Comments

  1. Pete n SFO says

    He’s right…

    As amusing as it is, it’s a distraction from her very real craZy…

    And, it provides fodder for their “media is biased & mean to us” mentality.

  2. andy says

    I’m sorry but what photos has Jon Stewart been looking at!?!? She ALWAYS looks crazy because she IS crazy!!! I’d love to see the contact sheets from that photo shoot. I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked the least crazy looking one.

  3. MT says

    I guess it’s good that JS is being nonpartisan, but like everyone else has said here that would looks crazy in EVERY photograph! I think JS was simply trying garner a bit of an impression of impartiality by taking her side.

  4. Gay American says

    ummm I normally agree with john Stewart..but this is HER OWN MAKING….you mean to tell me – Newsweek gave her NO say in picking out pics? None? I cant beleive that! ..and anyways she POSED for them….its not a (gotcha’ pic)

  5. says

    Yeah, Stewart is way off base here. The pictures of Bachmann on her own website are as crazy as that Newsweek cover. “You gotta go pretty far out of your way to find a crappy photo of Michele Bachmann”? Quite the contrary; someone find me one good one. She looks crazy in the photo because she looks crazy.

  6. NaughtyLola says

    She looks crazy because she *is* crazy. At least 50% of her pictures clearly display her batshit-insanity, this is nothing new. As a friend of mine put it:

    “The media is so manipulative in this photo of Tom Selleck. They shot it to make it look like he has a mustache.”

  7. Really? says

    Stewart has become more self-righteous since his Rally to Restore Sanity. I used to watch Daily Show and Colbert every night. Now, just Colbert–they cover the same topics anyway and Stephen is just so much more entertaining. Plus, Colbert’s writers are less shticky. I hate the standard Stewart shtick. It’s become tired.

  8. ohplease says

    That’s the thing about Stewart: when he’s wrong, he’s really wrong.

    Every time since he started going out of his way to prove he’s “fair and balanced”, the jokes fall flat. It’s not because the Democrats or the left can do no wrong, it’s because of the fights he chooses.

    Congratulations on defending Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann on somebody daring to publish a pic of her looking crazy — as if there was any other option whatsoever.

    And I suppose Newsweek would have done the right thing if they actually managed to have an unrepresentative photo of her not looking crazy or if they doctored a normal pic of her to erase her insanity?

    Stewart, leave the “fair and balanced” act to the people who invented it.

  9. bobbyjoe says

    I usually like John Stewart (and I despise Marcus Bachmann), but Stewart’s level of blatant hypocrisy here is gigantic. So he’s gonna chide Newsweek for using this photo of Michelle Bachmann when his own show does exactly this kind of thing all the time, choosing the most unflattering picture or video (and often even photoshopping them) of somebody he wants to attack to “illustrate” whatever point he’s making. Case in point, Michelle Bachmann’s husband, who, notice in the following segment Stewart illustrates with an unflattering open mouthed photo and then plays an unflattering video of Marcus Bachmann dancing, sets it against a scene where one of the gay couple from the sitcom “Modern Family” is dancing, to talk about how “gay” Marcus Bachmann seems.

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/07/14/video-the-daily-show-does-marcus-bachmann-field-of-dongs/

    Now, Stewarts piece, to its credit, is calling the Bachmannn’s on their homophobic bullsh*t. (And it may be as impossible to find a non ridiculously gay image of Marcus Bachmann as it is to find a non-crazy picture of Michelle).

    But Stewart can’t have it both ways– he’s obviously very comfortable when he wants to run highly unflattering photos or videos of the way people look to make an editorial point, but if Newsweek does it, suddenly John Stewart turns into a high-and-mighty scold?

    No, John Stewart, quit trying to pretend to be Mr. Above-It-All, like you did with that disingenuous “Rally to Restore Sanity.” You’re being a giant hypocrite.

  10. TampaZeke says

    If you look closely at ANY picture of Michelle Bachmann you’ll see the same “crazy eyes”. If you don’t believe me, try it. It’s quite bizarre actually. I’m surprised that more people haven’t noticed.

  11. TJ says

    Stewart CAN have it both ways, because his is a COMEDY show, and Newsweek is, well, NEWS! But I have to go with the majority here. She ALWAYS looks crazy to me. Until I heard there was a “controversy,” I saw it as just another photo of Bachmann. It is what it is.

  12. ohplease says

    Bradford and TJ are correct, of course. Even though The Daily Show is, sadly, one of the few sources of actual news in this country. I say “sadly” because it is not a news show. It is a comedy show.

    He could have mined the Newsweek pic for comedy gold, but, instead, he decided he was going to do his “fair and balanced” act again. Because Michele Bachmann is sooo not crazy and has never looked crazy before. Hey, Stewart, next time go for the funny — that’s what they pay you for.

    In this particular instance, Newsweek has not failed at being a news magazine, but Stewart has failed at being a comedian.

  13. bobbyjoe says

    Stewart does political commentary. So does Newsweek.

    Newsweek is NOT pure news, any more than Stewart is pure comedy. Newsweek is– and always has been– full of editorials and opinion pieces. This wouldn’t be the first time, by a long shot, that a magazine like Newsweek was running a cover raising controversy or making some editorial point. I don’t know why anyone other than Polyanna or Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm who just fell off the turnip truck would act astonished that a Newsweek cover would have an editorial slant. Why shouldn’t it? Since when did it not?

    Sometimes their (often right-leaning) slants in the past have p*ssed me off greatly, but I’m not gonna pretend to clutch my pearls and be taken aback by it like Stewart is here. This is a magazine that even before Tina Brown took over, ran covers with captions like “Is Your Baby Racist?” They recently had a cover photo of Obama juggling all this stuff with the caption “Is The Presidency Too Much for One Man?” Newsweek covers raise editorial points all the time, and, gee whiz, sometimes even doctor photos to do so (which they didn’t do with Bachmann’s). Obama wasn’t really juggling all that stuff, y’know.

    Stewart might possibly have a point were this the cover of a newspaper with a record of being steadfastly objective. But magazines like Time and Newsweek have been deliberately generating controversy since at least the 1940s, when Time cheekily named Hitler “Man of the Year” on its cover.

    Stewart is being phony about all this. He’s not the only one allowed to use photos or anything else to make editorial or controversial points, just because he claims he’s just doing comedy. Stewart IS a political commentator. A funny one, but one never-the-less. He’s mean when he wants to be, with photos and videos and anything else he can use to make certain people look bad– and its not just for comedy– it supports his political worldview. Which is fine. But he needs to own it, and stop pretending like he’s shocked and outraged and above-it-all when somebody else does it, by hiding behind some disingenuous stance that all he does is simply “comedy.”

  14. says

    Oh freaking come on guys! Yes Bachman is batshit crazy, but that is not a good photo of her. I like Newsweek, but they have a history of doing this to candidates they do not like. Call a spade a spade.

  15. says

    I totally agree with the Stewart’s monologue. I had the same response to the photo on Newsweek. I am a progressive, politically, and I think the choice of that cover photo was wrong!

  16. Jerry says

    Jon Stewart: not the point. If the people over at Faux News hadn’t been making such a big deal of it, Stewart wouldn’t have had anything to take aim at.

  17. TommyOC says

    @bobbyjoe: I think you’re missing the point. Stewart’s not a hypocrite for calling Newsweek out for using that photo when he himself uses absurd or shopped photos of his subjects all the time.

    You’re confusing The Daily Show for an actual news organization.

    It is not. It is a comedy show.

    It’s Stewart’s goal to make you guffaw at his producers’ choice of photographs. Sometimes those pictures help illustrate a point; at others, it helps to dull the tension in an otherwise serious and/or grave subject. That’s why you tune in.

    Newsweek, however, doesn’t get that luxury. They’re supposedly an impartial news organization. You give one person the glamor treatment with a photo, you have to give it to everybody. That’s how you maintain an air of impartiality.

    Stewart’s right for calling Newsweek out. I, personally, love the photograph as it is all sorts of crazy-eyes, but I know there’s something not right about it: It’s plainly not a “neutral” photograph. It goes too far in that intangible sort of way.

  18. bobbyjoe says

    Again, Newsweek often has had editorial content on its covers, sometimes with satirical images and unflattering shots of politicians and celebrities. The only reason this particular one is getting a lot of play is because the rightwing noise machine wants it that way. Newsweek’s not always, nor has it pretended to be, just an objective news source. Some articles are, and some articles aren’t. Some have a definite intentional editorial slant, and have for decades.

    Jerry a couple of posts back has this exactly right. The rightwing plays progressives like a fiddle on these things. There’s a current rightwing meme from the usual Fox News, etc. sources that they’re trying to push saying that progressives who satirize or criticize Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann are great big sexists. They’re pushing this meme because they know that’s exactly the kind of bait that a lot of progressives will fall for. “Oh, dear me, let’s be extra, extra careful not to make this obviously crazy, spiteful, and/or stupid person look crazy, spiteful, and stupid, ’cause we might look mean or sexist.” And while progressives are doing that, the rightwing runs all over ’em.

    The right would love it if Newsweek ran a cover like John Stewart wants that was just a pretty picture of Michelle Bachmann and all words that she’s said, because No. One. Would. Read. It.

    Was the rightwing up in arms boo-hooing about how unfair a Newsweek cover was to Obama, when it showed a harried-looking head shot of the President with multiple arms attempting to juggle all sorts of objects with a tagline reading “Is the modern presidency too much for one person” (which definitely has implications that Obama may be in over his head). The head shot of Obama there was certainly not flattering.

    So were the righties wringing their hands, about whether such an image was fair? Of course not. For one thing, even rightwing panderers don’t think their audience is naive enough to be shocked that Newsweek has editorial slant. Newsweek has done editorial covers for decades, but–lo and behold– when Fox News decides to cry crocodile tears over it, here comes John Stewart pretending to be Mr. Above-it-all.

    I usually love the Daily Show, but when Stewart pulls out this phony-baloney high-and-mighty act (like he did at the “Rally to Restore Sanity”) where he pretends “let just all be nice” to a faction that literally runs around claiming things like “gays don’t deserve equality” and “gays are after your children,” it seriously gets on my nerves.

  19. Rob says

    Michael Isikoff at Newsweek MADE the Monica Lewinsky scandal- they owe us this. Yes Newsweek is leaning left, and the very articulate, brilliant Tina Brown, who saved the New Yorker from drowning in its own secretions, will now save Newsweek.

    Mercifully, all of this debate focuses attention on Bachman’s state of mind, which is quite important. She is nuts.

Leave A Reply