Jon Stewart Takes On Newsweek: 'That's a S---ty Picture of Michele Bachmann'
It seems even comedian Jon Stewart is a offended by Newsweek's pathetic cover photo of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Unfortunately, after ridiculing the magazine and its editor Tina Brown for using an obviously "s---ty picture," the "Daily Show" host couldn't resist taking some potshots of his own at the conservative presidential candidate (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JON STEWART, HOST: Welcome back. Now, as we have recently documented on this very program, there is nothing that the Right enjoys more in this country than complaining about how hard it is for them to enjoy being in this country.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIPS)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: The mainstream media holds conservatives to different standards than their liberal colleagues.
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS: The mainstream media wants to blame the Republicans.
DAVE BRIGGS, FOX NEWS: It seems the media is waging a war against conservative women.
LOU DOBBS, FOX BUSINESS NETWORK: Scientific proof that the mainstream liberal media is blatantly liberal and it's biased.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
STEWART: Conservatives hate the liberal media so much they're even willing to accept an argument based on science! And you know, the worst part about when the Right complains about the mainstream media? When their argument contains a kernel of truth. Ugh! Case in point, this week's Newsweek cover which seems to have captured Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann at the exact moment she sees the Amazing Ribaldo turn his hat into a dove. “That's amazing! When do we start the photo shoot?”
Look, Newsweek. Newsweek - that's a s—-ty picture of Michele Bachmann. And clearly not an accidentally s—-ty picture of Michele Bachmann. Because you can say a lot of things about Michele Bachmann -- a lot of things -- but here's what you can't say about Michele Bachmann: that she is not photogenic. I mean, look at her. Here she is inside. Here she is outside. Jesus, that could be a shampoo ad! Here she is screaming into a bullhorn and making it look attractive. My point is you've got to go pretty far out of your way to find a crappy photo of Michele Bachmann. And you did. Why?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: In a statement, Newsweek editor Tina Brown said, “Michele Bachmann's intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now, and Newsweek's cover captures that.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: No, no. No it doesn't. That's not a "I'm galvanizing the voters in Iowa" picture. I look at that picture and think "Isn't that a little soon to be doing a female remake of the ‘40-Year-Old Virgin?’"
That's not a nice picture. I mean, I get it, Newsweek. You put in "The Queen of Rage" juxtaposed with a picture of a lady that appears to be enchanted by simple math being done on a black board that’s hung too high. Or maybe it's a child thinking of cake. But be honest, Newsweek: you used that photo in a petty attempt to make Michele Bachmann look crazy.
Nice segment up to this point. Sadly, Stewart couldn't bring himself to do a piece about Bachmann without bashing her:
STEWART: But be honest, Newsweek: you used that photo in a petty attempt to make Michele Bachmann look crazy. And that's what her words are for!
“If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle it's bondage…it's a very sad life…it's part of Satan, I think, to say ‘This is gay.’” Or "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out - are they pro-America or anti-America.” Or "I believe that there's a very strong chance that we will see young people put into mandatory service and the real concern is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people.” You want a photo, a photo that makes her seem a little off? Make it out of her words!
So I say shame on you! Shame on you, Newsweek, and your editor Tina Brown. No, too glamorous. Yeah, no, getting there. That's the stuff.
How childish and disappointing.
Stewart had the opportunity here to take the high road by simply admonishing Newsweek and Brown for a poor error in judgment. Rather than doing so, he used the incident to himself attack the Congresswoman without an provocation.
All the quotes he cited are old news. There wasn't any reason to recycle them.
By doing so, he was actually behaving just as badly as Newsweek and Brown.
This was much like his pathetic apology in June after he badly misrepresented polls of Fox News viewers during his interview with Chris Wallace.
After fact-checking organization PolitiFact found his statements false, he proceeded to childishly spend three minutes of a subsequent "Daily Show" listing all the times PF determined FNC's comments were likewise.
What's truly unfortunate is that a man of his admittedly advanced intellect can't see when he is actually making a fool of himself.
Shame on you, Jon Stewart.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Will the lies ever stop....?
Submitted by NeoKong on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:13am.
Tina's lame excuse is pathetic. Everyone knows she is lying through her teeth and still she just keeps peddling it.
That cover was vicious and no amount of insincerity and weak excuses is going to change that.
Brown did that to hurt Bachmann I think we all know who the real queen of rage is.
Bachmann did not deserve that.
Bachmann is a good candidate,
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:30am.
Bachmann is a good candidate, she just needs to watch what she says, the crazed liberal media will use it against her every time.
Unfortunately, Noel???
Submitted by NDanielson on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:56am.
Unfortunately, after ridiculing the magazine and its editor Tina Brown for using an obviously "s---ty picture," the "Daily Show" host couldn't resist taking some potshots of his own at the conservative presidential candidate...
Try, PREDICTABLY. Stewart is a putz.
She's an easy target.
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:17pm.
She's an easy target.
YOURE an easy target, Bal!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:57pm.
You just keep lobbing those softballs, and we tee off on them outta the park! Id like to see YOUR pic on the cover of Newsweek, so I could use it for target practice!
Who's this "we," kemosabe?
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 1:18pm.
Who's this "we," kemosabe?
Well, hell...
Submitted by CaptHerp on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 2:56pm.
If rightwinger wants me to help make it a "we," no problem. Lemme guess, balboa, you're the local drive-by cheap shot artist, right?
I prefer "snarkist," but
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 3:31pm.
I prefer "snarkist," but potato / potahto.
And as the more lucid people on this site will tell you, I range from one word answers to expanded, lengthy debate, and I don't hit-and-run.
Not even close blaboa
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:11pm.
"expanded, lengthy debate"....about what? Pop culture of your old girlfriend K'K'Katie Couric?
You're a troll, pure and simple (your little "lucid people" dig proves that). You're just not impolite enough to have been banned.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
If "troll" means "someone who
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:27pm.
If "troll" means "someone who dares disagree with conservatives on Newsbusters," then yes.
Lucid applies to many, many people on here, you included. But there are nutjobs, too, who don't honestly deserve anything other than snark.
Spot on, Captain
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:07pm.
I'm in as part of "we".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
so are you bal
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:39pm.
so are you
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Well, sure, I'm a Democrat on
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:57pm.
Well, sure, I'm a Democrat on a heavy conservative site.
I'd be annoyed if I were
Submitted by forest on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:52pm.
I'd be annoyed if I were Stewart too. How do you do parody news when the 'serious' news has turned into self-parody?
Stewart is pissed because he agrees
Submitted by exLib on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:18pm.
Stewart gets mad at MSNBC and people like Tina Brown because he agrees with them in principle but at least he is intellectually honest - most of time - and can't go along with their tactics.
When you are "comedian" like Maher, Stewart, or Colbert, you can get away with whole-sale cheap-shots, slander and ad hominem attacks because they can always say it was a joke.
Newsweak or MSBNC can't claim that so he has to go after them.
Expiration date?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:16pm.
Is there a statute of limitations on dumb statements? I'm not certain of what's written up there, but is Stewart supposed to use future statements from Bachmann?