Daily Show roasts Republican outrage over Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad controversy
Host Desi Lydic opened Thursday's episode by mocking the escalating backlash — not just toward the ad, but toward those criticizing it. The ad, which features Sweeney in denim beneath a tagline deemed by some as racially loaded, was met with condemnation from online commentators and civil rights advocates. In response, conservative voices, including White House communications director Steven Cheung, labeled the criticism 'cancel culture run amok.'
Lydic humorously dismantled these defenses, pointing to the overuse of words like 'sensual' by pundits and highlighting Megyn Kelly's contradictory stance — defending Sweeney after previously mocking her. 'This is such bullshit. Blonde women have had constant representation, okay?' Lydic said. 'It's not that they want to see more white women, it's that they want to see none of anyone else.'
The original ad's phrase — criticized for its nostalgic tone and undertones — stirred concern over its resemblance to exclusionary rhetoric used in historical population control narratives. While Sweeney has remained silent, The Daily Show used the controversy to highlight how representation in media continues to spark deeply polarized reactions.
Beyond the jokes, Lydic's commentary echoed broader concerns about selective outrage and racial representation in advertising. The segment ended with a reminder that cultural discourse, especially when it comes to race and gender, remains a lightning rod in American politics — and a frequent target for satirical commentary.
As The Daily Show demonstrated, pop culture controversies continue to serve as mirrors reflecting deeper societal divides — and prime material for late-night reflection.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Doechii declares ‘Free Palestine' during Osheaga set, sparking viral reaction
American rapper and singer Doechii made headlines during her performance at the Osheaga Music and Arts Festival in Montréal after voicing support for Palestine onstage. The moment occurred mid-set when she paused to address the crowd, saying, 'Y'all can't be scared to stand up for what you believe in. You can't be scared to say what matters. Free Palestine.' A 19-second clip of the statement quickly circulated across social media platforms, including Reddit, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter), where it drew significant attention. Many commenters expressed support for her message, while others debated the broader implications of entertainers addressing geopolitical issues during performances. This marks one of the first major political statements from Doechii during a live event. Although she has not posted further comments on her own social media channels, the clip has been widely reshared by fan pages and political accounts alike. As of now, no public reaction has been issued by Osheaga organisers or Doechii's representatives. Her remarks come amid heightened global attention on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Over the past year, artists and public figures have faced growing calls to take positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, with responses ranging from full-throated support to public neutrality. Reactions have often led to online fallout, professional consequences, or, in some cases, further public discourse. At the time of reporting, Doechii's festival performance has not been removed or altered on any official platforms. Her comment remains available through fan-recorded clips, which continue to generate discussion across music, political, and pop culture communities online.
Business Recorder
17 hours ago
- Business Recorder
A deal in need of clarity
EDITORIAL: The considerable optimism surrounding what is being hailed as a ground-breaking US-Pakistan deal – encompassing trade ties and a framework for oil exploration and development – is understandable, given the historically transactional, largely security-focused and till recently quite frosty nature of the bilateral relationship. However, this new-found positivity must be tempered, as the deal's practical implications remain uncertain and hinge on how it is ultimately operationalised. President Donald Trump had announced on July 30 that the two countries had concluded an agreement to jointly develop Pakistan's oil reserves. This was followed by Pakistani officials announcing that a trade deal had been signed, although there was no immediate confirmation regarding the agreed tariff rate for our exports to the US. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was quick to term the agreement as a 'landmark' one, and much official commentary has echoed this sentiment, projecting it as a turning point in bilateral ties and a potential catalyst for accelerated economic growth. With the White House now confirming a 19 percent tariff rate for Pakistani exports – down from the 29 percent initially declared in April under the Trump Administration's so-called Liberation Day tariffs – there is indeed cause for some guarded relief. However, we must not ignore that even this reduced rate could hurt export performance, given the prohibitively high-cost structures of many of our industries and the heavy reliance on the US as Pakistan's single-largest export destination, with limited diversification in our export markets, leaving us particularly vulnerable to this tariff rate. The celebratory rhetoric that pointed to the 25 percent tariff imposed on Indian exports also needs to be tempered. India's much stronger industrial base, leaner cost structures and more diversified trading relationships make it better equipped to absorb such shocks, even if many of its sectors will face disruptions, at least in the short term. Moreover, although President Trump has been highly critical of India's continued oil imports from Russia, recent reports suggest that Indian state-owned refineries have halted such purchases, signalling a recalibration of New Delhi's policy in order to remain in Washington's good graces. As a result, any space created for Pakistani exports in American markets due to increased tariffs on Indian products may prove limited at best. Also worth noting here is Pakistan's announcement of importing one million barrels of oil from the US in October. While diversifying energy sources beyond traditional Middle Eastern suppliers may have strategic value, it also raises questions about the potential impact on foreign exchange reserves and the balance of payments, given the potentially higher shipping and transaction costs. Regarding the oil exploration aspect of the agreement, there is genuine potential in Pakistan's largely untapped mineral wealth, and US support could help unlock long underutilised opportunities. Yet past experiences – most recently during the last PTI government – show that hopes around resource discoveries have often ended in disappointment. Still, credible assessments, including a 2015 report by the US Energy Information Administration, highlight a promising shale oil and gas potential in the Indus Basin. And given Pakistan's limited exploration capacity, US collaboration could open important economic avenues. That said, the lack of clarity around the agreement raises important questions. Even if actual exploration and extraction lie well into the future, a transparent, unambiguous and equitable mechanism for managing costs and dividing returns must be established from the outset. Clarity is also needed on the role of the provinces, which, under the Constitution, have a defined mandate in mineral exploration and development. How provincial roles are factored in the agreement will be crucial to avoid discord and internal divisions. Despite the substantial ambiguities and unanswered questions, this renewed push for US-Pakistan economic cooperation is, nevertheless, a welcome shift. However, our economic managers must temper optimism with realism, anticipate potential risks and take steps to mitigate them. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Can Australia pull it off?
When Australia's government decided to implement a world-first national youth social media ban, it was pitched as an antidote to a growing mental health crisis. As per DW, it followed intense debate about the dangers of social media, much articulated in the book, The Anxious Generation, by Jonathan Haidt. The American social psychologist argues that smartphone-based childhoods and social media are helping to fuel an epidemic of mental illness among teenagers. As the ban was passed in the Australian Parliament in November 2024, one poll revealed overwhelming support among 77 per cent of Australians. The plan to fine TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X, Instagram and now YouTube, 49.5 million Australian dollars (€27.7 million, $32.3 million) for failing to block young people was supported by 87 per cent of those surveyed. Underage social media users and their parents will not be punished for any violations under the law. Social media companies, including Elon Musk's X, were predictably unimpressed with a ban that many concede will also be difficult to police. "It's entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet where no community guidelines, safety tools or protections exist," said a TikTok spokesperson when the bill was passed. The Australian social media ban partly seeks to protect young people from the cyberbullying, disinformation and illegal content that has riddled social media platforms. But some experts doubt whether prohibition is an antidote to deteriorating youth mental health. Complex crisis Marilyn Campbell, a professor in the School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education at the Queensland University of Technology who writes on cyberbullying, warns that little research establishes a "causal" connection between social media and psychological health. "We know that there's a high correlation between the rise of new technologies and the increase in young people's poorer mental health," she said. "But we don't even know why yet." One 2023 study sampling social media use in 72 countries found "no evidence suggesting that the global penetration of social media is associated with widespread psychological harm." Campbell noted that though populist psychology works like The Anxious Generation merely draw a correlation between rising youth anxiety and depression and social media use, they have been heavily hyped in the media. Building on the popularity of these ideas, the government is now pursuing a "nice, simple solution," she told DW. "You don't have to spend any money on it," she said of the ban. "It's not complicated." Researchers at the University of Queensland note that the limited understanding of how social media impacts young people's mental health means other influences need to be considered, such as rising "social inequity," "climate anxiety" and "gendered violence." Campbell suggested that instead of focusing on social media, governments need to "reform the mental health system," adding that "many more school counsellors and school psychologists" would help. "There are lots of things that they could do but that cost money," she added. Help young people The Australian government continues to conflate social media use and the psychological struggles of young people. "We know that social media is doing social harm, and my government and this parliament is prepared to take action to protect young Australians," said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Wednesday when announcing that YouTube would be added to the list of banned platforms after initially being excluded. But social media can also be positive for young people, said Campbell. Writing for Nature magazine in January, she noted that young people with autism or who are "exploring their sexual and gender identity" can sometimes more easily identify with peers online than in person. She added that, like the prohibition of alcohol in the US, a ban just forces the problem underground. Youth also need to be prepared to live in a "technologically-saturated world," the professor told DW. "We are not doing them any favours by saying, well, you can't be in this world until you're 16." The Australian ban will not come into effect until December. Meanwhile, trials are underway to address the complex task of enforcing the social media blackout. Platforms won't be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued ID or digital identification but must provide "alternative age assurance methods" to confirm the age of social media account holders. One recent study showed that some 80 per cent of people surveyed are concerned about the accuracy of age assurance technologies and potential data privacy breaches. Growing support Some 77 per cent of German respondents to a 2024 poll also said they would either "fully" or "somewhat" support an Australia-like social media ban. An even higher percentage, 82 per cent, were "absolutely certain" or "somewhat certain" that social media use is in some way bad for children and teenagers. Several US states are also limiting access to social media, including ensuring greater parental guidance over social media usage. For decades, the US has required tech companies to seek parental consent to access the data of users under the age of 13. Sweden, too, is looking to ban access to smartphones in schools due to worries about a decline in both mental and physical health. In 2024, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested warning labels be added to social media platforms, similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol. This came after a Surgeon General report found some positives with social media use such as "community and connection with others who share identities, abilities and interests," but also "symptoms of depression and anxiety" among adolescents spending three-plus hours a day on social platforms. Marilyn Campbell reiterated that social media apps should not be banned, but designed to encourage safer interaction with young people. "I think that children need to be educated to live in the digital world," she said.
