syndicated in many countries. If it doesn't make money, it's hard to see how Comedy Central stays afloat.
No source, I seem to recall reading his salary is pretty high given his ratings, but I couldn't point to it.
I don't it's speculative to say networks will lose money on some product to build audience. Stuff like the NFL, Letterman?, that sort of thing.
Even if he's making them money directly, he's not untouchable if he gets blamed for hurting a major political priority.
They probably wouldn't be so clumsy as to just fire him -- but his next negotiation could get a lot harder, and he'd be a lot more exposed to "business decisions" should his ratings stumble. And his people could find it a lot hard to move on and up with other projects.
can I get a disclosure from you about anything that would impede your neutrality (either way) like employers, business partnerships etc on the subject of SOPA
that last part just sounds like a threat from the other side, you know?
Zero industry connection, nada. Formerly in finance (not covering media), now freelance and building my own business.
Anyone peronally worried about my post can find my email in profile -- send me a phone number, I'll call you.
EDIT: Wasn't me. Downvotes never make sense to me. Downvote me for _admitting_ I said something speculative? With all the crazy guesses posited as Gospel truth here?
thank you, didnt expect this to get mod-worthy. I was just curious. I wasn't "worried" or anything, the part about 'anyone who wanted to move up...' just seemed out of place to me, like you never hear that about other 'support' jobs. Basically I wanted to know if you were even more cynical than me or an insider -- I guess the former! thanks for the detailed response.
Or, perhaps he generally focuses on what he thinks his viewers are focusing on, which, at this time, is the presidential primaries. Jokes work best when your audience knows what's going on; and really, it seems like it's primarily the internet and engineering culture that abhors SOPA. I've had to tell people about it, not them come to me (the resident computer nerd) and ask about it.
The format of Stewart's show is such that he gets most of his talking points directly from his media targets. It seems reasonable, then, that in an effective media blackout, he and his writers might have legitimately missed SOPA.
I don't think he reads up on this stuff, wouldn't have the time, his researchers cut it down and he makes it funny. I'm sure it's because his researchers are largely unaware that it's an issue.
A brief blackout is like tapping the media on the shoulder.
"We'll be all, like, SOPA what? ... uh ... I have some reading to catch up on."
Nobody thinks about dial tone until it's not there.