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

[bluestatelib]

John Stewart is a smug hack. Of course he'd defend the New Yorker. He's just afraid of the possible negative fallout in case he makes a ridiculously lame attempt at satire as did the New Yorker.

[Phylmom]

Yeah right. The New Yorker is a hack job. Jon Stewart is a hack. Meanwhile you are -- what? An idiot and a jerk. You're not blue state, or a liberal. You're just an idiot. Get on with your pathetic life and leave the intelligence to the brilliant successes like Jon Stewart and the New Yorker. if we had to live by your standards we'd be one pathetic attempt at civilization.

[BenWex]

Its flopping because of the 24hr news media and the need to create news. The news makes it out as if the New Yorker put the picture on its cover as if it believes what it has on the cover is true, that obama is a radical muslim. That is not what the cover was about. why is it offensive? its pointing out the problems with this country and its ability not to learn.

[FogBelter]

Jon, my man, you miss a big point here ... A joke is only a joke if it is recognized and accepted by those who hear (or see) it as a joke ... that is a BIG part of the problem with this cover. Lighten up doesn't cut it.

There are millions of people in this country for whom not recognizing this cover as a joke is in their best interests for it continues the discussion that serves them.

We have all been to parties where someone starts to tell a joke and halfway through you recognize it isn't suitable for those who are listening to it. You can see on people's faces, as the muscles tighten around smiles frozen in anticipation ... that the joke isn't being received as intended ... that is what the New Yorker cover amounts to, a misplaced attempt at humor.

And what would be the response to Stewart's offered response?

"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 f*cking cartoon!"

Perhaps this?

"See Mert, that foul-mouthed black guy don't mind being called a Muslim .... told ya!"

In another place and time I could drink of the lofty satire this cartoon offers ... but unfortunately not now.

[patmancando]

It, the uproar about the NYer cover, served its purpose for the 0-man's campaign. What better to distract from the issues that were plaguing the 0-camp last week with its progressive base.

[patmancando]

It reminds me of that quote from Macbeth, "me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

[ObserverinVancouver]

Sometimes great artists flop. Look at Ishtar or Heaven's Gate (which few have). Look at many, many theatrical offerings which closed on opening night. That's what happened with this cartoon. It just isn't that good.

[bluestatelib]

Agreed. This seems like such a simple concept to understand. Alas, apparently if one criticizes bad satire it means to some that we want to overturn the First Amendment and make Obama immune to criticism and mocking.

[joeyp404]

Look at It's a Wonderful Life. It was panned when it came out and is now a classic. So, do people become more intelligent? Do times change? Who knows. Bottom line, some people found it funny. No one is going to prove they were on the right side of the coin.

[Brainspore]

It isn't that bad, either. Even the Obama camp is now saying the whole thing was blown way out of proportion. Satire, almost by definition, doesn't appeal to everyone. Get over it.

[leftypower]

Obviously, you're wrong, as we're all still talking about this static piece of art...two days later in this 24-hour media world.

Donate some money to the campaign to prove that we don't believe events like these should really drive the message of the media coverage.

[joeyp404]

"you're wrong"... "we're still talking about this static piece of art".... "Donate money"....

Are you trying to be satirical?

[imagine0594]

This is so good... thank God for the Daily Show!

[pilgrim7]

Exactly. I've been saying almost the same thing. His campaign needs to develop a thick skin and shouldn't feel the need to validate or respond to every insult. Some things they should let slide.

[nomobull]

stop trying to create a myth of an over reaction on Obama's part because he didn't. it just happen that a lot don't think it hit its target audience. or that it was funny. and some in the media probably don't like the mirror that is being reflected back at them.

[pilgrim7]

I happen to disagree with YOU and agree with Jon Stewart. Thank you for allowing me that. Satire is not meant to be funny. It is “trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly.” (Webster’s) It's not The New Yorker's fault that most Americans have the reading comprehension skills of a 6th or 7th grader and don't get satire. Obama knew what he was getting into by running for president as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, for goodness sake. It’s the media who blew this nothingness up. The New Yorker's cover satirized Obama's predicament. Prior to that cover, most Americans had never bothered to pick up a copy of The New Yorker magazine, let alone read one. Maybe if more Americans were able to read and comprehend an intellectual magazine like The New Yorker, our nation wouldn't be so backward and there would be no contest between Obama and McCain. There are unreasonable people who will never vote for a black man. Period. Like it or not. This is America. One can legislate laws but not hatred. Neither will that cover make or break it for Obama.

[joeyp404]

Pilgrim7, letting things "slide" would not divert people's attention from the real issues. This election (at least presented here) has become a big game of GOTCHA!

[joeyp404]

To avoid further outrage and misunderstanding every future cartoon, news article and any news commentary regarding anything Obamanian (with the exception of Mssrs. Matthews and Obermann) must now be screened by a committee of representatives by Mr. Obama's supporters, his campaign staffers and himself. We will not tolerate any further failures of satire in any form which may be misconstrued as being racist, divisive or just plain anti-Obama.

Thank you.

[liberalghost]

Maureen Dowd asks. "May We Mock, Barack?" I ask, "Why? What is the source of your uncontrollable need? May we dump, Dowd?

[Phylmom]

Jon Stewart is a blessing. He and Colbert are the only ones telling it like it is. And as a liberal, I hope the idiot fringe of liberals listen up. You've got just as much reason to be made fun of.

[mhutch47]

Amen!

[GeorgeGlass]

Keith has gotten (or maybe always was) so self-righteous. Yes, his picking on O'Reilly can be funny but I so much prefer Rachel Maddows. She's been great filling in -- I hope they give her her own show. All the intelligence, without the smugness Keith has developed.

[Liberoservative]

Don't forget Keith O!!!!

[joeyp404]

Stewart and Colbert are comedians. Obermann is a clown.

[cricket]

see liberals are worried that conservatives might spin this . there are lot of people who pay half or no attention to details and if they happen to be uneducated voters then it is a problem for obama. he needs their independent vote. i don't doubt the newyorker. they let sy hersh write. that means they are not weekly standard. but the artist wasnt funny. he made publicity for a show losing faux news commentator who quite idiotically related a fist jab to terrorist fist jab as if she has seen terrorists and seen them do a fist jab. but the lot of discussion on this both against and pro of this cartoon was good. it cleared up lot of air about obama and i am sure it would have drawn the attention of few half listeners. .

[Probus]

The Obama campaign had the right response to this cover. It's not just a cartoon. Most low information voters are dumb enough to see this cover as fact. A significant number of voters still think Obama is a Muslim. This image was racist and unfair and the Obama campaign was right to criticize it in the way it did.

[pmag88]

I’ve watched the Daily show through a few presidential elections and while I'm cool with lampooning representatives of either party, the so-called 'intent' of the cover immediately struck me the wrong way. Perhaps the fact that there is no contrasting imagery that even remotely indicates, let alone, defines the intent, makes it just a bit too ambiguous.

White, middle aged, and proud of the fact that I grew up in a nation so heavily influenced by black culture, maybe I'm being just a bit too sensitive. Or, maybe not. I guess as the election progresses, if we see more of the same, we’ll have an answer. The one thing that IS for sure, people are paying closer attention this time.

[mhutch47]

I see the point you're making pmag, and if the magazine was called something like "Modern Confederate," I might agree with you completely.
I do think they would have been smart to include the cartoon's title "The Politics of Fear," but otherwise, my only problem with TNY is that they couldn't come up with anything more clever.

[pmag88]

I think had the magazine been called 'Modern Confederate' it would have been expected and not controversial in any way. The fact that a magazine with their reputation let this slide is a red flag to me, and I'm sure others as well. But, I freely admit that I don’t trust the media In general and that includes the left as well as the right.

I hope that Jon and yourself and the rest of the folks that agree with you are right, and that my suspicions are just a bit of paranoia.

[ChiMan1]

FreedomIsAbsolute, Good day! you stated "what the Obamas have stated they stand for" BUT unfortunately what they Actually Stand For and what they Stated they Stand For are 2 different things, that's why the Cartoon blew up in their face.

[holeybuybull]

Moderators, I propose the addition of another choice besides Reply, Favorite, and Flag as abusive.
We need the choice of "Flag as willfully ignorant". It would save alot of time and space.

[VicPerry]

Let's get some stuff straight. Amost NOBODY IN AMERICA experienced the New Yorker cover as a magazine sitting there on the shelf without comment. Nope. It was as a big orchestrated news event --- and only as a big orchestrated news event - that America experienced this cover. So it doesn't make a bit of difference whether or not there was a caption or the oft-requested "thought balloon." Multiple "thought balloons" have been provided already in a spontaneous outpouring, and nobody has yet gotten through all of Monday's reactions alone.

The whole cover is ALREADY in quotes. To talk about it as some freestanding image that arrived without comment is total nonsense. I subscribe to the New Yorker and the news about the cover beat the issue to my house! So quit acting like "oh America won't get IT" because there is no IT to get....the joke, or the "failed satire" if you will already arrived to your head dead and dissected on the media's lab table like a formaldehyded frog.

[TheBlackCat]

Good point. I myself was wondering, how many people actually saw this on the newstands and were offended, and how many just BECAME offended when the media told them to be.

[patmancando]

I think the 0-men have run masterful political campaigns with a purpose to everything that has happened. The NYer cover is an excellent excuse to play "victim" again and milk the public for outrage and more support. It also goes hand in hand with the JJ open mike scandal. Both have taken the focus off the flip-flop behaviour, the FISA vote and the disenchantment of the progressives for the 0-man. Couldn't have happened at a better time for his campaign.

Nothing motivates like outrageous rage and the need to defend the honor of the messiah.

[ChiMan1]

J Stewart should be a New Age Car, he gets more mileage with no gas than anyone in media.