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

[yhgtup]

I don't watch Jon Stewart, and now I know why.

[SouthpawSass]

Awww c'mon, not ever?

[FOXYLADY]

YHG.......­.IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE JON STEWART YOU HAVE TO HAVE "INTELLIGENCE" AND A "RARE SENSE OF HUMOR"....­.......HE HITS THE MARK SO MANY TIMES

[66rock]

Yes,sometimes, but not all the time and sometimes he's just not funny.
The show doesn't seem to be as funny or even as edgy as it was before most of his best writers moved on.
(Also please turn your caps off, it's like shouting)

[cnick]

A joke gets a laugh, the New Yorker cover is a failed joke. Satire and irony are tricky, how can satire be effective when it portrays something many people believe to be true, it is not an exaggeration to them. It ends up reinforcing their perceptions. Jon Stewart should know something about failed jokes, he bombs regularly. Both the New Yorker and Jon Stewart are getting a little too smug when they decide they will tell the audience what is funny!!! Jon Stewart's audience is miniscule compared to the news stands and book stores where this magazine will be displayed and the emails it will accompany to the computers of the ignorant and prejudiced.

[jpanz]

. I refuse to believe that republicans are so stupid they cannot figure out when they are being made fun of. We should give them a little more credit.

[dragonmage06]

While I agree that the Obama campaign should have shrugged this off and the media should have given it less attention, I'm not sure that republicans always know when they're being made fun of. I know some republicans who still insist that Colbert is a staunch Republican neo-con and point to him whenever someone says that Republicans aren't funny...

[Phylmom]

They aren't telling the audience what is funny. The New Yorker is subtle, not slapstick. Smart people get it. Too bad you're not smart.

[66rock]

Sometimes subtle is funny, sometimes it's not. That simple.

[Raymondf]

You must be the only one that thinks it's true.

[FOXYLADY]

AHEM......­....THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE ARE NOT WORTH WORRYING ABOUT AS THEY WILL PROBABLY VOTE FOR MCCAIN AND PLANNED TO BEFORE THIS "SATIRE"

[Steeevyo]

Act uneasy about a joke ---> Open the gate to even more jokes.
Better for us. More to laugh.

[elr50]

You know we are in trouble because we get our news from a comedy show, and our news IS a comedy show.

[Patrick McCabe]

Great point!

[SeanGardner]

But the problem with Jon Stewart's "It's jkust a f***ing cartoon" rant is that if say, THE NEW YORKER put someone jewish on the cover, like say, himself, and loaded the cover with the most vile and unpleasantly hateful stereotypes about jews, he would have a fit.

So he should try putting himself in the shoes of both Barack and Michelle. Or, in the shoes of the one black person on his staff of writers, producers, and technical folks.

Yeah, it is a cover. And it is incredibly offensive.

[djg55555]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Number 1, you can't possible know how Jon Stewart would react to a cover with a Jew on it. Number 2, the New Yorker picture isn't exactly "loaded with the most vile and unpleasantly hateful stereotypes" about Muslims. Just because they have traditional Muslim garb on there's a gun in the picture doesn't make it so. And I see the "terrorist fist jab" that they are doing in the picture a jab at the people in the media who invented that stupid thing. And Number 3, it is just a drawing. We need to get on with our lives and quit trying to draw scandal from every little thing. It's a joke, man, get over it.

Beside all that, I see an element of irony there. Here is everyone trying to paint Obama as a Muslim (especially the right), even though he has said many times and everyone who knows him knows he is a Christian. It just illustrates how one dimensional and narrow minded the media is. You keep telling some people the truth, but they just somehow never quite seem to get it.

[soundfury]

YOur response is convoluted. There are vile, unpleasant, hateful stereotypes in the cartoon. MO has an automatic weapon on her back, and is depicted with an evil look in her eyes. There is a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace, and O is dressed exactly like OBL like he's his protogé. If all that's not offensive, I don't know what is.

[lvogt]

I love John Stewart but he's wrong here. It's a dumb cartoon because it is
Usually the joke is on the person you see in the cartoon, not on the attitude of someone not in the cartoon. This was too subtle for the very large group of people already confused about Obama.

Also, caricatures exaggerate a truth where this claims to exaggerate a lie, right? except the fist bump is true and Obama was seen in a photo wearing a similar turban so that's true also. So now we have to decipher which things a true and which are not. That's difficult for someone who is seeing this on FOX News and is already confused or willfully ignorant.

True, you can't write for the least smart person in the room but if it was supposed to dispel myths then it was written at the most stupid person in the room and can be considered counter productive at best.

[Durango]

How many Americans who think Obama is a Muslim read the New Yorker?

Not many I would bet.

I don't care for the cartoon. And I don't care for the direction the New Yorker has taken over the past few years.

But the reporting on the cartoon is WAY more offensive than the cartoon.

The media creeps don't have anything better to talk about?

War, Devastation, economic collapse?

And they are talking about a F%$KING CARTOON?

[lvogt]

Thousands will read the New Yorker.
Millions will see that image... out of context.
I'm just saying, if they thought they were helping, I think they failed.

[Tags]

Everything in that cartoon was offensive. Maybe that's why they were MAKING FUN OF IT!

There's a Beatles song that goes

In their minds there's something lacking,
what they need's a damn good whacking

Friends, this cartoon is that whacking.

[ohmercy]

Excellent point Tags.

We have become so disgustingly PC that we can't even have satire without protesting it because it uses stereotypes to make a point.
I've had it.

I was watching a clip on you tube today of John Lennon and yoko Ono on /dick Cavett.
I forget the year, 72 maybe? 76?
Anyway, there was about 3 or 4 minutes of conversation first kind of explaining the song before they sang it. Of course, its lennon so half of his songs were controversial.
The whole dialog is very matter of fact and punctuated with applause from the audiance and some shouts of agreement, Lennon is his charming self while he talks about the song and the words, he quotes someone who is the head of the black caucus back then etc. And then Cavett says something like "OK you two menaces to society, go sing your song" or something like that.
They get up and walk behind the chair arrangement while the curtain is opening and their band is behind the curtain.
They then launch into :

"Woman is the __________ of the world."
Amazing. The whole conversation before was using the word-with explanations etc.
It was incredible. Sure people would be uncomfortable but the point is that 30 years ago we could actually have a dialogue and conversations without this insane hysteria and lynching of anyone who doesn't publicly tow the PC line.
Today Lennon would have his career ruined and be publicly ruined.

[RaisingAwareness]

Most African American's and Muslims are very offended by these cartoons. I think everyone should keep their viewpoint in mind when deciding if the New Yorker was right or wrong. It's pretty easy to figure out when you put yourself in someone else's shoes.

[jkminwa]

You know that? How?

[Phylmom]

Smart African Americans aren't offended. Read Leonard Pitts.

[Aimleft]

Oh, so you have all the goods on the "Smart" African Americans?

Calling others on here stupid, too.

Grow up and stop your name calling.

[yhgtup]

I'm a smart African American, and I am very offended.

[smurrayesq]

I just watched several talking head shows asking whether Obama is too serious and should have reacted with some humor in response to the cover. If he had said something like "Hey, who leaked the design for my first White House Christmas card?," would he be getting criticized for making a joke and not being serious enough? No matter what he does, someone would criticize it.

[NYed]

I disagree SMurrayesq. If he would have said something witty like your White House Christmas card response, the MSM would have loved it. The Obama campaign's response was a missed opportunity. The Obama campaign needs you.

[atp2007]

I normally like Stewart but after all is said and done, he's just another New Yorker who will rally round and defend anything involving NYC or it's institutions. Can't believe that John actually believes that the average voter is smart enough to understand satire or that this 'f***in" cartoon won't be circulated all over the Internet as a confirmation of the hate mongers lies.

[Ksisay]

He's just another New Yorker?! -- Now that's stupid!

We New Yorkers are more progressive than many. Lots of us voted for Obama although Hillary is our Senator and we surely didn't vote in George Bush or his daddy or even Reagan for that matter... Don't hate on the big city. We've got great diversity and lots of informed people, not to mention the best free summer concerts in the world, which New Yorkers are out enjoying these days...

[66rock]

Your correct. We all love NY and it's people.

The thing is, there's an entire country west of you with really smart, good, progressive people as well and we didn't vote for Bush either.

Oh,and we're enjoying the concerts in Chicago this summer as well. And we'll be enjoying tthem all winter long in Phoenix too. Guess we're all fortunate to live in this great country.

[NjT of DC]

So Jon Stewart and Maureen Dowd both ask: Why can't we mock Barack?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16dowd.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Well maybe American voters should ask the same question about the media.

Why wasn't that magazine cover funny? It wasn't funny because it appealed to the deepest fears and lowest instincts of millions of uninformed American voters.

It wasn't funny because we've grown tired of trained journalists who behave like gossip-mongers and unaccountable character-­assassins.

Was it not this same lot of over-paid professionals who helped to facilitate our current clown-in-chief?
Like well-greased cogs in a propaganda machine, many of them happily plopped on helmets and planted themselves in that embedded press-corp that "covered" the War in Iraq.

But guess what? The new criterion for leadership is not whether someone will give them easy "news" to yap their mouths about. It's not our public servants' jobs to provide entertaining fodder to fill up that 24 hour spinning black hole.

So it's time these folks get off their smug lazy tails and do some research for a change. Report something useful, insightful or genuinely humorous. Help our country come together to move forward. Stop contributing to the dumbing-down of America while collecting 6-figure incomes for controversy pretending to be clever.

"May we mock Barack?" Well first, dear "mock-journalists," try showing some accountability and respect for your profession as part of the fallen "fourth estate".

[4wehttam]

Very well stated my friend. My sentiments PRECISELY.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Have you read The New Yorker? Did you read the article in question? They've done some great investigative pieces. Seymor Hersh was miles ahead of the pack on Iraq, among other things. Before you accuse all members of the fouth estate of not doing their research, make sure you've done yours.

[ohmercy]

Excellent Point!

But hey, they don;'t research anyone before they smear them, (which would be anyone who might utter something that could be construed by someone in Sheboygan as a slur against Barack Obama- or anyone who challenges him)

why would they stop and think about it for a magazine.

[jkminwa]

The cover did not "appeal" to the deepest fears and lowest instincts, but could be misinterpreted as reinforcement by those who have those fears and instincts. The cover is satire, and is an appeal to people like you, who are disgusted by the character assassination and the STUPIDITY of the attacks. Here is what Mo Dowd said about the cover:

"Flash forward to the kerfuffle — and Obama’s icy reaction — over this week’s New Yorker cover parodying fears about the Obamas.

“We’ve already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor, too?” wrote James Rainey in The Los Angeles Times, suggesting “an irony deficiency” in Obama and his fans."

While I share your frustration with the shallowness of the press, I don't see how this anything to do with them. The issue is, will people misunderstand the cartoon? Obama could have owned the joke, pointed out its obvious sympathy for him, but didn't.

[ohmercy]

EXACTLY.

I thought the smartest thing he could have done was say (someone else said something like this on a comment thread) Yes, he saw it and he framed it and has it on the wall in his office to remind him how the right wing keep trying to smear him with these lies and what he is up against. He gets the satire and he thanks the New Yorker for pointing out the absurdity.

no problem.

[spd]

Jon, you lost me a long time ago, back when I discovered you are an AIPAC puppet.
So it is therefore not in the least surprising that you would dis Obama at every opportunity.
Fact is both you and the new Yorker are quick to keep false propaganda against Obama alive, while trying to masquerade it as satire, or even more cynical as ART. This has nothing to do with satire as much as subliminal political persuasion in the direction of AIPACs way of thinking.
I’m not as flustered about all your flap of us new Yorker critics as you may think. I have dismissed both you and the new Yorker as insignificant long ago. But I do still enjoy the Colbert Report.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I hate to break it to you, spd...Jon Stewart is the Executive Producer of The Colbert Report, so i'm sure you're being exposed some of that subliminal AIPAC stuff whether you know it or not. Be careful...­one day you might wake up with an uncontrollable urge to return to Jerusalem, or vote for Lieberman or something.

[meanguy]

it made me crave bagels

[66rock]

hate to break it to you but Colbert writes his own material,

Executive Producer is usually the money behind a show, not necessarily that involved with the creative side. Colbert leaving and not writing for Stewart now is one reason Stewart isn't as funny anymore plus Stewart pretty much lost his edge a season or two ago.

[ohmercy]

UH OH.
Help, I need tinfoil.
Its a conspiracy I tell you!

Where is my tinfoil hat???

And what makes you say he's an AIPAC puppet?
Because he is Jewish?
He certainly makes fun of himself and his "Jewishness" in particular and Jewishness in general often enough.

Good thing Obama isn't Jewish.
What would you do then?
Oh wait, wasn't he just reassuring AIpAC that all will be well?

[ThinkForYourself2]

I agree that this in a bizarre way this will cause many to back-off of the ridiculous stereotypes. I just believe that there is a better way to accomplish the same goal without having to offend Mr. Obama, his wife and family, Muslims and black people in America. It's as if the cartoon is saying that being a black person or Muslim is bad. So in effect the cartoon not only attacks Obama and his wife but also Muslims and black people. Obama actually said nearly the same thing that I believe about this. The NAACP is even considering passing a resolution condemning the magazine.

It's not "just a f*cking cartoon".

[jkminwa]

It won't do it in a bizarre way, it will do it with satire. That is the point. The cartoon was sympathetic to the Obamas, and thus should not have "offended" them. Sheesh!

[ohmercy]

It didn't "*have* to offend? them.
they chose to be offended.
Sheesh.
People are responsible for at least some of their own choices.
They made a choice to be offended (if in fact they were, I don't know if they were or not. Obama didn't sound too offended on Larry King)

Eleanor Roosevelt said something like "no one can demean me without my consent."
I've always liked that.
Not an exact quote... but the same goes with offend.
Obama is a grown up, he has choices... so are we all.
We can get outraged over a cartoon and ignore Rove and Torture and all the rest of the hell this criminal administration is driving our country into, or we can grow the hell up and pay attentiomn to more important items then defending Barack Obama for every perceived slight and offense--- most of which are really not.

[stanjz]

All the media has to do is manipulate a small percentage of undecided voters every election and we keep getting George Bush pro business, low tax politicians who are favorable to corporations like the media. MSNBC/GE, CNN/TIME WARNER AND FOX NEWS/NEWSCORP have goals that don't coincide with the American public. They are not in business to improve the lives of the American public.

[genia]

LMAO Maureen ...just read your piece and damn if she didn't go into the food analogy...­.again!!

Maybe...Ma­ureen you could go and check out your claim that you think is McCain's ability to poke fun of himself., yeah, yeah...I hear he has a good sense of hunor.....­or maybe you could try writing something different for the first time ever...huh­? maybe? Maybe you could go on vacation for a couple of months?

Look...we got a war going on, many of us have kids over there or under the threat of having to go over there.....­..we have lost the last two elections ...maybe..­.just maybe we as democrats could try something new....try not to eat our own....may­be...just try?

You know what Maureen...­after he's elected maybe I'll find you fun to read again...bu­t for now....It'­s just the same old same old with you.......­.and that food fetish you have...so tacky.

So...try..­..I know it's asking a lot but hey, maybe you are capable of writing about something positive and yet keep your trademark.­..ummm...w­hatever it is......st­yle?