Anthony Weiner | Jon Stewart | News

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: Jon Stewart on Anthony Weiner's Junk Shot

Weiner_stewart

Jon Stewart takes on the story of his good friend Congressman Anthony Weiner's lewd twitter junk photo.

Says Stewart: "There's really no way to cover this Weiner story in a non-adolescent fashion."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The congressman certainly didn't do himself any favors by not just saying it wasn't him. Easy deniability. Or maybe its just that the junk in the shot looks bigger than his own junk and he wants to claim it. Nice package tho.

    Posted by: Chadd | Jun 2, 2011 9:37:50 AM


  2. Since Jon Stewart and the congressmember were once roommates, Stewart is probably the only newsperson (insofar as The Daily Show is 'news') to ever see Anthony's weiner. The jokes almost write themselves.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Jun 2, 2011 9:38:41 AM


  3. does anyone else get a gay vibe from Weiner?

    Posted by: gregory | Jun 2, 2011 10:02:53 AM


  4. Somehow this story just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Now if it were a creepy old, family-values Republican, that would be a different story.

    Posted by: Matthew | Jun 2, 2011 10:15:04 AM


  5. Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal because Weiner didn't do anything wrong?

    Unless you believe he actually used his completely public Twitter account, which he uses constantly, to completely publicly send a private pic to a complete stranger only to immediately delete it as soon as he did it.

    Which would be an amazingly stupid thing to believe.

    Why should he tell the world that's what his clothed penis looks like when he never wanted the world to know that in the first place? Why play into the hands of whoever it was who hacked his account? Hopefully, he's learned his lesson about where and how he stores his private pics.

    Other than the "tee-hee" factor of embarrassing a Congressman by hacking into his private pics (and this is the raciest one they could find?), this doesn't seem like a big deal because -- aside from the cyber-crime committed against him -- it isn't.

    Posted by: ohplease | Jun 2, 2011 10:34:51 AM


  6. @Chadd: Whether it's him or not is not even relevant. If he keeps a pic of his own underwear, that's nobody's business. If his friend e-mailed him a pic with the caption "here's a shot of the undies you two put in my Xmas stocking," that's also nobody's business. If he took a screencap of a Hanes ad to ask his wife If she likes that color, that's also nobody's business.
    But if he SENT a pic of someone's -- anyone's-- underwear to a random Twitter follower he's never met or spoken to, that might be kind of weird (and again, it wouldn't matter if it's him or a friend or a model from an ad). However, that scenario really doesn't make any sense.
    What he's stated - that someone hacked in and pranked him - makes perfect sense. He doesn't owe it to anyone to determine who is IN the pic; the only relevant part at all is who SENT it.
    And for those nutters calling for his "resignation," if it's that easy, how about if a computer nerd sends exactly the same pic to a random Twitter follower of every Republican congressman. Will they all need to resign?

    Posted by: Gregv | Jun 2, 2011 11:06:39 AM


  7. I get why it's salacious. I don't see why it should be this big a deal. The woman to whom he allegedly sent the pic isn't complaining (though she's probably bitching about the media intrusion), and seriously people, it's a CLOTHED picture. And please remember the source... Andrew Breitbart is a slimeball of the first order. Now that doesn't necessarily make him wrong about this, but it does bring the credibility of the claim into question. Everyone in sex-phobic America tends to glom onto these stories, but it's important to understand the difference between a salacious "oopsie" pic transmission from a lawmaker who doesn't push a "morality/family values" platform, and a similar pic from a lawmaker whose public face includes the vilification of others who have done similar things. I don't care if anyone sends pics like this, though I do think it's in poor taste for an elected official. What I do care about is the hypocrisy.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Jun 2, 2011 11:13:02 AM


  8. If he can't say with "certitude" that it isn't him, then one might presume that it is possible that he has underwear pics of himself. Sure, we are all entitled to do whatever we want in private - to a degree - but it just seems stupid if one is a politician, no matter the political stripe.

    "Younger" people seem to think exposing themselves (literally and figuratively) is no big deal. But it still can be political suicide. And if one wishes a job in any field where ethics and judgment and image are important, I say, create no evidence that can come back to haunt you.

    Posted by: TJ | Jun 2, 2011 11:56:20 AM


  9. "Somehow this story just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Now if it were a creepy old, family-values Republican, that would be a different story."

    Right. Since we're all good Democrats here, this is nothing, move along, nothing to see here. Of course, if an evil Republican did it that would be completely different. Always comforting when our reaction is completely defined by the party affiliation.

    Posted by: AG | Jun 2, 2011 12:19:56 PM


  10. I like "ohplease"'s analysis

    Posted by: jerry | Jun 2, 2011 12:25:58 PM


  11. @AG: way to miss the words "family values" before "Republican" there.

    Posted by: Randy | Jun 2, 2011 12:55:16 PM


  12. well AG, perhaps we're a bit more likely to forgive a gaffe made by someone who is so outspokenly supportive of lgbt rights vs. a republican bigotthug who constantly works to take them away. you know. just MAYBE.

    Posted by: znsd | Jun 2, 2011 2:35:11 PM


  13. Then it should be no problem for Stewart, he covers every thing else in an adolescent manner.

    Posted by: Diogenes | Jun 2, 2011 6:35:53 PM


  14. Can we not fall into the media trap of calling the picture "lewd" (Its not) nor suggesting that it's definitively his body (We don't know that).

    I expect better of you, Andy.

    Posted by: Scott | Jun 2, 2011 11:17:21 PM


  15. @ZNSD: Maybe because everyone should be held to the same ethical standards, not just the people we don't like?

    Posted by: Todd | Jun 2, 2011 11:44:39 PM


  16. "@ZNSD: Maybe because everyone should be held to the same ethical standards, not just the people we don't like?"

    The only ethical standards being broken here are by the news media paying prurient attention to this non-story while pretending it's not the titillation factor they're interested in. It's perfect fodder for The Daily Show, not for "serious" news.

    Weiner's political party (though he certainly is our friend) is irrelevant here; a Republican would be no more guilty of ethical violations, just perhaps--if he were of the family values means straight family values only variety, as most Republicans are--of hypocrisy. In the unlikely event that Weiner was tweeting his own weiner around at least he isn't obsessed with where our weiners are going, unlike many of his Republican colleagues who've gotten into far more lewd scandals. If that's treating him more leniently, well, you cut your friends some slack. Your enemies, not so much.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jun 3, 2011 12:13:58 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: David Beckham Considers Tattooing His Man Parts« «