Ab out two weeks ago, Jezebel writer Irin Carmon called The Daily Show - and Jon Stewart in particular - sexist.  I happened to read the article when it was posted.  At the time I thought it was sensationalist and more than a little flimsy.  

It raised a red flag just by its target: Jon Stewart, national treasure, and darling of liberal progressives everywhere. 

Claiming that Jon Stewart is sexist is so inherently salacious and "man bites dog" that you're going to have to do a pretty good job making your point for me to buy it.

And I didn't feel that Carmon made that point.

Which isn't to say that The Daily Show is or isn't sexist.  I don't feel that the point has been made in either direction, frankly.  Gathering up all of your female employees and asking them to "sign here to tell the internet we're not sexist" is hardly a ringing endorsement.  As an employee, I have been pressured into all kinds of wacky-ass things, and being photographed in a group shot from above to illustrate a rejoinder article is totally the kind of thing your boss would make you do.  

I'm not saying that the "women of The Daily Show" letter is all a big fake.  I'm just saying blink twice if you're being held against your will.

My biggest problem with Carmon's article is that it basically hinges on slut shaming.  Carmon's beef with Olivia Munn is that she's  nothing more than cheesecake, eye candy, Yet Another Bimbo.  
I have the distinct feeling that if The Daily Show had hired an ugly woman, Carmon never would have written this article.  

Olivia Munn is, we are given to understand, the wrong kind of woman.  What does that mean, exactly?  In the context of Jezebel, "the wrong kind of woman" is one who is too pretty, too sexy, too willing to be pretty and talk about sex.  Munn has a fairly significant job history, but Jezebel brushes this aside as irrelevant.

It certainly says nothing about how The Daily Show intends to use her.  If Munn ends up delivering a segment called "The News On My Boobies," wherein the news is projected upon her boobies, then I agree: that's sexist, and Jon Stewart should be ashamed.  But if she ends up doing thoughtful and incisive commentary and comedy, does it matter if she's pretty or not?  

The point being, we don't know what The Daily Show hired her to be.  Until we know that, it's hardly fair to cite her hiring as proof that The Daily Show is sexist.

You can see what's happening.  It is wrong to be pretty.  Pretty girls don't count.  Pretty girls can't make a difference.  Pretty girls are bimbos that get hired by sexist jerks; nothing more.

Is that right?  That's not right.

The real shame is that The Daily Show has long been rumored to be a sexist boyzone.  But badly-written and badly-thought-out articles like this not only fail to bring the ugly truth to light, they only make it more difficult when the real truth finally appears.  At this point, no one will ever be able to credibly call The Daily Show sexist, regardless of what goes on there.  And that's the real, final shame.

Photo credit: Flickr/Rex Lameray for The Belltown Messenger