Press Release
January 16, 2008
CARTOONISTS DECLARE JIHAD ON COMEDY CENTRAL SCABS
Syndicated political cartoonists Ted Rall and Matt Bors will issue cartoons ridiculing two figures generally revered by liberals for their political humor: Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" and Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report."
Despite not making a deal with the striking Writers Guild of America, Stewart and Colbert have returned to their shows--without writers --in a move that has generated little to no criticism from the liberal press.
Rall and Bors, who write and draw all their own material and are not members of the Writers Guild, decided to team up and deliver a one-two punch, with each of them taking on one of the Comedy Central hosts in cartoons issued by their respective syndicates on the night of Thursday, January 17. The cartoons will also be available at their websites www.tedrall.com and www.mattbors.com
"One naturally hesitates before unleashing the fearsome power of Rall and Bors," said Bors and Rall, "but the stakes are too high, the issues too important, the hypocrisy too hypocritical for us to just put down our pens and tune in to their union-busting, albeit highly amusing, programs."
Rall's cartoon imagines rough and tumble union members from 1938 traveling through a wormhole to encounter Jon Stewart, whom they identify as a "scab." The comic ends with Stewart being carried away on a stretcher after being violently beaten. "Stewart's wry, vaguely left-of-center wit fails to register with the visitors from a more straightforward time," Rall writes in the comic.
"Progressives shouldn't let these scabs off the hook, no matter how hilarious they are," said Rall. "The War on Snarkism starts now!"
Bors' comic deals with Colbert in a parody of his popular segment "The Wørd." This time the word is "Scab" with Colbert remarking, "Writers may be able to hang out all day on their air conditioned sidewalks, but I have a mouth to feed, folks!" while the screen informs us of his ego's lunch break demands. It's something you could almost imagine Colbert saying, with Bors turning the faux-right wing persona back on the host.
"They have no integrity, no morals, and no guts," Bors huffed. "They're funny, sure, but not ha-ha funny. Not after this."
Ted Rall's cartoons are distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, while Matt Bors' work is distributed through United Feature Syndicate. They each draw three cartoons a week.
Neither Rall nor Bors will be available for appearances on either of the shows while the strike remains in effect. "We'd rather fight in Bush's wars than cross a picket line," they said in unison.
CARTOONISTS DECLARE JIHAD ON COMEDY CENTRAL SCABS
Syndicated political cartoonists Ted Rall and Matt Bors will issue cartoons ridiculing two figures generally revered by liberals for their political humor: Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" and Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report."
Despite not making a deal with the striking Writers Guild of America, Stewart and Colbert have returned to their shows--without writers --in a move that has generated little to no criticism from the liberal press.
Rall and Bors, who write and draw all their own material and are not members of the Writers Guild, decided to team up and deliver a one-two punch, with each of them taking on one of the Comedy Central hosts in cartoons issued by their respective syndicates on the night of Thursday, January 17. The cartoons will also be available at their websites www.tedrall.com and www.mattbors.com
"One naturally hesitates before unleashing the fearsome power of Rall and Bors," said Bors and Rall, "but the stakes are too high, the issues too important, the hypocrisy too hypocritical for us to just put down our pens and tune in to their union-busting, albeit highly amusing, programs."
Rall's cartoon imagines rough and tumble union members from 1938 traveling through a wormhole to encounter Jon Stewart, whom they identify as a "scab." The comic ends with Stewart being carried away on a stretcher after being violently beaten. "Stewart's wry, vaguely left-of-center wit fails to register with the visitors from a more straightforward time," Rall writes in the comic.
"Progressives shouldn't let these scabs off the hook, no matter how hilarious they are," said Rall. "The War on Snarkism starts now!"
Bors' comic deals with Colbert in a parody of his popular segment "The Wørd." This time the word is "Scab" with Colbert remarking, "Writers may be able to hang out all day on their air conditioned sidewalks, but I have a mouth to feed, folks!" while the screen informs us of his ego's lunch break demands. It's something you could almost imagine Colbert saying, with Bors turning the faux-right wing persona back on the host.
"They have no integrity, no morals, and no guts," Bors huffed. "They're funny, sure, but not ha-ha funny. Not after this."
Ted Rall's cartoons are distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, while Matt Bors' work is distributed through United Feature Syndicate. They each draw three cartoons a week.
Neither Rall nor Bors will be available for appearances on either of the shows while the strike remains in effect. "We'd rather fight in Bush's wars than cross a picket line," they said in unison.
posted by Matt Bors at
3:03 PM
32 Comments:
Exactly. It's totally disgusting. I watched John Stewart's awkward attempt to try to seem pro-labor while BEING A TOTAL SCAB but I didn't buy it. GO UNIONS.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I've refused to even watch these shows. Great idea Matt & Ted!
- Eric Millikin
For extra jihadiness, I hope you're drawing campaign-style buttons on their lapels that say STEWART and COLBERT.
Exactly how clueless are you, sirs? Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert are both WGA members themselves, and it has been well publicized that their return to the air sans-writers is the result of legal pressure from Comedy Central. If you care to target anyone, gentlemen, might I suggest Sumner Redstone, or perhaps the real "enemy" in the strike situation, the AMPTP itself. Targeting Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert exhibits nothing short of ignorance on your part, sirs, with an added dose of a need for attention and desire to profit from the situation at hand. I beseech you, gentlemen, to educate yourselves before blatantly attacking these men.
As for the content of Mr. Rall's cartoon, which I have seen, it was incredibly tasteless. Perhaps you, Mr. Rall, have some issues you need to work out on your own time. That is, in lieu of taking them out in the form of hospitalizing an upstanding citizen, if only on paper. Even without the violence, however, I failed to see the humor, much less the point, in it. Thirties union members had anger issues? You aren't witty enough to come up with lines Mr. Stewart might actually say? Honestly, I think perhaps there's only jealousy surfacing in your comic, jealousy of the wit, humor, and following Mr. Stewart has that you lack, or at least shall after this tasteless comic.
Please educate yourselves before attacking, gentlemen. I'm sure in tandem, you, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Colbert would make an excellent satirical team.
How absurd can you be? They are not scabs. First of all, you need to learn the definition of 'scab'. It's a non-union worker taking the place of a striker. Stewart and Colbert are members of the WGA who were forced back to air by Viacom and Comedy Central. Just like Leno and Conan were by their respective production companies. So where are the sick, offensive comics and the ridiculously ineducated blog entries about them?
If you'd actually taken the time to navigate the internet away from your World of Warcraft message boards and done true and honest research into the strike, you would know the horrible situation these men have been forced into; and how much they loathe doing it.
Remember that lesson the average six-year-old learns? Think before you speak? You might need a refresher course.
Entirely unfunny and pointless.
The "scab" label is not only insulting and outdated, it is untrue. The situation is far more complicated than you (and others) are making it sound. Stewart and Colbert are in a very difficult position as both producers and writers of their shows. The proverbial "rock and hard place." They are not only members of WGA, but members of AFTRA as well. As a result, the two likely had to return after a certain point, without choice in the matter. It is probably in their contracts that they are obligated to return to work after a certain time.
Not only that, the jobs of the non-writing staff for both shows were threatened. When the writers went on strike none of the non-writing staff had a say in the matter. Additionally, they were not being compensated (though reportedly efforts were made to help those whose incomes were lost). Stewart and Colbert ultimately made a choice between the two staffs - and it was an undoubtedly difficult one.
The decisions that led up to the late-night hosts returning (and it was not just Stewart and Colbert by the way - why target them?) were by no means black and white. The willfulness that you and others continue to display is staggering. Stop making these people scapegoats. The AMPTP are the real bad guys here.
Thank God Ted Rall and Matt Bors, who truly continue to be relevant are taking on the right people finally. I mean, targeting Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for the strike is giving criticism exactly where it belongs. Two WGA members that are forced back to work and continue to support the strike are exactly who these two extremely relevant and informed (especially in the definition of "scab") cartoonists should be attacking as there is clearly nothing going on politically that warrants lampooning.
ADDENDUM: I also think words like "jihad" shouldn't be just tossed around, particularly these days, particularly when it's by two cartoonists who are taking aim (and missing the target, apparently) at a writers strike, for God's (pun?) sake.
Sare,
As a fan of Colbert I would think you understand hyperbole and sarcasm.
And to those commenting or wanting to comment: I just put up a post with some of my thoughts on the blog and will probably be replying to some of the criticism in another post.
as for the ad hominem attacks. they're pretty funny.
I mean, this is good:
"If you'd actually taken the time to navigate the internet away from your World of Warcraft message boards..."
huh? I don't play stupid ass computer games.
Well done, Matt and Ted. Seems much of the left has forgotten the point of going on strike.
I agree with Matt here. Even though Colbert and Stewart were *forced* to return to their show, that shows a lack of willpower/solidarity/cajones to follow through with a strike. If the newtworks can force people back into shows one by one and two by two, by March you'll have forgotten all about the strike and employers nationwide will see how easy it is to break american workers, be they writers or something else.
Even though Colbert and Stewart were *forced* to return to their show, that shows a lack of willpower/solidarity/cajones to follow through with a strike.
Yeah, the threat of legal action really shows a lack of will power.
huh? I don't play stupid ass computer games.
Whoa! You showed her! I especially love the lack of capitalization.
Sare,
As a fan of Colbert I would think you understand hyperbole and sarcasm.
I do, and far better than two cartoonists who allege to specialize in such. I also understand and have come to a more complete loathing of Bill O'Reilly-esque partisan sanctimony.
You had the balls to come and comment on the Daily Show News blog, and I respect you for that. That said, I imagine you won't bother coming back, so I'm just going to repeat the reply I made there here:
-----------
First of all, fair play to Matt Bors for coming here to add his thoughts. It was clear what side most of us were going to be on here...
That said, Mr Bors, you ask "Do they have free will? If so, then they had a choice. Not an easy one, but during a strike it never is. They should not have gone back on the air." If it were that simple, then yes, you are right. If it were down to them, I'm sure Jon and Stephen would still be off the air, doing their best to support their non-writing staff while being in solidarity with their WGA brothers and sisters. That would be the right thing to do.
However, it's not that simple. They are bound by contracts with Comedy Central (and ultimately Viacom) to do their shows. I imagine the threat of being sued for breach of contract played a major part in their decision to return.
Have you actually watched the shows since they've been back? If you have, then you know their stance on the situation. Did you read the statement that announced their return?
"In a joint statement, the hosts said: "We would like to return to work with our writers. If we cannot, we would like to express our ambivalence, but without our writers we are unable to express something as nuanced as ambivalence." Source BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7155335.stm
The first show back, Jon especially made it quite clear how he felt. He's not happy, but he's in a tough position. I don't think making light of him being beaten by union members is the most productive way to express your frustration (OK, for Ted Rall to do that).
In fact, let's talk about your art, shall we? You chose to parody The Wørd. And an excellent job you did too. I'll be fair, the graphics you had were very funny. I imagine it's along the same lines that The Report would go for... if the writers were around to do it. On the first show back, it was how Stephen (the man, not the character) demonstrated just how important his writers are to his show. That without them, the show is missing a big part of what makes it what it is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why wouldn't I go back to the daily show blog? I posted something first thing this morning.
Sare wrote:
"Whoa! You showed her! I especially love the lack of capitalization."
Sare, you are really getting petty here. I don't think it's a travesty if I don't capitalize a sentence in the comments section of my blog. You are just upset that I took a shot at someone you like and are trying anyway you can to take one at me.
Sare, you are really getting petty here... You are just upset that I took a shot at someone you like and are trying anyway you can to take one at me.
No, I'm pretty sure she was thinking that - based on your original blog post - that'd you would be more likely to understand petty and flimsy arguments.
What's your ulterior motive here? It's obvious that it's not about Late-Night "strikebreaking", otherwise there would be the same type of columns and comics about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brian. So what's the real issue here, guys?
Claire
Birmingham, AL
"What's your ulterior motive here?"
It's not ulterior--it's pretty straightforward: I am trying to criticize through humor. It's what editorial cartoonists (and Jon and Stephen) do.
The "real issue" is that Colbert and Stewart are seen as infallible deities because they take on things the main stream media won't...and they're funny. They did something I don't agree with so I made fun of them. I do it every week to people in the public and political sphere.
I'll reiterate: As fans of shows that traffic in political satire, I would not expect you to necessarily agree with me, but understand the basic indicators of humor.
Sare, you are really getting petty here.
The fact that the irony of that statement, Matt, is lost on you speaks volumes.
I don't think it's a travesty if I don't capitalize a sentence in the comments section of my blog.
No one said it's a travesty. But it sure doesn't help the case of you looking hopelessly clueless. So is sounding like a fifteen-year-old (which is unfair; I'm sure there are many erudite and intelligent fifteen-year-olds) by saying "I don't play stupid ass computer games."
You are just upset that I took a shot at someone you like and are trying anyway you can to take one at me.
Ah, the attempts of a flame war. Sorry, Matt, won't bite, still in search of intellectual debate, and having an artist (I clearly use the term loosely) stand by and defend his actions. And let me break this down for you, as you seem to be confused.
Number one, you're purposely mistaking "upset" for "grossed out". Number two, you're assuming I even know the person (she does seem worth knowing; she makes excellent points) which kind of seems like everyone who takes issue with you is all on one "team", which could lead you right down to either an institution or a job at Disinformation.com . And number three, I don't have to "take a shot anyway [I] can." Rather than defend any argument made (you're misusing the term "scab", there are more worthy targets in the strike, there are more worthy topics THAN the strike), you're only simpering back at what you perceive as "personal attacks" (um, it's a public blog?).
Maybe your evasion of worthy debate (see topics above) would be made less ridiculous if you showed you adhere to at least some standard of writing (i.e. capitalization).
The "real issue" is that Colbert and Stewart are seen as infallible deities because they take on things the main stream media won't...and they're funny. They did something I don't agree with so I made fun of them. I do it every week to people in the public and political sphere.
Infallible deities by whom? Why not just two comedians that host two of the only shows on TV worth watching? I realize without the hyperbole your case lessens even more so, but still. And it's interesting you fume at them but not any other of the late night hosts who've returned.
And for that matter, this is a tense political season. Of all the worthy targets (any of the presidential candidates, the frothing and frequently inaccurate media pundits, the conjecture that's a joke in and of itself), why go after a Hollywood Writers' Strike? Colbert and Stewart mention it since it's directly effecting them. It's why they were out of work, and why they're now back at work. And you'll notice it's by no means the only topic they've covered. They had some obligation to mention it.
You, however, don't. You as a satirist serve an essential part of our democracy. Brian Williams published an incredibly astute piece (and yes, it does speak favorably of Stewart) about that very topic here.
It basically comes down to, of all the people you could and should be hitting, why a Hollywood strike instead of the rich field of this political season? I suppose it's not as bad as it could be. You could always be writing about Paris/Britney/Lindsey.
"you're only simpering back at what you perceive as "personal attacks" (um, it's a public blog?)."
Trying to blast me for not capitalizing a sentence is a weak attack--the same thing you are accusing me of. Just because I allow comments on my blog doesn't automatically make personal attacks valid. It's not "public." I control and own my website and allow comments on my blog.
As stated before, I responded to the substantive arguments in my most recent blog post. You'll see it's devoid of hyperbole and "personal attacks."
As fans of shows that traffic in political satire, I would not expect you to necessarily agree with me, but understand the basic indicators of humor.
....if, in fact, humor was present. Then yeah, we might.
I am trying to criticize through humor.
And failing. Dismally.
AARGH! I'm mortally wounded!
Someone with the name "favabeano05" doesn't think I'm funny!
Yes, and the slight slipping in of "beano" is soooo hilarious.
Actually, quite the contrary. I do think you're funny...just in the "laugh at you" sense, not "with you".
I added the "o" at the end by mistake. I'm sorry if I denigrated your respectable internet handle of "favabean05"
*puts head on desk and laughs*
Matt (may I call you Matt?), I said that I imagined that you wouldn't come back to the Daily Show blog because I just didn't think you'd bother, that you'd maybe think about it and then go 'meh', and go about your day. I honestly respect your decision to enter discussion there - it's not as if your going to get much agreement... :)
There is the potential here for real discussion here, as apposed to the immature (on both sides) sniping that is happening.
Can I ask you, when the WGA has no beef with Jon and Stephen returning to the air, with them recognising the position that they have been put in, do you actually believe them to be scabs, or have you gone with that choice of description because it's inflammatory? By that I mean it's the quickest way to try and make a point, not that you actually want to provoke a negative reaction. Or in fact is this what you wanted to achieve?
it's not as if your* going to get much agreement...
* or even you're...
and I'm leaving all other typos... it's 5:15am and I just did a 12 hour shift...
I think them being on the air hurts the strike more than it helps it. And I think they shouldn't be on as members of the WGA that have no deal with them to be back on. So does that make them scabs? It all depends on your definition. Some say only non-union replacement workers can be scabs. Others say those that cross the line to return to work (especially union members like Colbert) qualify.
What I find so interesting is how I made a cartoon that's not far off from the language Colbert uses every night--my intention-- and this is now a vicious attack. Colbert isn't viciously attacking people every night, he's just satirizing things that he finds absurd or disagrees with. How could I do a parody of "the Word" with a nuanced discussion of the many aspects of the writers strike? (again, I think in the end it's simple: he shouldn't be back on).
As for the union not having "beef," well, I don't know their thoughts. I'm sure they want their jobs back. Will they have beef if ALL shows return to the air without deals and just do "improv"? (There's clearly written material by the way, which is shameful). They can't make deals with everyone and they can't allow shows to return to the air without writers if thy ever want to get anywhere--that's the point of the strike.
Furthermore, I went after Colbert because he is this liberal who is seen as always taking on those in power. Well, he does good jokes about it, but when they rubber meets the road he decided to help those in power by returning to the air and generating ad revenue. (let's not forget that's the only reason any show exists on television). It's ad revenue for Viacom no less, someone they are trying to feel pinched by striking.
when *the rubber meets the road
See, I'm not so sure that them being back on the air hurts. Stephen Colbert does it less than Jon Stewart does, but between them they reference the strike all the time. And they make it clear what they think about the situation. By doing that they keep more people aware of what is going on. I imagine that most of their viewers don't follow news on the strike as closely as some of us, so if they were to carry on as 'normal', it's possible that some people wouldn't know the strike is still on-going. The situation is this: they need to do their shows, they want to support their writers, so they keep up some public awareness.
Now, if I heard correctly, Ellen had to return to work because of some no-strike thing in her contract. It had something to do with her membership of AFTRA. AFTRA has a no-strike clause. I read recently that it was considered a big deal within the industry when AFTRA signed a contract with Comedy Central, as it was the first such deal they had made with a cable channel. I think that both Jon and Stephen are in the same boat as Ellen was, although she was off air for all of a DAY...
As for your cartoon... looking at it again, and if any of my friends who have also posted here read this they are not gonna be happy, it's good. It really is. You've captured the Colbert voice. I might disagree with your opinion of his position, but you did a great job :)
As for the union's thoughts? We do know what they think about this. From the same BBC News article I quoted in my first post:
The WGA reacted angrily to the announcement, saying: "Comedy Central forcing Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert back on the air will not give the viewers the quality shows they've come to expect."
It's right there. They see that Jon and Stephen were put in an untenable position by Comedy Central (ultimately, by Viacom). Will they have beef if ALL shows return to the air without deals? Well, I believe that's what has happened. All shows in that genre (that I know of - we don't get many of them here in the UK) are now back on the air. Only Letterman and Ferguson have their writers back. The WGA know that each show has been pushed back into production by the companies, that the hosts are not happy but have no choice.
I see what you're saying in 'Furthermore', but consider this: if he refused to go back on air, what would happen? Best case scenario for him personally is that he gets fired but doesn't get sued for millions for breach of contract. That's fine, he's in a position now where that wouldn't be a problem in the short term. Whether he'd ever get hired again is another matter. But then there's the bigger picture. If he gets fired, the show gets canceled. It's not like the Daily Show, who could get another host in. Only he could host that show. So, if the show gets canceled, that's at least 100 people out of a job. And you can bet your ass that for most of them, it would be a financial disaster in the short term. The only way he can keep his show and those people in a job is by going back to work.
I think, to be honest, that you've caught a lot of the backlash to Ted Rall's cartoon with Jon Stewart. Looking at his site and blog, he appears to have avoided the crowd that you have attracted here. That's purely because you 'picked on' Stephen. Doing that gets waaaay more attention than Jon. At the end of the day, the message that people took from his piece was that Jon got beaten by union guys and that's something to be happy about. The (albeit very small) potential here is that someone could see Ted Rall's piece and be inspired to beat the crap out of Jon Stewart. All it takes is for the wrong nut-job to see it...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home