Ignorant blowhard Bill Donohue has launched a campaign against Jon Stewart for not apologizing over an amusing graphic used during The Daily Show recently. He pledges to be relentless and successful, which is the really funny part of all this.
Jon Stewart refused to apologize last night for the unprecedented assault on Christian sensibilities he launched on April 16. In that episode, “The Daily Show” featured a naked woman with her legs spread and a nativity scene ornament placed between her legs; with the picture on the screen, Stewart laughed at what he called the “vagina manger.” To see the picture, click here.
Our effort against Stewart includes asking his most consistent sponsors to pull their advertising (if necessary, we are not ruling out a boycott of their products), and a lengthy public relations campaign. The goal? To get him to apologize. If that doesn’t work, we can guarantee that his reputation will never be the same.
Today we will contact Kraft, one of whose products, MiO Energy, was one of the five sponsors that advertised on both the April 17 and April 18 episodes. Moreover, we will contact those on our “Allied Organizations” list (over two days) to join this campaign. They will be asked to contact Steve Albani, Senior VP of Comedy Central Communications, and Kraft.
This is just the beginning. Over the next several weeks, we will contact every major Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim leader and organization in the nation; they will be sent the picture, along with Stewart’s remarks. We will contact Viacom (which owns Comedy Central, home to “The Daily Show”) making sure that all board members and senior management know about Stewart’s anti-Christian and grossly misogynist attack. We will take out ads in newspapers, etc. We are not going away.
What Jon Stewart did ranks with the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television. His incivility cannot go unanswered.
Perfect. Love it. This is like the drunk guy trying to heckle the comedian in a comedy club, thinking that they’re actually going to score some points against him. They never understand the disadvantage they’re at because A) the comedian has the microphone, B) the comedian is a professional and much funnier, and C) the audience will inevitably turn on you for being an asshole and cheer on the comedian. And that’s exactly what is going to happen here. Jon Stewart will turn this into comedy gold and Donohue will come off looking stupid, ineffective and humiliated. This is gonna be fun to watch.
41 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
bahrfeldt
April 24, 2012 at 9:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He failed totally in publicly trying to intimidate the private operators of the Empire State building to act a agents for his church.
Gregory in Seattle
April 24, 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And the sun will rise in the east, the wind will blow and ocean waves will break upon the shore. Donohue looking stupid, ineffective and humiliated is just another inevitable force of nature.
d cwilson
April 24, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, the man who is on record as saying that the biggest problem with the Catholic Church’s child-raping scandal is that people are talking about it thinks Jon Stewart is offensive?
That deserves nothing but an eyeroll and a “whatever”.
Can’t wait to see the huge number of Jews and Muslims who will rush to his side against Stewart’s alleged “anti-Christian” remark.
Doug Little
April 24, 2012 at 9:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Popcorn at the ready! The only thing that is going to worry Jon Stewart is the pressure to live up to the expectations.
freebird
April 24, 2012 at 9:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m pretty sure that photoshopping a manger in between a woman’s spread legs is less offensive than treating actual women like breeding chattel.
Michael Heath
April 24, 2012 at 9:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t know much about how comedy works so I can’t argue Ed doesn’t have a point, however I’m just not sure Jon Stewart milking this in a way which ridicules Donohue is the only possible outcome. I found the picture to be both in poor taste, and far more damning, not at all funny. Where almost every video clip the The Daily Show produces that goes viral resonates with me (I don’t watch the show); so a rare flop with this casual fan.
Of course Mr. Donohue’s objection to it might provide The Daily Show the chance to get more laughs out of this than they originally merited as Ed predicts with complete confidence; but I also wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Stewart agreed the picture was in poor taste and apologized. Such an apology provide PR benefits to Stewart and increase his credibility as somebody whose criticisms towards was earned by their targets. Maybe there’s a ‘third way’ as well, where Stewart concedes the picture was a mistake while still ripping Donohue.
BTW, Jon Stewart also noted in that clip that he hadn’t seen the picture until the audience did. I’m not sure how much of the idea he knew about it in advance, but it provides a little extra wiggle room for Stewart to walk this back.
Didaktylos
April 24, 2012 at 9:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Michael Heath – the point is that Blowhard Donohue isn’t concerned about aesthetics, but the lack of deference to his church.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
April 24, 2012 at 9:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Technically it was a “vagina creche.”
tynk
April 24, 2012 at 9:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Stewart’s anti-Christian and grossly misogynist attack.
The whole point of the clip was that women’s rights and access to health are being destroyed by a political party and fox news said it was not a war, but simply not allowing a nativity to be placed on public property DID constitute a war on christianity.
The whole point of the picture and the clip was to point out the Hippocracy and inherent misogyny on fox news. The clip was not for pure entertainment, it was to mock harmful ideas.
I found the picture to be both in poor taste, and far more damning, not at all funny.
I find the double standard towards a patriarchal theocratic power in poor taste.
TGAP Dad
April 24, 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Is he (Donahue) not aware of how this is going to work out for him? Has he seen how it plays out when the Daily Show decides to feature someone? This is not going to end well for him. I just want to know where to sit and who’ll bring the popcorn!
Blondin
April 24, 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I suspect that John Stewart will end up apologizing for the offensive image but the main effect of Donohue’s bluster will be to draw more attention to the gist of the segment itself – the right-wing hyper-hypocrisy of getting all upset at the suggestion of a war on women while declaring a war on every other damn thing that anybody on the left has the audacity to criticize or satirize.
John Hinkle
April 24, 2012 at 9:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought Bill Donohue was a one man show. What’s all this “we” stuff? Does he mean the royal “we”?
And hate speech? I thought Christians in general were against hate speech laws since they’re always getting accused of it. But I guess it’s ok to pull out the hate speech card when it’s useful.
hexidecima
April 24, 2012 at 9:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
send your approval of Stewart to viacom and kraft:
http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/contacts/other-contacts.aspx
http://www.viacom.com/Contact/Pages/default.aspx
poor catholics. all of the crocodile tears over the misogyny. I love to see those liars for Christ.
Chiroptera
April 24, 2012 at 9:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MIchael Heath, #6: I found the picture to be both in poor taste, and far more damning, not at all funny.
If Stewart limits his apology to just not being funny, I think that would be funny.
holytape
April 24, 2012 at 9:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The already failed with the first image on their webpage. It looks like they are celebrating Jon as a hero.
dave
April 24, 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I just want to know: Is this a War on Jon Stewart? Or is it War on Vagina Mangers?
Michael Heath
April 24, 2012 at 9:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d cwilson writes:
freebird writes:
Didaktylos responds directly to my post:
Of course there’s irony in Mr. Donohue’s hypocritical objections. However I would argue Donohue’s not a credible standard for us to use when gauging what The Daily Show produces. Just because a demagogue is far worse shouldn’t be construed as license to act only a little bit better than the demagogue. Better to take a respectable normative standard than one relative to a low-life like Donohue.
And the out that provides a couple of avenues here is how disingenuous Jon Stewart can be regarding criticism directed at him or his show. Sometimes he likes to point out he’s a comedian and not a journalist – in which case he acts like Ed predicts he’ll act. However Mr. Stewart has a strongly held point of view he’s continually promoting, where he takes on real life issues and promotes serious conclusions, so he’s also fair game for criticism.
I respect the hell out of Jon Stewart, I perceive him as a national treasure in the same vein as Mark Twain or Will Rogers, not that’s he reached their influence, only that he helps the country by mining some of the same ground they did. I want his influence to continue and grow, therefore I think one viable avenue he should consider is to apologize if he concludes this part of his show was in poor form. I think it was poor form and therefore hope he agrees and reacts with some demonstrated character.
Chiroptera
April 24, 2012 at 9:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…To see the picture, click here….
…Over the next several weeks, we will contact every major Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim leader and organization in the nation; they will be sent the picture, along with Stewart’s remarks….
Holy crap! He’s Streisanding himself?
Jordan Genso
April 24, 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I took the photo to mean that the only way the Tea Party Republicans will protect women’s rights is if they put a manger between her legs. Without the manger, the woman is defenseless against the regressives and their policies. But if you include a manger, the conservatives will reflexively do what they can to protect that manger (and therefore, the woman as well). Most people would value the woman over the manger, but according to the regressives’ policies and rhetoric, they do not.
I was a bit shocked by the photo, and in the same line as Michael Heath, did not find it to meet the level of quality The Daily Show often achieves, but the point was legit. Now if Bill Donahue can dispute the point, then the photo is inappropriate and TDS should apologize, but if the point stands up to critical thinking (which I think it would), then the photo is not nearly as inappropriate as the policies being pushed by the Tea Party Republicans, and no apology is needed.
Although if TDS decides to give an “apology to those who were offended”, rather than an “apology for taking an offensive position”, I would not be surprised (and not mind), as they often err on the side of being apologetic. All of those ‘notpologies’ the conservatives give after taking abhorrent positions usually follow the first format, when they should follow the latter. This is when the first format is appropriate.
Michael Heath
April 24, 2012 at 10:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wrote:
tynk:
I agree tynk, but pointing to the bad behavior of one group is not a compelling defense or justification to avoid the bad behavior of one’s own tribal member. Such a reaction is consistent with how conservatives think and liberals claim to not think, yet I continually observe it in liberal venues when one of their cherished own is criticized*; though not at the same rate I observe from conservatives.
We’re supposed to be better than them, so using conservatvives as a relative standard rather than an objective standard doesn’t seem like a wise course of action to take.
*Unless they’re promoting a conservative argument, than liberals will rightly criticize. In this case I don’t perceive the issue as a political one though I’m not as sensitive on how women perceive sexism than I hope to someday be.
Doug Little
April 24, 2012 at 10:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The fact that Billy boy is upset over this particular image reinforces the idea that he and his church are misogynist to their core. What exactly is so offensive about it to them? Is is because the lady parts are too close to their beloved savior? Well I’ve got news for him, there might have been an immaculate conception but no immaculate birth. Sure as shit little baby Jesus* had to squeeze through those very same lady parts.
* Well if he existed at all that is.
Doug Little
April 24, 2012 at 10:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m curious Michael, why do you find the image in bad taste?
scienceavenger
April 24, 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Play it Sam, play it again
tynk
April 24, 2012 at 10:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree tynk, but pointing to the bad behavior of one group is not a compelling defense or justification to avoid the bad behavior of one’s own tribal member.
I was not using the bad behavior of Donohue as justification for the behavior. The behavior of Donohue and his ilk are the TARGET of this mocking. Hence my point that I find his hipocracy on misogyny is what I find offensive. What I do NOT find offensive is a woman’s body, nor the irreverence towards an object that holds no justification for the reverence some give it.
My point was that I do not share his offense in the least, but I am offended but what he says on an almost daily basis.
MikeMa
April 24, 2012 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think Stewart ought to hold out for a quid pro quo. When the church apologizes for condoning child rape (and its many other crimes) then Stewart might owe them an apology. Until then, Donohue can suck an egg.
Michael Heath
April 24, 2012 at 10:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doug Little writes:
Because it shows a woman in a very vulnerable state which I couldn’t tie to some net beneficial return.
However in defense of Stewart’s segment, I didn’t get what Jordan Genso describes @ 19 until he posted his perception. If I had gotten that when I viewed the clip I would have found the clip funny and worth defending. I’m not going to retract my earlier point about the clip unless I conclude I’m one of a relative handful who didn’t get it. That’s because if you don’t get Stewart’s point, I think it comes off in poor taste. If you do, it’s a great argument.
The criticisms of others’ arguments I still hold. Pointing to the bad behavior of one person to defend or avoid the bad behavior of one’s ally is not a reaction I can respect.
scienceavenger
April 24, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s funny how offense works, as a thoroughly atheistic person with a healthy appreciation for our sexual nature, I watched the entire segment and don’t even remember the image in question.
cathyw
April 24, 2012 at 10:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Doug Little – I actually have heard people take the position that yes, there actually was an “immaculate birth”, so that Mary’s hymen would remain intact – Baby Jesus came out through the abdominal wall or something. Sounds like a Catholic doctrine taken to an extreme, so maybe it’s right up Bill Donohue’s alley?
Raging Bee
April 24, 2012 at 10:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought Bill Donohue was a one man show.
He’s basically an unofficial representative of the Vatican. They rely on him and support him because he shamelessly says whatever blatant bullshit they need to say but is too disgraceful and dishonest for their “uniformed” officers to say. When he dominates the conversation and riles up their tribalistic base, he’s a benefit; and at the same time, he’s not really “affiliated,” so the Church can disown him even as they rely on him.
And now he’s trying to orchestrate a Catholic equivalent of the Toon Tantrum. I hope it remains just him, but given his well-known-while-unacknowledged relationship to a very rich and well-connected church, I wouldn’t be too complacent this early in the game.
tynk
April 24, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
scienceavenger @27
I am in the same position, though I do remember the image, I found it very on point and funny. But then I am one of the women who dares to not be ashamed of her body or need others to come running to my defense.
d cwilson
April 24, 2012 at 10:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wouldn’t say it’s a justification for bad behavior, but pointing out Donahue’s long history of hypocrisy, especially in matters relating to sexuality and/or women, is a valid criticism. He is the one who is guilty of very selective outrage based on whether the individuals involved are part of his tribal group.
It’s ironic because the whole point of Stewart’s segment was that conservaties in general and Fox in particular were guilty of highly selective outrage. They are quick to label even innocuous phrases like “Happy Holidays” or even mild criticism of statements by conservative women as part of a “war” against their sacred cows. But when the war label gets applied to their pet issues, suddenly, they’re all offended by the rhetoric.
Raging Bee
April 24, 2012 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
cathyw: ewww! But a cute icon there…
anandine
April 24, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The problem with the vagina manger is it blocks the transvaginal ultrasound wand.
freebird
April 24, 2012 at 11:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Catholic League has participated in wholesale denial of sexual abuse to children. They have taken the issue of birth control and escalated it into this brouhaha of “religious freedom” and how the government is going to take their hospitals away from them, and how they’d be going to jail. Oh, and Hitler.
The Catholic League is supposed to be all about social justice. Yet the last few years has seen them opposed to universal health care, opposed to condoms in Africa, opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption, opposed to birth control, even for medically necessary reasons.
That the Catholic League would be offended by the image of a manger superimposed over a woman’s vagina more than their hostility towards social justice for women calls out their hypocrisy.
It’s about them trying to have and protect an image of social justice when in reality social justice is what they’ve been fighting against.
Modusoperandi
April 24, 2012 at 11:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Daily Show’s “vagina mangers” joke upsets conservatives, thus illustrating the joke’s point.
Michael Heath “Because it shows a woman in a very vulnerable state which I couldn’t tie to some net beneficial return.” (emphasis mine)
Mandatory transvaginal probe.
“That’s because if you don’t get Stewart’s point, I think it comes off in poor taste. If you do, it’s a great argument.”
Is it Point Out the Obvious Day?
cathyw “…Mary’s hymen…”
Dibs on band name!
Doug Little
April 24, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael,
Oh absolutely. But in this case I thought it was right on point and was not bad behavior on behalf of Stewart. Jordan had an interesting take on it, I understood it to mean that in order for the war on women to be legit in the eyes of Fox news you need add something Christmas to it. I liked the irony of the image.
Michael Heath
April 24, 2012 at 11:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doug Little writes:
Your original take was mine as well; I wish I originally perceived it like Jordan did. That takes the bit from dumb to genius.
Area Man
April 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And D), the drunk heckler is a humorless, creepy old coot who showed up to the comedy club just to complain about how offended he is at jokes he does not understand.
billdaniels
April 24, 2012 at 8:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think Bill “A League of Myself” Donohue will soon find some other manufactured outrage within the week. Just ignore him.
I once got a standing ovation after I drunk-heckled a bad opening act. The headliner thanked me for entertaining the audience more than the opener did.
dan4
April 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@15: What “webpage” are you referring to (first sentence of your post)? What people are you referring to with the unspecified “they” (second sentence of your post)?
Modusoperandi
April 25, 2012 at 2:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dan4, the link. The link that Ed linked, up top, where he linked the link he linked to. Blue text. You click on it and it takes you someplace else. You know, link.