The Daily Woe

I don’t know if anyone has discussed the whole Jezebel v. Daily Show saga at length here yet (shamefully, I haven’t been keeping up with the postings on Feministing much lately, due to a compelling need to lie around stark naked with the AC at full blast all day), but I wanted to at least share what I posted on my own blog about it.

X-posted on emmakatrichardson.com

About a week ago, I watched in equal parts abject horror and morbid curiosity as the integrity of The Daily Show was called into question by the folks over at Jezebel. In case you’ve had your head shoved up a Tampax box for the past few days, the story – though relying on the ever-questionable tactics of interviews with anonymous sources and former employees – basically alleges that Comedy Central’s ratings powerhouse, though a supposed bastian of progressivism and liberal ideology, is in fact guilty of the same institutionalized sexism it claims to abhor.

The Daily Show is many things: progressive darling, alleged news source for America’s youth, righteous media critique. And it’s also a boys’ club where women’s contributions are often ignored and dismissed.

The opening really says it all, but I would encourage you to keep reading. What’s presented here by Irin is pretty damning.

Of course, not wanting to be seen as punching bags (neither by Jezebel or their corporate bosses), the current ladies of The Daily Show issued a rebuttal argument to the piece, setting a snide, rather snarky tone by opening with “Dear People Who Don’t Work Here.”

Recently, certain media outlets have attempted to tell us what it’s like to be a woman at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart . We must admit it is entertaining to be the subjects of such a vivid and dramatic narrative. However, while rampant sexism at a well-respected show makes for a great story, we want to make something very clear: the place you may have read about is not our office.

(By the way, anyone else notice how the PR-friendly photo taken here
bears some frightening resemblance to those creepy fundamentalist
Mormom family photos? The only thing missing is Jon in the center,
grinning like a self-righteous idiot.)

 

First of all, for the sake of the women who do work on the show, I
hope that the rebuttal is a legit expression of their perceived
experience at The Daily Show . But I have a very nagging
feeling that this is nothing more than a bit of protracted PR from
Viacom, the company that owns Comedy Central, in a desperate attempt to
refute the buzz created by the Jezebel story. (And perhaps this is
symptomatic of having come-of-age in the Clinton era, but I can’t help
but view any immediate defensive gesture as a precursor to an
embarrassing public emission. See also: John Edwards, Al Gore…?)

From both the ladies of The Daily Show and a litany of other
sources, critical of the original Jezebel piece, the main line of
attack seems to be that the interviewees quoted with attacking the show
are disgruntled, bitter, angry ex-employees with an axe to grind
against the program that quickly made and then broke them. There is
certainly some merit to this posit, and the motivating factors behind
these individuals’ decision to lambast the show in a public forum (with
or without their names attached to the damaging quotes in question)
must be given equal consideration to the piece’s ultimate thesis
statement.

However, this argument is really unwinable, because, as Huffington Post Comedy points out, “The response
from the women of the “Daily Show” reads as earnest and heartfelt, but
if one of these women did feel the environment was hostile, it would
be difficult for them to speak up without jeopardizing their career.”
While sources for the Jezebel piece do indeed speak from a place of
bias, so too do the women of The Daily Show , who, inarguably,
have a vested interest in making their current employers look good in
the face of criticism.

(The blog Tigerbeat Down has a pretty hilarious take: “We have never experienced
sexism at the hands of Jon Stewart that we are willing to write about
in this public letter meant to rehabilitate the reputation of the show
we are currently employed by, which is run by Jon Stewart.”)

That being said, I think what bothers me the most about this issue –
and the rebuttal in specific – is that I don’t really see trotting all
the women who work there out for a huge photo-op is any more definitive
proof of The Daily Show being a fem-friendly environment than
turning the camera on any minority in the audience at the RNC is proof
of the Republican Party being a big tent. Sure, they have women on
staff, but this does not a fair playing field make. For as much fire
Jezebel has come under for their original piece, they do make some
pretty valid – and factually indisputable – points about The Daily
Show’s cavalcade of former female correspondents. (Like that there
hasn’t been a new female correspondent in seven years , and
the high-ranking women past employed by the show have found their
careers and opportunities rather fleeting.) As my friend Erin pointed
out, there’s virtually no culpability to be found amongst this
narrative – never once do the ladies (or the company they speak for)
cop to any sort of wrongdoing or questionable conduct. Indeed, I might
have liked this letter a bit better if they had approached it more from
the stance of “yes, women in late night comedy often get the shitty
end of the stick, but we’re working on it, alright! And in fact, here’s
how.”

But ah, the women. Does anyone remember the short tenures of Lauren
Weedman? Miriam Tolan? Stacy Grenrock-Woods? How about Nancy
Walls , whose fade into obscurity has rendered her little more than a
current brood mare for another – and significantly more successful – Daily
Show alumnus: Steve Carell. Meanwhile, past correspondents like
Ed Helms, Rob Corrdry, and the aforementioned Carell have skyrocketed
to comedic (and financial) superstardom with hugely successful ventures
like NBC’s The Office and last year’s summer blockbuster The
Hangover . As for the ladies… well, I think I saw Lauren
Weedman on an episode of Hung a while back.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this is
probably due to institutionalized sexism that prevails throughout the
whole of the entertainment industry, and is hardly unique to The
Daily Show or, indeed, late-night comedy in general . Similarly, also,
one could probably turn up a number of male former employees
willing to lob spitballs at The Daily Show – a fact which
hardly suggests a bent toward institutionalized discrimination against
males working in that environment. Yet, the evidence of the show’s
ability to churn out male superstars (including the show’s host itself)
while failing to do the same for any of its female alumni speaks
volumes about the underlying committment to gender equality in that
particular workplace.

But back to the rebuttal. (And I hope no one’s getting perturbed by
my gratitious use of the word “but(t)” in this piece.) I rather dislike
the snide, holier-than-thou tone adopted by the letter’s authors (or
perhaps author, as the case may warrant). While I’m hardly rooting for
an abusive atmosphere to be proven without question at the show, the
fact that this entity felt the need to not only refute the claims of
Jezebel but to gloss over the whole question of equality in comedy in
general is significant. And certainly, the stance taken on those who
were quoted in the original story speaks volumes about the integrity at
play here. It seems like a classic move: refute the claims of the
protestor, and then detract their credibility with character
assassinations. (Yes, phrases like “the bitter rantings of ex-employees”
and “Thanks to the male writers who penned this for us” are less funny
than they are catty.)

The essential thesis of the letter can be summed up thusly: if they
say that it’s a great place to work, then all they need to do is splash a
colorful photo and a snarky diatribe up on their official website and
it is so. Throw in some healthy discrediting for the little guys asking
the big questions, and alls well that ends well. Effectively, what the
writers of this letter have done is cut off the conversation about
women in comedy – the discussion intended to be promoted by the Jezebel
piece. (Albeit, perhaps not initiated in the most constructive manner
possible.) As Salon’s Broadsheet rightly points out , the ladies may emerge
triumphant in the face of this scandal, but they are also shrugging off
what is a legitimate (and well documented) problem that persists in
modern society. Apparently, the problem that has no name isn’t really in
need of one, anyway.

Then, there’s the issue of Olivia Munn to address. In fact, she’s the one who started all this flap in the
first place. Well, not really her so much as the people that hired her –
and they did so over what’s perceived to be a number of worthier,
funnier, more talented, and, yes, female candidates. As this issue
began to unfold, I made it a point to check out some of Munn’s resumed
clips online before passing judgement. And I have to say… she’s
really not that funny. Sorry guys. She just isn’t. True enough, comedy
is subjective, but Munn’s delivery is flat, uninspired, and heavily
reliant on outrageous, sexually-charged antics.

Some people are bent on the idea that
feminists are getting their panties (granny-panties, naturally. Lots
‘o period stains) up in a bunch over what is essentially a nonissue.
What’s the problem? they say. You wanted more women, so here’s another
one. You’re just pissed because she’s hot. (Never mind that this type of
sentiment is intellectually insulting. Yes, a woman, any old – no,
wait, YOUNG! – woman will do!)

Well, my problem with her isn’t that
she’s hot – it’s that she’s not funny. It begs the question as to why
someone more known for fellating hot dogs on camera than for serious
comedy chops would be chosen to fill a coveted role that perhaps
hundreds of qualified female candidates would have been much more
deserving of.

After all, all of the men on TDS
have some sort of serious comedy history; either working their way up
as stand-ups (like Stewart himself) or through the cutthroat improv
scene. And I’d love to see the day when Lewis Black poses for Playgirl.
(No, seriously. I’d probably get that shit framed.) Her hiring rings
hauntingly familiar of the whole McCain/Palin fiasco, in which the man
called Maverick faced heavy criticism for having selected a
questionably qualified candidate as his running mate when, if he wanted
a female, several other, much more appropriate choices – like Senators
Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchison – might have stood as better
options. 

And… I suppose I’ve probably long
since worn out my welcome in the blogosphere in regards to this debate.
Although, this by no means indicates the issue itself is worn out, or
unworthy of further discussion. Sayeth the HuffPo: “ While it is
always hard to see these issues clearly from the outside, continued
scrutiny of the “Daily Show”‘s public face is worth our time,
considering the show has become a bastion for truth and a champion of
the underdog.” Amen. Hope you’ve enjoyed my moment of joyless rage.