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

[UnbiasView]

I remember when Obama was above all of the this little BS and shrugged it off. The Obama camp has become increasingly more whiners than leaders.

BTW, the only people that get pissed off about cartoons are those in the middle east.

[walk0nwalls]

Is anyone warming up to Wyatt? I think he's okay he's not warming to me too fast though.

[Bashley]

I love Wyatt! He's not the most exciting guy, but he's not bad at all. I think he'll need a little time to sharpen his edges, if that makes sense.

I did love it when they showed the picture of him as Ironman.

[doneflyin]

I wonder if Jon Stewart would feel the same way if the cartoon had been a vicious stereotype about Jewish people?

[RobinLandseadel]

Depends---Joe Lieberman?

[TheBlackCat]

Well if it was a cartoon like this one, and it was making fun of not Jews themselves but how anti semites VIEW the Jews due to their apalling ignorance, he would probably find it pretty funny.

[Diogenis]

Ya.....like..oy vey Jon, lighten up, "it's just...a cartoon!" God, I love this Country! You can say anything, draw anything...and all you have to say..."hey, dude, it's just a cartoon, it's just a joke!" Yep, Jon Stewart sure does have matzah balls when it's "the other guy!" Oooops, Jon, Jon, "it's just...a joke!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH funny hey? BTWm how many died because of a Danish Cartoon? "Salam dude! It's just....a cartoooon? Hey Jon, have you ever heard the Yiddish saying: "Ve grow too soon oldt, and too late smart?"

[Agnim]

And the very superficial Jon Stewart is 'just a fcuking' idiot!
lol
The controversy IS NOT about the 'cartoon', per se! Sheeesh!

This so-called 'cartoon' is meant to communicate IDEAS.

The controversy is about those IDEAS that the cartoon is intended to communicate, and the IDEAS actually communicated by the 'cartoon'.

The author missed the mark he aimed at; because it is MOSTLY the enemies of the Obamas are laughing. lol

[hoopesaz]

All cartoons are intended to communicate ideas. I don't think that point is lost on him.

[jsinclair]

I think it was. There's a big difference between "Yogi Bear" and the "cartoons" showing Jews looking like rats in Germany.

He used "cartoon" to mean "innocuous". Actually, its just another form of artwork and can be inoffensive or pure hateful propaganda (as we've seen throughout history, many times).

Stewart's comments were, at best, naive.

[freedomisabsolute]

If it wasn't lost then why didn't he say that in his diatribe. He knows that if people start looking to closely at what is supposed to be satire, there may be a backlash against him. Who is such a sycophantic interviewer that I wait for Colbert. If it is parodied news it should be biting in these times when we need to laugh but not much is funny.

[jspivey]

"MOSTLY the enemies of the Obamas are laughing. lol"

That's true, but it's because this controversy shows Obama up for the humorless anti-free-speech, self-righteous, controlling prig that he actually is.

No serious person really believes that the Obamas are either radicals or Muslims. BHO resembles Ponty Finch (from "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying") a lot more than he resembles Osama Bin Laden.

[Agnim]

Be serious.
The US Constitution is a 'bible' for Obama; and it should be for you also. lol

Appealing to the lowest in the American nature does not serve Americans, especially at a time when circumstances are a challenge for far too many Americans.

This is the time to seek to uplift Americans. That's part of Obama's mission. Won't you join in this PATRIOTIC endeavor? lol

[stanjz]

Stewart over estimates both his own intellect and that of the American public. Corporations want their control of the public via the media to remain intact. Barack is seen as a threat so here come the attacks.

[flymic]

1) The Editors of the New Yorker have a right to publish whatever they want and Everybody else has a right to loudly Complain or Support as much as they want.

2) The New Yorker Magazine is a Liberal magazine-- They support Obama for POTUS

3) Sensationalism Sells Magazine-- the New Yorker is no differnent than NY Post in this regard

4) Most get the Satire. The Jury is out on whether this satire is productive or not.

5) Funny--to some, Offensive--to others, Missed the point it was trying to make--probably, caused discussion and sold a few more magazines-­-absolutly

6) This will be a landslide year if we can stay united and keep our eyes on the Prize

[TheBlackCat]

Great post!

[meanguy]

7) and the rest of us have the right, and distinct privilege, of laughing our A$$es off at the tears and howls from the outraged left

[aace]

I think its funny as hell...get over it lefties...­lololololo­lol

[thebirdstheword]

your # 4 sums it up. sure, most people do get that it was meant as satire. the real point is that it was a crappy attempt at satire.

i personally don't think the people who are offended by the cartoon are nearly as annoying as those waiting to throw a haughty "wait, thats the New Yorker, and they are obviously intellectually superior to you, and i understand the cover, so obviously you can't understand the New Yorker's level of satire and you are wrong."

[rinpochet]

Taking the truth and stretching it to the ridiculous is satire. Taking a lie and reflecting it in a cartoon is not satire. It's just a lie promoted even further.

[Paris68]

I think what you are describing is caricature.

[RobinLandseadel]

"I'm sorry, this is abuse---Argument's just down the hall to the left."

[eden4barack08]

So, now we know, it's OK to offend and attach false attributes to anyone, just so long as it's in the form of a cartoon. Ooopdy doo.

[mbrownNY]

The NYer didn't attach false attributes to anyone. The right-wing and the MSM really have been portraying Obama in the way the NYer illustrates on the cover. The title of the cover is: "The Politics of Fear." It is a shot at the right-wing, not Obama.

[meanguy]

here's a concept for you: you DON'T have the right to go thru life without being offended; and the more liberal or conservative you are, the more likely it is that you will be CONSTANTLY offended...life's tough, wear a helmet

[TheBlackCat]

I have read your posts today with such glee

Meanguy, I think I love you, so what am I so afraid of?

[gotborked]

Who, really, is going to be swayed by this cartoon? "low information" voters?

The "low information" voters have already made up their minds to vote for either McCain or for Obama, and this picture isn't going to sway them one way or another.

The type of person who seriously can't decide between John McCain and Barrack Obama probably has some thoughtful, nuanced reasons why -- reasons that this hyperbolic cartoon couldn't possibly affect.

[ema]

This is my New Yorker cover:

A bunch of violently enraged people wearing "Change you can believe in" T-shirts crucifying Barry Blitt, Jon Stewart, and the editor of the New Yorker. They're screaming violently, waving their fists in the air.

Jon Stewart is saying meekly, "But, I was just trying to point out the absurdities in our society and I'm a liberal, really..." The New Yorker guys are saying, "But, but, it plays in Manhattan..."

The title is: The Day that Humor Died.

[StillIRise]

You should go to work for the New Yorker. If they had provided the dialogue and characters in their cartoon that you've included in your imaginary cartoon cover, then the humor would have been more obvious, and the cartoon itself would have been a more responsible attempt at satire. However, if you just had a bunch of violently enraged people wearing "Change you can believe in" t-shirts, then the impression that most casual observers of your cartoon would have is that Senator Obama's supporters are violently enraged. The distinction is in the details.

[ema]

Gosh, can you write to them and tell me to hire me? What a job that would be!

As I've pointed out before on this blog, the NYer doesn't use text on it's cover, but I do think one more visual clue would have made this a better piece: like Sean Hannity somewhere in the picture.

[RobinLandseadel]

Don't forget to thrown Brit Hume, Chris Matthews, Billo, Wolf [pronounced "Volvf"] Bluster and the rest of the MSM clowns with the biggest spears towards the head of the grievance line.

If Keith has another special comment/tourette's episode over this, make sure to stick him in the front of the line.

[ema]

Wouldn't that be wild if Jon Stewart were KO's world's worst person? Now that makes me giggle.

[mypov123]

Jon Stewart is overestimating the intelligence of the American people if he thinks that the majority of them will look at the New Yorker cover as "just a f***ing cartoon". The rumors and fears are widespread and if the editors were TRULY aiming to mock the rumors rather than reinforcing them, this cover wasn't the right choice, but it sells magazines.

[RobinLandseadel]

Well, let's see. . .

Line drawing? Check.

Exaggerated facial characteristics [aka caricatures]? Check

Cover of the New Yorker? Check.

If I were the cultural cop on the beat, I'd let it off with a warning, and then tell it:

"Move along, nothing to see here."

[lejoueur]

Too bad then! The people get the leader they deserve. If we the people are too stupid to recognize satire and really think that BHO is a masquerading terrorist, then we will continue making unsophisticated choices for president. Unfortunately the consequences are also felt collectively. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

[bluestatelib]

John Stewart is incredibly lame. I can only tolerate his show for very brief periods of time (about 2-5 minutes). I found the New Yorker cover more interesting and funny than Stewart's little news skit. I don't think the problem lies with the media or the Obama campaign's response to that cartoon, but with the sad, lame excuse for satire and comedy emerging from the leftist "elite" New York media - typified by the likes of John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the New Yorker. YouTube amateurs typically show far more insightful and brilliant comedic and satirical skill than these so-called professionals.

[LostInTheStars]

Low-information voters don't read books and articles. They look at cartoons.

[haleywins]

Amen, again another New Yorker doesn't get it about the rest of America.

Dumb.

[superrobot]

The "rest of America" couldn't find the The New Yorker in the magazine rack. Don't worry.

[OmnesOmnibus]

Yes, just a cartoon, as Chris Matthews pointed out, just like the Thomas Nast cartoons in the 19th Century which notoriously portrayed Irish Immigrants as Monkeys. Just a cartoon.

[BenWex]

except Nast's cartoon portrayed the irish because he didnt like the irish. this is not the point of the new yorker magazine

[DoveyJudith]

Yes, but what Matthews failed to point out was that the Nast cartoon was a swipe at the Irish,,,,it was INTENDED to be a swipe at the Irish. This illustration was a swipe at the ignorant people who believe the urban myths about the Obamas. Big difference.

It is decidedly NOT the job of the New Yorker, or the illustrator, to say, "Gosh, some idiots out there may not get the point of this illustration, that it's a parody of people who are ignorant, even when they read the title of the drawing ('The Politics of Fear'), so we better not run it. We should only run things that appeal to the dumbest of people."

Now I know what Bill Maher feels like when he works a club date and the audience doesn't get his material and turns hostile.

[TheBlackCat]

I so agree. I am just thankful publications and artists are not deterred by the idiocracy that is the American masses.

[hlhicks]

But let's remember this is the same Jon Stewart who used the Oscars to joke about Obama by repeating his full name over and over again, referencing Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler in one awkward unfunny joke.

[happyfrancis]

I remember that crack he made. Not funny. My husband stopped watching the Daily Show after that.