The Hasan Minhaj Controversy: Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message?

A recent article in The New Yorker by the reporter Clare Malone revealed that comedian Hasan Minhaj had lied about some of the events that he had recounted in his comedy work.  And this revelation has prompted a swift and brutal backlash. Yet, on closer examination, this may well be a case of the proverbial much ado about nothing resulting in a needless attack on the messenger of a rather noble message: social justice.

In the article, Minhaj admitted that the following were not true: that his young daughter was hospitalized for exposure to anthrax; that he had interacted with a certain FBI informant; and that a white female friend had turned down his high school prom invite at the last moment. These incidents were used to demonstrate the discrimination and marginalization he had endured as a Muslim of Indian descent living in America. And the stories themselves did appear in his various comedy works for Netflix and others, including “Homecoming King” (2017), “Patriot Act” (2018) and “The King’s Jester” (2022).

  While conceding that “lying is comedy isn’t always wrong,” Jason Zinoman, the influential New York Times critic-at-large asserted rather harshly that Minhaj had “crossed a line”.  Calling him “the boy who cried racist wolf,” MSNBC columnist Noor Noman, a Muslim Pakistani American, charged that Minhaj’s behavior by potentially stoking disbelief in future claims of oppression by marginalized groups had damaged the cause of social justice and aided white supremacy. Minhaj’s other critics have accused him of weaponizing his otherness in an unfair attack on other people. Defending Minhaj, however, comedian Whoopi Goldberg noted:  “There’s information that we will give you as comics that will have grains of truth, but don’t take it to the bank…that’s our job, a seed of truth. Sometimes truth and sometimes total BS.”

Of course, at issue here is whether it is permissible for a comedian to base the message of their material on a factual lie or untruth, not least because Minhaj is a comedian that is active in the social justice space.     

In his own defense, Minhaj said: “All my stand-up stories are based on events that happened to me,” he said. “I use the tools of stand-up comedy — hyperbole, changing names and locations, and compressing timelines — to tell entertaining stories. That’s inherent to the art form. You wouldn’t go to a haunted house and say, ‘Why are these people lying to me?’ The point is the ride. Stand-up is the same.”

Then he almost sabotages himself by introducing the complicating factor of “emotional truths”, a process whereby he utilizes his fictional stories to dramatize the travails of his marginalized community. This concept, though, does not seem like the best peg on which to hang his defense, given that, “emotional truth,” subjective, nebulous, and imprecise as it is, can fairly be said to provide a potential shield to anyone seeking to take liberties with factual accuracy in any given situation. Not a good look in his current circumstances.    

However, the good news for Minhaj is that based on comedy’s tradition, he is allowed to make stuff up as premises for his joke. Put differently, he is entitled to as much factual accuracy or truth as he chooses in making his point. (Even his adversaries concede that when it comes to the factual basis of a comedian’s joke, “lying” is not a deal breaker.) And for society at large, comedians stand on a different footing from other people with respect to the accuracy of their factual statements. In his Times opinion on the Minhaj controversy, Zinoman deals with this issue of trust as he references Minhaj’s past interview with Barack Obama in which the former president admits that he had consumed all the books, albums and movies featured on his annual “best-of” lists.

Rather instructively, Zinoman wrote: “To quote Minhaj, everything is built on trust. That trust operates differently for politicians and journalists than for artists, but it matters to us all. Treat it carelessly and the price can be steep.”  (emphasis supplied). Darn right, concerning the “trust” question, when Obama the politician makes factual statements while recommending a product or service, we put it on a different scale than when Minhaj the comedic artist is serving up factual premises for his joke. Context is pivotal here: surely, to expect or demand more accuracy from Obama’s factual claims than Minhaj’s is not to treat matters of trust carelessly.

Next, Minhaj’s critics seem to suggest that because he is dealing with social justice issues as a “trusted source” for political and social news, a paradigm shift is required with respect to the facts, one that requires that he adhere to factual accuracy. However, given that the more the merrier in the noble endeavor of social justice work, comedians are no less welcome as campaign partners than, say, lawyers or environmental activists, not least considering their large influence on our contemporary pop culture.  And it would be self-defeating for our society if we were to exclude the voices of people like Minhaj merely because, by virtue of their occupational background, they are not obligated to adhere to factual accuracy as rigorously as, say, a lawyer making a closing statement to a jury or a congresswoman participating in a budget debate on the deficit on the House floor.    

In the end, perhaps Minhaj’s comedy may not seem sufficiently ethical to his critics and, one must concede, he has been rather opportunistic in some of the paths he has taken to stardom, and this writer is no fan of some of his tactics.  Yet, even as he engages in his social justice advocacy, he is nonetheless allowed under comedy’s rules of the game to practice his own chosen brand of comedy, warts and all. To insist otherwise is to foist one’s value judgments on his craft and/or to take one’s eyes off the ball of his social justice work and thus to attack the messenger while ignoring his vital message. Surely, society can do better than that.

**Editor’s Note: The new book “Comedy Goes to Court: When People Stop Laughing and Start Fighting“, is now available on Amazon and at bookstores. Go get your own copy of the new bestselling book today and, of course, enjoy the read!

Leave a comment