Jon Stewart Takes On Media, Obama For Overreacting To New Yorker Cover: "It's Just A F***ing Cartoon!"

On Tuesday's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart took on the media and Barack Obama for overreacting to, and thus validating, the New Yorker cover controversy.

"It's a trifle, it's nothing," Stewart said. "There's so many other things to talk about: Iraq, the collapse of some of our most prestigious financial institutions...right?" he continued, before showing a montage of the media firestorm over the cover.

Stewart also took the Obama camp to task for calling the cartoon "tasteless and offensive":

"Really? You know what your response should've been? It's very easy here, let me put the statement out for you: Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not. It's just a fucking cartoon!"

Watch below, and look for the special treatment Stewart gives Wolf Blitzer around 2:30 in:

Bonus: John Oliver, Rob Riggle and Wyatt Cenac hit the streets to explain the impenetrable satire that's almost everywhere:

Comments

[nellie]

Well, Stewart was a strong Clinton supporter, so it's no wonder he thinks this is no big deal. Even his own comedy has taken a hit with Obama's success.

[TommyHollis]

The real danger with the New Yorker's cover is thel representation of the prophet muhammad in the right hand corner of the cartoon.
Surprising riots haven't erupted in the arab street.

[rubicon101]

fact of the matter is we really don't know Senator Obama. He's arrived on the scene like a meteor with no real serious discussion of who he really is...that may be why many people assume that Barack is something other than what he claims to be..

[JJeff88]

No, Jon, it's more than just a bleeping cartoon.

I respect the first amendment and letting a creative person - whether he/she is a copy-writer at a tight-assed ad agency or an edgy standup comedian - say what they want to say in the way they want to say it.

But every action (and, for that matter, non-action) has its consequences.

Ask yourself this: If the New Yorker cover cost Obama a close contest in a key electoral state and therefore, the Nov. election, wouldn't you agree it was more than just a bleeping cartoon?"

[JJeff88]

No, Jon, it's more than just a f**king cartoon.

I respect the first amendment and letting a creative person - whether he/she is a copy-writer at a tight-assed ad agency or an edgy standup comedian - say what they want to say in the way they want to say it.

But every action (and, for that matter, non-action) has its consequences.

Ask yourself this: If the New Yorker cover cost Obama a close contest in a key electoral state and therefore, the Nov. election, wouldn't you agree it was more than just a "f**king cartoon?"

[reshas1]

I guess the Obama's aren't as smart as you seem to think, they didn't get the satire of the cartoon.

Tsk Tsk

[richardgordon]

I'm a huge fan of Jon Stewart. But I totally disagree with his opinion about the New Yorker's magazine cover. Satire is all well and good. And sure, I believe the New Yorker has every right to print a cover that satirizes the issues of the day. But we are in a critically important election. Most people who look at this cover will completely misinterpret what the cover is about. For one thing, a huge number of Americans do not read or even watch the news. These are the same people who don't even know were Canada is on the map. How are these people going to interpret the cover of a "highly respected" magazine. They will interpret the cover as saying 'Obama is a Muslim who hates America and his wife is a Terrorist.' It is the hight of arrogance and stupidity to believe otherwise.

[Phylmom]

Here's my idea. Joe Six-Pack (beer, conservative) and Joe One-Pack (wine, liberal) buy the New Yorker with the Obama cover, one to save it, the other to trash it. They open the magazine to the article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells on quantum physics. They read. Their heads explode. Problem solved.

[Phylmom]

Here's my idea. Joe Six-Pack (beer, conservative) and Joe One-Pack (wine, liberal) buy the New Yorker with the Obama cover, one to save it, the other to trash it. They open the magazine to the article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells on quantum physics. They read. Their heads explode. Problem solved.

[prana9]

Art 1 Politics 0.

Sure you may not like the cover (art is still subjective I believe) but you sure can't say it wasn't effective. Talk about self-referential.

I hoped Obama was the type of leader that could tell people that he understood the cover was satire and it attempted to have the media look at itself and the Obama-monster they created. But instead, Obama feigns he was offended (like the media and Republicans) thus, in effect being complicit in the very behavior the cover lampooned!!

Just in its ability to draw a interesting response from the public, the media, and the politicians I commend the artist for the concept and the New Yorker for having the audacity :) to publish it.

Art is cool and Obama. . .not as cool as I once thought.

[bluebirder]

That cover gave me new respect for the flaccid New Yorker. It is genuinely somewhat outrageous. Thumbs up.

[metogamekun]

I, too, thought the cover was brilliant and was a bit disappointed by Obama's reaction.

[steamboat]

BOTH sides have been abused by satire cartoons. Especially Hillary and 'W'.

[preemptivelove]

once again, the daily show brilliantly distills this.

the problem is not the cartoon. the problem is that our nation is full of knuckleheads who don't understand satire and commentary. and because this is a huge problem in our country, the cover just played into the most stereotypes that americans are so comfortable with and hesitant to challenge. i would say the american people failed here, not the new yorker. the new yorker was doing what it does best--playing the role of progressive and intellectual provocateur. should the new yorker "dumb down" so as not to offend? if they want obama to win in november, maybe. bummer.

[Michael7843853]

Both sides have very legitimate arguments about this cover. With a little context on the cover, the magazine could have avoided the controversy altogether, but then the magazine would not have received the priceless exposure it is now getting. It reminds me of a racist joke, patently absurd, about Jesse Jackson that used to just crack me up. I would only tell it to people who knew me well enough to know that I'm not a racist(I campaigned for Jesse in 88). Even those friends, to whom I presented the joke with context, were amazed that I would tell the joke and uncomfortable about it, but they did laugh.

[Phylmom]

The New Yorker doesn't need context, stupid. Readers are already informed.

[IQ]

I LOVE THE DAILY SHOW, BUT and there is a BIG A** BUTT HERE.
WHEN it comes to issues of RACE, and specifically issues pertaining to African Americans they lose their deft touch at satire, As does most of the comedy world that does not;
-WRITE with
-work with
-employ
-socialize
-date
-party with
-live with or around
-didn't go to school with
-go to church temple or mosque with
people that are African American. (*Did you know The Daily Show has on average less than 10 African American guest a year......A YEAR I SAID.....HERE..... in AMERICA.*)
They can't fully understand the historical context that the cartoon falls into. Yes indeed the cartoon represents the racist attitudes that The Obamas are facing. But dig deeper and you begin to understand that every single American of African decent faces theses questions of hyper violence, mistrust, disloyalty and yes Patriotism. All of these have been marks against us since and before the emancipation proclamation. So these are not some ethereal, other worldly issues germane only to The Obamas. They are barriers that are unresolved and still here. Furthermore they will continue to be present for my children's children if our 'friends', like those at The Daily Show and The New Yorker don't see the realness and the PAIN in this N***** Joke....... I mean the satire.

[meanguy]

i work with
have worked for
socialize with
have dated
partied with
lived around and with
gone to school with
worshipped with
'people that are african american'

and you know what?

it doesn't give me any special 'insight' into ANYTHING...and it certainly doesn't make me fall for your hypersensitive, paranoid "it's because i'm black, isn't it?" line of chicken dressing. if you want to look at everything thru the lens of 'black vs white, that's YOUR business...and your limitiation. you'll find bogeymen everywhere you look, and you'll never be free from your own imagination...the cover had nothing to do with race; it had everything to do with the 'muslim terrorist' propaganda passed around on the web by far-right nutjobs...the 'realness' is in your own head...get therapy or hide under the sofa...but don't expect me to play your childish game

[brooklyncitizen]

you are completely BS'ing us if this is your take....you're clearly projecting your own paranoia and complete ignorance if you cannot understand the validity of this post.

[Counterglow]

"WHEN it comes to issues of RACE, and specifically issues pertaining to African Americans they lose their deft touch at satire".

I'm not so sure about that. Larry Wilmore's "Angry Black Guy" character has had me laughing myself sick on more than one occasion. I think he's one of the funniest guys on the show, and he comes up with some stuff that makes you genuinely uncomfortable.

Which is, of course, what satire is supposed to do.

[brooklyncitizen]

He is funny but the "Black News Correspondent" is really what feels safe for whites- he was the only person of color for a long time and they certainly can't seem to stress that too much.
Sometimes you don't want to be a Black Correspondent...you just want to be a Correspondent..like other people.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

I know. He is hysterical. Did you see him do his take off on what O'Reilly said about eating in Sylvia's? OMG....I laughed myself sick.

[FOXYLADY]

PLEASE IQ, GET OVER IT ALREADY............I KNOW SOME "BLACK PEOPLE" WHO UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS "SATIRE", FOR WHICH THE NEW YORKER IS WELL KNOW FOR IN IT'S "COMICS/JOKES". AS FOR ME...........IF SOME BLACK AMERICANS, NOT AFRICAN AMERICANS WOULD TRY TO STOP "DEPENDING ON/USING RACISM AS AN EXCUSE THEY'D BE BETTER OFF. THERE ARE PLENTY OF RICH, INTELLIGENT AND PRODUCTIVE BLACK AMERICANS AROUND..........

[IQ]

Wel, well MS. Foxxy. Thanks for the response all in *CAPS*. You showed me a thing or two I tell ya with that maneuver.

I, too, know many Americans of African decent(believe or not ALL of them own homes, cars, stock and ever'thang...lol) who understood what the satire was Suposed to be. I know very few who accept it at face value, I know far more who were offended. But what made me most proud was that I know even more Americans of all ethnicities, races, religious backgrounds and political affiliations who were either appalled, dumbfounded or just plain left scratching their heads waiting for the satire to be explained. There is a promise that America is accelerating to with greater and greater urgency. With each generation we begin to see issues through a common lens. I am proud of my country and I LOVE MY COUNTRY!

My response was simply an explanation of the emotions that many African Americans have wrestled with for generations. There are no excuses. We learn early in life that America excepts No Excuses from US. You DO...or YOU DON'T DO!. We wake up. Go to school..Go to our Job...Then Go to OUR OTHER JOB and we make ends meet and take care of our families.

You will find no excuses here. No hyperbole, assumptions or stereotypes. Those tactics no longer work with MY GENERATION. Come on and join US. OBAMA'08

[Wistful]

Stewart is standing by a friend, Remnick couldn't praise Stewart enough last night (he was the only one that "got it" apparently) on Charlie Rose. Having said that, I "get it" ... it's just that Obama has always been on the defensive in this campaign, he does have Fox and The Wash.Times and Rush and half of MSNBC and all talk-radio down on him already, but, I agree with Mr. Remnick's position also.

Considering the Obamas were just tiny little kids in kindergarten when the types of people they are being depicted to be like in the cartoon were in the news, possibly it seems a bit over the top.

Why not at least compare them to characters that bear some resemblance to reality?

[Durango]

Thank you Jon Stewart for putting it in perspective for me.

With all the BS going on in the world the news media wastes time on this trivial nonsense?

Couldn't have reporters reporting from Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad? Or from villages in Afghanistan outside of Kabul.

Or reporters doing interviews on the streets of Tehran?

No we have to spend time discussing a cartoon?

That is how we will decide who will be the next President?

[FOXYLADY]

DURANGO..........THANK GOD ANOTHER POSTER WITH SOME COMMON SENSE AND SENSE OF HUMOR ENOUGH TO APPRECIATE "SATIRE"....................MICHELLE OBAMA IS A STRONG INTELLIGENT WOMAN AND I BET SHE ISN'T UPSET ABOUT IT...BUT REALLY LAUGHED INSTEAD

[brooklyncitizen]

gee do you read minds for a living?or just loose them?