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

[OmnesOmnibus]

It's ridiculous to dismiss it as a mere cartoon. There have been many powerful cartoons over the years with serious messages and as we know, important books that are solely told through cartoons. This cover was meant to get a strong reaction. Thomas Nast cartoons depicting despised Irish immigrants as monkeys actually contributed to the mistreatment of the Irish in New York and throughout America. By the same token, Nast's cartoons about Boss Tweed lead to his demise. Vile mocking cartoons in Nazi Germany helped to demonize and dehumanize Jews. Cartoon propoganda helped start WWI. Strong images have power.
The comparison to the Danish cartoons is specious and erroneous and changes the subject in a way that isn't germaine. The context was completely different and so has been the reaction. The cover was meant to upset people and generate publicity. It got them exactly that. But I'm hoping that they will suffer as a consequence through lost subscriptions and lost respect. Our copy arrived today and went straight to the trash where it belongs.

[mindlessmissy]

The MSM wants to create, break and critique the news ... That's what you get for the introduction of a Rating System ...

[ohiodem250]

Quick question on this whole subculture of "elite bashing" that has been going on in America ever since we decided we wanted to "drink beer" with our Presidents: doesn't elite mean good? And if so why does America, a country whose ideals and values always speak towards being elite, have a problem with it? Are those who can't hack it jealous? If someone called me an elitist I would be damn proud.

[auramac]

One thing is definitely true- the sound bites from those real "two-dimensional figures" at the end scared the hell out of me- idiots!

[BeSpoke]

I LOVE JOHN STEWART.

[Patrick McCabe]

Someone could see the art work as abstract in meaning. Surely it could be a vivid insult to another viewer who could be a person of the Muslim religion..

So, it is a ticklish piece of work. It is front-page fireworks thrown at the Obama's negative persona and some American Muslims who definitely had an OMG moment.

Those medicine bottles that describe possible side-effects are also fine printed to obscure the negative trauma that could occur.. It is good for CYA in medicne and art.

[plainsman]

This New Yorker cover reeks of elitism!!!

[DoveyJudith]

Reeks of elitism? Really? I live in the boondocks, red state flyover country, and I understood the cover real quickly. Of course, the artwork is titled "The Politics of Fear" on the contents page, so it wasn't too difficult. The art is clearly a parody, a satire, a putdown of all the falsehoods and urban myths the Right is pushing about the Obamas.

Maybe what you mean is that the New Yorker is elitist because you didn't like their cover, or you don't like satire and things that are not obvious. Well, it isn't the job of the New Yorker to aim its material to the lowest common denominator. Please don't presume to speak for the rest of us.

Bill Maher is right: There's nothing worse for a comic than playing some club date where the crowd doesn't get your sharp-edged material and turns hostile.

[CharlieMarlowe]

I got the impression that plainsman was just playing along and having some fun at the expense of the news media. Get it? Obama was accused of being an elitist as well as being unpatriotic and a muslim. That is the point plainsman is making.

[Bettysdad]

That's why Maher never uses any sharp-edged material.

[thebirdstheword]

The problem is that you have to search at the bottom of the contents page to find the title of the artwork, and hence the meaning of the cover. Since there is no text in the magazine to back the point the artist is trying to make, I wonder why the cover accompanies the piece that it does.

While I don't personally find the cover offensive and since The New Yorker is a traditionally liberal publication, I kind of figured it was meant as satire. But I do believe that The New Yorker botched this one pretty badly. There is a point to the fact that nothing in that particular issue backs up or even touches on the point that the artist is tryijng to make.

[Drjimmy72296]

Do you also cling to God, guns and fear and mistrust of anyone different?

[meanguy]

no, i cling to God, my family, guitars, and guns...in that order...as for fear and mistrust, i fear running out of beer on a friday night, and i mistrust anyone who tells me, 'i'm pretty sure i left another beer down there in the cooler" along with people who say, "i'm from the government, and i'm going to help you"

[SubparDude]

:

Unfortunately, the second you "explain" parody, its intent is lost.

There are folks who don't understand physics, either -- that doesn't uplift them as critics of physics.


GET IT???

:

[RobinLandseadel]

. . . .no, and can you please explain this "Quarks" nonsense to me? I mean, they've got to be kidding, right?

[unitedstates]

no law in America that you have to get it or physics.. that is a good thing

[chicago25624]

Remind me again who were the last ones to get so warped over a cartoon?

[bluestatelib]

How incredibly lame. To compare the reaction of the media and Obama's campaign to the reaction of some extremist Muslims over the publishing of those Danish cartoons is laughable. I don't see any American supporters of Obama arguing for Jihad against the New Yorker. You people are funnier than the New Yorker has ever been. LOL.

[JohnTalbutt]

The Jews in Germany. Lots of cartoons depicting them as money grubbing traitors. Of course, they got more than warped.

Hateful is hateful, partner.

[TheBlackCat]

I know, right??!! I love how many people on here apparently think we need to be MORE like fundamental Muslims in third world countries with no education.

[RobinLandseadel]

Forget the "Islamic" part, the real issue here is Fundamentalism:

"Fundamentalism is a movement within U.S. Protestantism marked by twin commitments to revivalistic evangelism and to militant defense of traditional Protestant doctrines. By the end of World War I, a loose coalition of conservative Protestants had coalesced into a movement united in defending its evangelistic and missionary endeavors against theological, scientific, and philosophical "modernism­." The threatened doctrines had recently been identified in a collaborative twelve-volume series entitled The Fundamentals (1910–1915). Battles over issues—most frequently biblical inerrancy (exemption from error), the virgin birth of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and miracles—soon erupted within several leading denominations, principally among northern Baptists and Presbyterians. Many members separated from their churches to form new denominations committed to defending the fundamentals. Fundamentalists took their campaign into public education, where such organizations as the Anti-Evolution League lobbied state legislatures to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools. The former Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan led this effort, which culminated in his prosecution of the Dayton, Tennessee, teacher John T. Scopes, for teaching evolution. The Scopes trial of 1925 attracted national attention, and the ridicule of Bryan's views during the trial by the defense lawyer, Clarence Darrow, helped to discredit fundamentalism. . . ."

More at:

http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamentalism

[AZM]

Gosh, how come, when Gen. Clark said that getting shot out of the sky in a fighter jet is not a qualification for the presidency, nobody seemed to understand that it was just a verbal cartoon?

[GeorgeKaplan]

It was just a cartoon.

[bluestatelib]

And? Just because it's "just a cartoon" doesn't mean that people can't discuss it or criticize it. If the New Yorker printed a blatantly anti-semitic "cartoon" or some other cartoon that you personally thought was extremely offensive, I seriously doubt that you'd be dismissing it as "just a cartoon."

[GeorgeKaplan]

I saw it. I understood it. I smiled. I moved on...

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I can only speak for myself, but I generally don't get in an uproar about cartoons. Either they make me laugh or they don't and I move on. Othewise I would have protested "family circus" years ago. .

[jspivey]

"And? Just because it's "just a cartoon" doesn't mean that people can't discuss it or criticize it."

Obama supporters weren't just criticizing and discussing. They were advocating that the New Yorker be "punished.­"

[hoopesaz]

Liberals are the defenders of offensive speech. What happened all of the sudden? Is offensive speech only okay so long as it doesn't offend you or those you support?

[joeyp404]

We are baby killers. Do you really think we would have a sense of humor? (Please note: This is intended as satire.)

[ema]

Gottcha.

[RobinLandseadel]

Well, those nice folks in the original---all singing, all dancing---"Wicker Man"---were into human sacrifice and managed to pull off a witty one-liner or two.

[bluestatelib]

Huh? Liberals have never argued that "offensive speech" is beyond critical analysis. For example, if the Illinois Nazis want to print "offensive speech," liberals will support that group's right to do so. However, liberals will also condemn the content of that speech for the hate that it is. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[hoopesaz]

"However, liberals will also condemn the content of that speech for the hate that it is."

Sorry, not my experience. My experience is that liberal critical analysis generally tends to lean towards educating the offended about the freedom of speech clause with little concern for the offensiveness of the message. This is a new experience for me. I hope it's not the last time that I see a vast majority of liberal bloggers commenting on the offensiveness of a comment instead of waving the constitution as an excuse for ridiculous behavior.

[ohiodem250]

I actually have no problem with the cartoon, thought it quite funny, and, maybe saying this makes me an elitist, but, I am smart enough to understand the satire. So, I got it, thought it was great, and actually thought it did exactly what it was supposed to do: create a media firestorm that once again reminds everyone in America that Obama is not a Muslim and that the IDEAS mocked on that absurd cover are just that: absurd. Not all commenters­/bloggers/­trolls speak for me. So try to minimize the generalizations.

[unitedstates]

I agree and the reason I am an independent. Liberals are outraged at censorship but when it is something they don't like they want censorship. Hypocrisy. Besides its a cartoon .. get over it.

[Bettysdad]

This is not "offensive" speech.

This is a massive lie, and dangerous.

[meanguy]

so, the right wing DOESN'T see obama as the sum total of those stereotypical images?

dangerous to whom? or to what? obama's carefully crafted image, well-oiled political machine?

[strawberryjulius]

Although the New Yorker is a left leaning publication, they don't have to look out for the best interests of Barack Obama. It is not a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party like Fox News is for the Republicans.

[vonfifenburg]

Kind of funny that the interview segment with Obama on Larry King last night (prior to the airing of the Daily Show) has Obama saying that it's just a cartoon. Satire. He hadn't given it much thought because it really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things worthy of thinking about. I know that Daily Show tapes before Larry King, but still.

[GoletaZeke]

There is always a difference between 'satire' and 'ridicule'. The New Yorker 'intended' satire but ended up with ridicule. As many noted writers have pointed out satire requires context, which the New Yorker cover did not have. Thus it would be expected that those not favoring Obama would enjoy the caricature, Including Jon Stewart, and would consider it nothing but a 'joke'. In the midst of an importent political campaign, without context, this cartoon is propaganda that expresses the opinions of many McCain supporters. And that is not funny.