Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm not sure how many of your questions and points were rhetorical, and how many you might indirectly attribute to me (not wanting an alternative to big media, etc.), but just to be clear, I am not in any of that company.

I know this isn't about me whatsoever, but please allow me one indulgence. I've considered changing my "name" here because I fear that it may be misleading and cause people to think I'm some kind of establishment stalwart. Suffice to say that you might be surprised if you ever met me or knew anything about me personally.

I'm with Timberman in thinking that an outright revolution of some kind, if it were even possible in the remote future, could very well cause more harm than good in the sense that many of our institutions are in fact functioning well, with little fanfare, and the result could as easily be worse than what we have now. I digress.

As for whether TIME and Joe will change because of the recent beat down: can you point to any specific changes in TIME's policies, in their product, in Joe's "work", or anything else that has resulted from or will result from Glenn having thrown Klein against the wall?

I can't offer proof for a prediction that hasn't had time to come to pass. Also, the proof could prove elusive, as the influence of these critiques can have subtle effects, causing Klein or Time to pass on certain stories or perspectives, avoid or question certain sources, or emphasize certain other angles, without our ever knowing it. These are very hard to measure. We are unlikely to see a complete and obvious reversal. This is what I meant by positive change that nevertheless does not immediately or fully meet our standards.

It should be of a good deal more interest than it is that a handful of rightwing lunatics can seemingly get their way with the major mass media in this country all the time while enormous numbers of Progressives routinely get nowhere.

We just saw another example with CNN's apology for allowing a "Democrat" question at the Republican circus show in St. Petersburg.

What was that all about but Power and its demonstration?

Unless progressives are truly prepared to deal in realms of Power -- acquiring it, using it, wielding it -- there isn't going to be much "progress." But we aren't at that point yet.

Progressives already have power. We do, in fact, have some very good people in Congress, even if they are outnumbered by scoundrels. Where we need to improve is in the "wielding" department. We need to pressure our leaders to stand up for what they do actually believe in. It only takes one or two, truly. Look at the impact Jack Murtha, Russ Feingold, and others have had, even standing alone. Leadership, unlike mass-movements, does not require widespread popularity to be potently effective. Leadership molds public opinion and prevailing media narratives. This is the lesson, and sometimes the followers need to teach it to the leaders.

Lastly:

I say a way to get there is to kick the fucking table over. Demonstrate Power. Don't be so eager for a "place" at the table. And don't let the bastards win.

Pardon me for saying so, but I've never found this kind of bravado impressive. My experience with "movements" in the past has been that their members eventually tend to try to out-radical each other with ever-intensifying displays of purity, singling out the measured or pragmatic among them as "part of the problem" and unworthy of respect or hearing. This is usually the point at which the movement begins to degrade and cannibalize itself, and was usually my cue to move on. This self-immolation, often lacking or more attenuated on the right, has been plaguing the left for a long time. I'm not talking about people such as Digby or Markos vs. people like Klein. I'm talking about people like Digby or Markos vs. more militant elements that will settle for nothing less than "revolution" or all-out, indiscriminate confrontation. Again, I digress.

Much of this gets to the larger question of What Can We Do? Some people get a sense of vindication or relevance by commenting on blogs, writing angry emails, or writing letters. Others see these actions as woefully futile, and become frustrated that the efforts aren't being directed into more concrete action.

My take is that every effort, no matter how seemingly small, is valid and relevant, if only due to net effects, and people should not be scolded (I am speaking generally, not to anyone in particular) for not taking more time and effort for more direct action and organizing. People should be the change they wish to see in the world. Witness Glenn's rise. I remember when he was just a voice in the wilderness -- now he has the ear of powerful people in both the media and in government. Sure, he's not Keith Olbermann, but his accomplishments and influence are nothing to sneeze at.

Others have careers that serve as vehicles for change. People often don't realize how many such people are out there working relentlessly. Or, one can volunteer for campaigns, primary challenges, and other political efforts. But, if you understandably don't have the time, position, or money to engage in these kinds of activities, I will be the last person to criticize you for only sending emails, writing comments, mailing letters, and calling representatives.

The premise of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine reminds me of the Yes Men prank of Dow's Golden Skeleton of profitability. Guerilla activism at its finest.

http://www.theyesmen.org/en/hijinks/acceptablerisk