> "Mr. Stewart told members of his staff on Thursday that potential show topics related to China and artificial intelligence were causing concern among Apple executives, a person with knowledge of the meeting said."
Yeah, that's not the problem here. Stewart can get good distribution on his show elsewhere, especially if he doesn't need to make millions.
It's a problem for Apple TV+ if anyone. Apple will use their earnings from their hardware business to ensure they continue to mint money in that business. Apple's streaming service has plans to be a standalone revenue stream, but so far it's only there to burnish Apple's hardware business, and it's not allowed to undercut that.
As the tensions increase, I hope at some point the platforms will have to claim impartiality and start acting as platforms instead of a gatekeeper and curators.
In its current form, it is very normal and expected for executives to be concerned over controversial issues that can cause business problems because they have responsibility to make money and they have control over who does what on their platforms, therefore its only expected of them to distance themselves from content that might cost more money than its bringing.
Fingers crossed that we will go back to the content agnostic platform days where the culture isn't shaped by the concerns of tech manages in SV but by the people who are involved in the society.
Those who think that the current arrangements are fine and they keep hate speech or nudity or some other controversial topic out are risking of falling on the wrong side of the curation because the inorganic methods of keeping the "bad guys" out keeps these people(the deplatformed) unchallenged and organic and they are gaining steam for good or bad reasons and they might actually end up being the financially justified ones to bet on.
Hope will get you nowhere, these platforms change hats depending on whatever is most beneficial to their bottom line / political standing. Regulation is the only way.
Regulation with differential enforcement is how you get to the current situation with Joe Biden, Mike Pence and Donald Trump over classified documents handling.
To quote Dave Chappelle "don't take the sneaker deal". It's Apple's show, not John Stewart's show. He can't be allowed to talk trash about China under the Apple log (as per Apple's pov)(even if his points would have merit). And Apple is one more company held by the @@ from China's authoritative state. It's a pity.
I hope he WILL use the material and speak his mind, either in some another media or social outlet. We shouldn't gag comedians spilling the beans. That's the Chinese/Russian method. We shouldn't play the same filthy game in the West.
In this day and age, why would someone like Jon Stewart need Apple anyway? He could just do exactly the same thing on his own. Granted you need money to pay for his staff and the platform, but it's probably within it's reach anyway.
Although he could have the dough to set it up, it would be better if he could find a platform like HBO, Apple, Netflix that will have the guaranteed audience.
He could as well make his podcast (and carry a couple of sponsors). The problem would then be transferred to "who will sponsor the China episode"?
The issue is not John Stewart, Apple, NBA, John Cena, and all the rest. The problem is that "their values/ways" do not align with "our values/ways", and because we make our iphones there, and because NBA sells tshirts there, and because Cena does movies/fights there, and so on.. To paraphrase the Chappelle quote "we got the sneaker deal" and now we just take the slaps.
Is John Stewart really edgy? He seems like a middle of the road Democrat, and your funky electoral system notwithstanding most people actually vote for them.
He's not politically edgy. He was basically the NYT with snark. He was really a product of his time for the apathetic generation that became politically aware around the early 2000s.
Good for him, he's always seemed pretty reasonable. It's crazy that stating what he did was considered controversial and Colbert had to back pedal to toe the party line.
Hardly crazy, I remember that time. I remember the full court press of propaganda that was taking place on every ad supported media platform. I remember how Colbert torched whatever standing as a comedian he once had and became a mouth piece. I'll never forget it.
The problem is that there's no hard evidence to support what he's saying. It's just a bunch of circumstance that sounds damning at first, "oh a novel virus emerges near a lab that studies novel virus", but then you consider, maybe the lab studying these novel viruses was put in a location where novel viruses commonly occur.
There's no Center for Oceanic Studies in Nebraska, but there is a Center for Great Plains Studies.
I see this as peddling misinformation. He may be correct, but he doesn't have conclusive evidence and he's using humor to side-step the fact that he's presenting an opinion.
So, he then shouldn't even bring up the idea in a show dedicated to speculative talk about interesting or comedy-worthy subjects?
No TALK show host should mention anything that isn't 100% backed by evidence because he can't triple-reference an opinion he puts forth with correct academic citations? The humor mixed with opinion is exactly the point of shows like this, and it should be an obvious thing to anyone who hasn't let themselves become utterly humorous by having their specific prejudice poked.
What absurd nonsense. Misinformation is a word with a very slippery definition, but worst of all is seeing claims of it used as a bludgeon against anything that doesn't concretely toe some specific ideological inclination.
> Colbert had to back pedal to toe the party line.
Stewart referred to the party line as logic in that clip. The part where they should research it. So, not sure if you oppose investigating it (the "party line" as you call it), or if you think it's already been proven and doesn't need any more investigation, despite not a single US intelligence agency agreeing with that sentiment.
Speaking out like that put his very life in danger; without exaggeration. Scientists who spoke about the lab leak possibility were receiving death threats at the time.
Also, a large part of his fan-base were (and still are) wholly convinced that the lab leak theory was 'racist', or some kind of Republican plot.
He spoke up anyway, and he did it so, so well. By making it funny he made it memorable, and easier to tolerate thinking of.
You can see Colbert begging him to stop, and John just keeps ramping it up. It's awesome.
> Speaking out like that put his very life in danger; without exaggeration. Scientists who spoke about the lab leak possibility were receiving death threats at the time
People get death threats online for almost anything you can think of. I wouldn't say that he was putting his life on the line. He was also exaggerating the evidence in ways that went beyond pure humor (the word "Coronavirus" is not actually in the name of the building). I'm not saying he was wrong, but I am saying he was not heroic.
Jon has described the actual backlash he received [0]; and while he didn't mention death threats, he did say the backlash was "“swift, immediate and quite loud".
He was accused of being "racist", and of "aligning himself with the alt-right". He got messages like: "Fuck you... I’m done with you... I will never forgive you, you have crossed an unforgivable line."
Jon said: "It was like I had put 'Hilary For Prison' on my forehead".
... And all he was saying was, 'this is a possibility, and we shouldn't pretend it isn't'.
People should seriously stop being surprised that the objective of corporations under a capitalistic world order is to maximize shareholder wealth and not to dismantle oppressive authoritarian regimes.
I don’t disagree but all that outrage is just meaningless virtue signaling unless people question and vote to change the very values that guide the actions that create the problem. Last I checked, citizens of certain world powers refuse to do exactly that.
> all that outrage is just meaningless virtue signaling
Virtue signalling is when you do something menial or deferent to target a specific population. Like when you'd modify a film to remove certain flags or introduce story-beats for an overseas audience.
Outrage is not really virtue signalling, especially when the "virtue" is a anti-American trait being exploited by a company outside American jurisdiction. People are justifiably angry, and expressing that because they know their vote isn't worth anything as citizens of certain world powers.
> Virtue signalling is when you do something menial or deferent to target a specific population. Like when you'd modify a film to remove certain flags or introduce story-beats for an overseas audience.
This is not correct. You're describing pandering.
Virtue signalling isn't when you do something meaningful for a target audience, it's when you don't do something. It's limited to speech.
From Cambridge Dictionary[1]:
> "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media"
Only expressing outrage and doing nothing with is would certainly be virtue signalling.
In this case, the outrage can and should lead to people watching less Apple TV+ or rethinking their relationship with Apple as a whole.
Yeah, companies under oppressive authoritarian regimes are so much more effective at dismantling oppressive authoritarian regimes... It's definitely capitalism that's the problem here.
The daily show was daily. There have been 10 episodes a year of the problem. If you saw 1/10 as much of the problem as the daily then it's outperforming in terms of buzz vs. air time.
I think the daily show format succeeded because of the ironic humor excusing some of the exaggeration and bias. I was a huge fan and even drove to DC for the rally to restore sanity during his heights.
Without the ironic humor, (and without editorial oversight) jon comes across as arrogant and self righteous rants which don't use hyperbole as a punch line but as if a legitimate replacement for informed journalism. The script reads as an unhinged op-ed with rare and cherry-picked factual justifications.
Even when I agree with 90% of what he's saying, I cringe at how over the top he takes it and at how his emotional investment and self-righteous attitude undercuts any thoughtful or reasoned articulation of the facts of the issue he is discussing.
I'm not shocked at all that apple cut this show, and I don't even see it as censorship.
Agreed. I'd add that it feels there's less of an establishment to rail against than in the Bush days. I'd bet there was a drop in numbers in 2009, when Obama started.
This is more an artifact of liberal attention than of Democratic governance, which inevitably includes plenty of things to get mad about on the basis of the same kind of values.
I can't really blame the guy if he got increasingly jaded as he got older. He used to be an actual comedian and even an actor sometimes and was probably a lot happier. Becoming a full-time pundit has to be toxic to the soul. Poor life choice, but maybe this is an opportunity. Disconnect from the 24-hour outrage cycle and become human again. He's probably branded himself into too much of a corner to ever be a public figure except by being a talking head, but screw it, what's the point of money and success if you can't take it and go live a quiet happy life at some point?
That sort of disconnect was exactly what he said he wanted to do when he left The Daily Show in the first place. I was almost sad for him when the Apple show was announced because it very much felt that he had failed at his retirement attempt. The fact that the show was so very "Old Man Yells at Clouds" only added to that feeling of sadness.
That's pretty much why I never followed Jon Stewart outside of The Daily Show. It's not that I think he's a bad guy, but his general demeanor both on and off script tells me he's not someone I'd want to be around IRL. I first started to realize this when he was on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire (holy crap, I'm realizing that was probably over 20 years ago) and his attitude was offputting. It seemed as if he found Regis to be annoying and believed that everyone else believes Regis is annoying too, except most people don't. And in other instances, he seems very self-righteous.
The one good thing I'll say about Stewart is I think he's genuine, even if I don't like that side of him. For that reason, I respect him more than Stephen Colbert whom I think is always "on" and is more of a people pleaser, even though I think he's (somewhat) funnier than Stewart and is more likeable.
EDIT: Wow, he was more insufferable on Millionaire than I remembered. I just found the episode on YouTube and he starts being a dickbag in the first few minutes. Apparently people still think he was funny here, but to me this is one of the least funny Jon Stewart moments I've ever seen. My personal taste, I guess.
Watching that video, to me it seems like in the first few minutes he was playing a low energy guy, but was just doing a bit he expects people will find funny.
As this lady says, what people feel they're coming across might be quite different to how others perceive them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owORxKqX0nU .. in her book she uses an example of Obama feeling great after a debate with Mitt Romney, but the public's perception was he was too stand-offish...
> I think the daily show format succeeded because of the ironic humor excusing some of the exaggeration and bias. I was a huge fan and even drove to DC for the rally to restore sanity during his heights.
I think they also just had an incredibly high concentration of talent for a while.
Sure it was a product of its time, and Stewart himself was a big part of its success, but in the early 00's (especially before Colbert left) they had some really talented comedians on the show at the same time.
Could the show have been as popular to the Daily Show full stop? One was broadcast on a TV channel most people already had, while this show was on a 5th place streaming platform which is widely perceived as being exclusive to specific premium hardware (incorrectly, but more people than not I've talked to believe you need the physical Apple TV device to view Apple TV).
As someone who works at a competitor of Apple TV, I truly don't understand the product. They don't go out of their way to make it clear you can watch Apple TV on most major devices,and they support fewer set top boxes/devices than their competitors. Part of the reason Netflix and Hulu have such good market penetration is because they make it clear you can use their product on your TV. Netflix (disclaimer: my employer, my views not company's, etc. etc. etc.) is particularly notorious for running on almost literally everything, including cable boxes and the like. Apple TV may or may not do this, but it is marketed as and feels like a much more exclusive service, hence the (erroneous, but totally understandable given Apple's hostility to other platforms) notion that Apple TV is only available on their devices.
I dunno, maybe it's a loss leader/retention play, but it's a deeply strange product to me. Right up there with HBO Max dropping the only part of their brand that anyone recognized.
> They don't go out of their way to make it clear you can watch Apple TV on most major devices
Interestingly, the headline doesn't even refer to the service (Apple TV), but it refers to just "on Apple" -- which further reinforces that consumer thinking that it's an Apple-device-specific offering.
For All Mankind is neat, if campy. Alternative take on the space race and attempts to make at least some decent logical extrapolations had we continued to invest heavily in space exploration, maybe
I thought Hello Tomorrow! was a fun "Fallout-esque" companion piece to For All Mankind. It's a lot more cynical but touches on a lot of similar space race ideals and retrofuturism.
I think it has its moments but I think they buried the more interesting and (oo scary maybe even thought-provoking) concepts of the book so far down that they're barely there. The plot is very new trek and it's impossible to say if it's beyond redemption because anything is possible, there are no stakes, and why do I care again? New Star Wars made similar mistakes.
Also I had high hopes for Salvor because they were a badass in the first part of the first book. Instead now they are a scowling child who defaults to violence. The writers really screwed up the characters.
The Afterparty is an incredible murder mystery series that is on the more comedic side and has the fun and silly premise that the main detective trying to solve the mysteries (played by Tiffany Hadish in the peak of having fun) is a big fan of getting suspects to explore their "mind movies" so the main internals of every episode so far has been in a different genre of films/TV/storytelling. It's fun.
Shrinking is the "sophomore" Apple TV+ show from many of the creators of Ted Lasso. It's far less "twee" and covers a lot more dark topics more regularly, but still tries to be rooted in "punch up" comedy when it is trying to be a comedy and still manages some incredible "feel good" moments from out of the darkness. (It's also the wildest reunion of Bill Lawrence show regulars of the past: you'll spot many character actors from Spin City, Scrubs, Cougartown, and others. It's also especially fun because many of those cameos are incredibly dark in contrast to their past roles, but the actors seem to presumably be having a grand reunion just off screen.)
Schmigadoon is an amazing comedy if you either really love Musicals and/or really hate them. (If you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum it can be a fun dumb thing with the right libations.) If find out that you do love musicals and enjoy the "Bento Box" animation format (Bob's Burgers, etc) you will want to watch Central Park while you are at it.
I'd also argue it was the twilight of the cable networks -- streaming media only really started taking off during the middle-end of the Obama era, and it was a strong enough show that it could keep people even as the shift was happening.
Here's a modest proposal. If you do significant business in the PRC or have assets there, that's fine, but you cannot simultaneously own a media or social media business in the US. I think (very uncertain) this solves the root cause of these problems, the foreign leverage; and it doesn't infringe on constitutional speech rights.
E.g., Apple TV would be compelled to be spun off as independent entity, with no ties to the phone manufacturer. And Elon Musk would be compelled to either sell Twitter/X, or pull Tesla manufacturing out of mainland China. &c.
Other than the ties to the phone manufacturer - where Apple can use its profits to subsidize the creation of prestige media during the initial creation of its streaming service - would Apple TV exist?
Absolutely agree, but what they don't have is unlimited rights to do business in foreign countries hostile to the US.
Am I rationalizing this wrongly? I'm not a lawyer and might genuinely have Dunning-Krugered myself into a corner. There are already established laws about lobbying and influencing US politics as an agent of a foreign government. This looks similar to that: in the one case a foreign government is paying you to speak; in the other case, a foreign government is threatening your assets in their country, with your speech as the demanded condition. Are these not similar?
I do not think private citizens should have any restrictions placed upon them for doing business with a country that our government has not sanctioned.
I think what you are describing is that PRC offers an enticing deal to many businesses: use Chinese labor to get higher margins on your consumer products. If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country or (gasp) back to the US and figure out how to get higher margins. In that way, China is merely a business partner for private industry. You wouldn't bad-talk a business partner and expect them to continue to do business with you.
- "If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country"
The victim in this scenario isn't the company—it's the US speakers being censored by a foreign dictator, with this company acting as an intermediary. I.e. in this thread, we're not talking about Tim Cook's speech; we're talking about Jon Stewart's speech, and Tim Cook censoring him at the behest of Beijing.
I see. It feels ethically wrong to be suppressed by a foreign government through your employers, but I don't think it should be illegal. If it were illegal for your employer to suppress speech on foreign governments, would the PRC have standing to sue you for libel?
I love the infringement on freedom you propose (you can't use your private property or money to own media) in the attempt to prop up a different freedom (speech rights).
I also love that you confuse "not being paid to say things" with "banned from saying things". Speech rights aren't even at risk here. But yes, let's infringe on some freedoms.
Was pretty clearly obvious his heart wasn't in anything last season. Not to mention that trying to do a topical show in a pre-recorded season format is absolutely insane. He would be covering things the news cycle had moved on from months ago, and not like it was some kind of well thought out in depth analysis either; just the same old gotcha type stuff. I'm glad they stopped the bleeding on this one, it was honestly hard to watch (and I blame Apple entirely for that). Here's hoping he finds a home at HBO with Oliver.
It’s more than that it wasn’t funny. It’s ok to not be funny. But something about his demeanour came across as really unlikable. He’d have been better off being more neutral if he didn’t want to be funny, but he came across as so righteous and arrogant. It was painful.
The guy asks serious questions to people which SHOULD rightfully be asked by journalists, but aren't for business reasons. Compare this to Lex Friedman or Joe Rogan, both of which are not only categorically unserious people but have made their careers by essentially hosting propaganda sessions with their guests.
I was a big fan of Stewart’s when he was hosting the Daily Show. I was extremely excited for this new show on Apple. In short, I feel I was the target market.
I watched a few episodes and couldn’t stomach them. His personality seems to have changed since the Daily Show and he just seems so much more self righteous and arrogant. I didn’t enjoy them, even though I am predisposed to be interested in the content.
I also don’t think this is limited to this show. I heard him as a guest on the Strike Force Five podcast and again he came across as just unbearable.
Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers are currently the funniest on late night, but I think Steven Colbert still has it. He has a lot more space to work now that his persona doesn't require him to pretend to be conservative.
I found mocking blue-haired non-binary gender-fluid moralists way funnier. It would draw a really big audience, but you may not mock them - it's hate speech.
Maybe NPC show is also not as funny, but the alternatives are being cancelled by butt-hurt moralists. This is sure true in Germany where "censored" would be the better word for it. I only know the big ones in the US and they were funny at some point, but the ones I saw all suffer from TDS by now. It's weird how people get so enraged by one person to the point they get silly and the silliness doesn't stop when the (media) presence goes away. It looks like a big hug box with a lot of copium junkies.
That's not funny and I don't need to be funny, but I feel like the people in this hug box should be made fun of.
Do you feel suppressed by me? You should also consult Wikipedia about "the leader" of the Germans.
I didn't label dissent as derangement and I even outlined (my) definition of TDS. You could easily apply it to other people than orange-utan and it isn't strictly limited to political affiliation either. However, nobody today embodies the baseless outrage triggering like the guy with the tiny hands. And let's face it, baseless outrage is also more often seen in one political movement today.
Some even say they are suppressed by challenging opinions ;)
Awww. Aren't you delusionally pathetic. I said you were trying to suppress dissent about your dear leader with your pathetic propaganda tactics. I didn't say you were successful. Your dear leader is a tool and you're a fool for parroting his propaganda. Run along now.
Jimmy Kimmel is extremely funny; Seth Meyers is too nice to be super funny; Colbert is not very funny now, and a little too self-involved -- I think he will eventually end up on the wrong side of some future controversy.
Last I saw him (I don't bother anymore) he can have a few good off-the-cuff moments with guests typical of the usual late-show talking heads, but you just can't make talking to celebrities/actors that interesting on it's own. Unfortunately, that's the show.
CR had more going for it. Writers on a comedy network also have more balls. Maybe Colbert himself changed but I think he just molded into his role, which was inevitable.
They weren't actually interested in being unbiased though, they only like attacking Republicans, and as political power shifted, they ran out of credible targets.
I don't see what this has to do with the issue here. The show was cancelled because he refused to change his views on AI and China to appease Apple, not because of his personality.
That is indeed his side of the story and he broke the news first. Ratings or personality may have been factors, but when fired it is common to lean into PR.
Ok, assume the ratings were good for a moment (either Stewart's or another on Apple TV). Could the show have run an investigate segment on China's Uyghur policy on Apple TV?
Every show on Apple TV+ (except Ted Lasso) has dismal viewership. The amount of money they spend for each viewer is insane, and they don't seem to be growing[1].
If Apple cared that much about viewership, they'd cancel most of their shows, not just Jon Stewart's.
I agree. I was engaged while he was on the daily show, but since starting this, he has changed as a host. While all of us needed a break from the edge and toughness in the world, he kept the fire to it and always seemed argumentative and consistently would not see the guests opinion. Exactly the opposite of what we need.
> While all of us needed a break from the edge and toughness in the world
I think that is just an issue with expectations. I also started watching his new show assuming it would be funny and lighthearted and was initially disappointed. The title of the show should have given me a clue about the change in format.
The Problem with Jon Stewart is not comedy. He's trying hard to bring our attention to problems, so we can change our public stance and fix them collectively. I'm sad the show has ended.
So IOW, he wasn't very funny, and his writers mostly gave him his funny segments, like New York vs Chicago Pizza, Bullshit Mountain, etc? Do you have a link to support that claim?
(I'm even more shocked bc I don't enjoy any of his writers' shows you mentioned)
I noticed this too, reminded me a little bit of Bill Maher's "angry old guy" transformation.
I think JS legitimately is more arrogant and self righteous. I think part of it is the DGAF everyone goes through as they get older, and part of it is pent up frustration from watching the MSM decline. I'd contend that his usual DS bit - mocking the MSM - wouldn't work today because the veneer of rehearsed professionalism is gone, and news openly doubles as media. Lacking his biggest tool in the toolbox, he centers on himself...which makes for a less interesting show, which is probably why they're canning the show (the 'creative differences' is a cop out - those always disappear when ratings are high enough).
> His personality seems to have changed since the Daily Show and he just seems so much more self righteous and arrogant.
The sheer level of selfishness, lies, obstruction and callousness in American politics would change anyone and he's been exposed to it all for too long. He fought tooth and nail against the US government for the healthcare of 9/11 responders - and it was a fight spanning many years. That alone would change most people's outlook on things. He knows he's right about a lot of things and it must be maddening to continuously see how awful elected officials can be while people suffer. Can't blame him for being tired of repeating common sense to people who don't want to listen.
The idea that it is entirely due to conflicting values and not due to the shows unpopularity seems like a bit of a cope of the show's producer's part. If the show was driving people to subscribe to Apple TV+, it likely would not have been cancelled.
Your argument doesn't hold if (and because) AppleTV's subscriber growth due to Jon's show was much less important than Apple Inc's presence in China (which means toeing the Party line). Nothing can be more important than China for Apple.
Other companies like Disney are in the same kid of binge. People say that Elon Musk is unhinged, but I don't think he is. He knows people he must bow to if he wants to make money. Hollywood can be woke except when it comes to China, Saudi Arabia (or Scientology.)
People capitalists can't insult in the free world: Xi from China and MSB from Saudi Arabia.
It still amazes me that Apple can't even be PERCEIVED as somehow criticizing China -- even if Stewart's reporting was going to be factual.
Apple, a US-headquartered company and the most valuable in the world, can't have a show on their streaming platform that isn't supportive of China.
>They're a Multinational, and they don't have a country, and don't have allegiance outside of keeping that stock price high.
how convenient for them now that they're rich and successful after being handed a lot of opportunity from various US sources and origin benefits.
i'm sure that such gracious recipients of various US-centric startup/early business support will cause the proud U.S. tradition of government support for small and upstart businesses to continue and flourish well into the future.
I never thought Jon Stewart was funny. I stomached the Daily Show because of his correspondents who were funny. He helped the careers of a lot of comedians. I thought Noah was a better interviewer, and more charismatic.
Since the Daily Show, Stewart has developed this man-yells-at-the-clouds persona that's self-righteous, and... not surprisingly still not funny. Glad he's cancelled so hopefully someone more talented can get a shot.
Only online. Although I've never been a huge fan of social media, I do have accounts to keep in touch with relatives and promote things that I make and produce. But I've really toned down my usage lately because I find that everything online seems designed to provoke some kind of outrage.
Even if we ignore news and media, and "rage bait" headlines, consider when and why people turn to comment sections and social media in general. People are there to unwind, de-stress and share recipes and cat gifs. That is their motivation. But WHEN do people do that? Typically on a break or after a long day of work or when the kids have finally fallen asleep. So most people are already in an agitated state to begin with. Then they read something that annoys them, or they have something from work to vent about. And so not only does everyone seem angry, they were a bit on edge to begin with and then created a feedback cycle through mutual participation.
I personally started to feel so much less anxious and uptight when I started to use social media and read comments less. Same with most news, but I won't begrudge anyone for trying to keep informed. It's really the angry feedback cycle that I think is creating a lot of stress and anxiety for people.
I am currently avoiding two relatives because they're always so upset. I agree with them almost entirely, but I don't want to be around people who are apoplectic. Yes, war is bad, but please just stop yelling at me just because I'm the only one in the room making eye contact!
"The Problem" is hyperbole. I've never wanted to defend something awful more than after having to hear an hour long angry rant, even when I agree.
my only hope is that eventually everyone will become as tired of performative anger as a means of influencing others as I have been for years now. however, as of now, the trend still seems to be going in the opposite direction, on the surface at least.
An approach to think about: If someone is making you angry, they are controlling you.
I haven't really tried that in the real world, and I don't think you can phrase it exactly like that to someone who is angry in the moment, it will just make them more angry. But if you have a loved one who is being controlled by someone else's anger, it may be worth thinking about how you might communicate the idea.
I was always skeptical of Apple's ability and willingness to create original content. Any sufficiently large company has competing objectives. Apple in particular does not want to offend governments, offend consumers and alienate suppliers.
This influence over content isn't new. Richard Gere was allegedly ostracized in Hollywood for being critical of China over Tibet. Ellen DeGeneres lost her sitcom after coming out (which extended to co-stars in the episode like Laura Dern). The American flag was noticeably missing from the Moon landing in First Man. So dedicated studios have this problem. Apple has all these problems and more.
The likes of Apple will never push the envelope in the way, say, that HBO did with the Sopranos. And now it's so rare that any of these series actually run to conclusion before being cancelled due to not hitting some nebulous set of metrics.
It's also worth noting that the political climate has changed since Jon Stewart was on The Daily Show. I mean that was before Trump got elected. I think for a lot of people, Jon Stewart is now seen as too much of a centrist liberal.
They don't think he's a centrist liberal.
They just think he's a hack for the establishment
https://www.salon.com/2015/07/28/daily_show_classics_john_ke...
"While Kerry bombed, viewers got a unique vantage point into Stewart's true genius for interviewing. Stewart played double-duty, picking up Kerry's slack -- "pitching not just softballs but marshmallows, puffy interview marshmallows with rainbow sprinkles on them" -- when he was lagging"
This was originally what Tucker Carlson criticized him for back during their Crossfire interview. Stewart said their interview was on a news channel and that the program after Jon was about Swearing Puppets
It turns out how Stewart treated Kerry in 2003/2004 is a lot like he is treating Joe Biden in 2023/2024. Throwing a lot of softballs.
187 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 240 ms ] threadOof.
It's a problem for Apple TV+ if anyone. Apple will use their earnings from their hardware business to ensure they continue to mint money in that business. Apple's streaming service has plans to be a standalone revenue stream, but so far it's only there to burnish Apple's hardware business, and it's not allowed to undercut that.
In its current form, it is very normal and expected for executives to be concerned over controversial issues that can cause business problems because they have responsibility to make money and they have control over who does what on their platforms, therefore its only expected of them to distance themselves from content that might cost more money than its bringing.
Fingers crossed that we will go back to the content agnostic platform days where the culture isn't shaped by the concerns of tech manages in SV but by the people who are involved in the society.
Those who think that the current arrangements are fine and they keep hate speech or nudity or some other controversial topic out are risking of falling on the wrong side of the curation because the inorganic methods of keeping the "bad guys" out keeps these people(the deplatformed) unchallenged and organic and they are gaining steam for good or bad reasons and they might actually end up being the financially justified ones to bet on.
I hope he WILL use the material and speak his mind, either in some another media or social outlet. We shouldn't gag comedians spilling the beans. That's the Chinese/Russian method. We shouldn't play the same filthy game in the West.
He could as well make his podcast (and carry a couple of sponsors). The problem would then be transferred to "who will sponsor the China episode"?
The issue is not John Stewart, Apple, NBA, John Cena, and all the rest. The problem is that "their values/ways" do not align with "our values/ways", and because we make our iphones there, and because NBA sells tshirts there, and because Cena does movies/fights there, and so on.. To paraphrase the Chappelle quote "we got the sneaker deal" and now we just take the slaps.
https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?si=4XnKhOYu5mUiBZBs&t=172
There's no Center for Oceanic Studies in Nebraska, but there is a Center for Great Plains Studies.
I see this as peddling misinformation. He may be correct, but he doesn't have conclusive evidence and he's using humor to side-step the fact that he's presenting an opinion.
No TALK show host should mention anything that isn't 100% backed by evidence because he can't triple-reference an opinion he puts forth with correct academic citations? The humor mixed with opinion is exactly the point of shows like this, and it should be an obvious thing to anyone who hasn't let themselves become utterly humorous by having their specific prejudice poked.
What absurd nonsense. Misinformation is a word with a very slippery definition, but worst of all is seeing claims of it used as a bludgeon against anything that doesn't concretely toe some specific ideological inclination.
Stewart referred to the party line as logic in that clip. The part where they should research it. So, not sure if you oppose investigating it (the "party line" as you call it), or if you think it's already been proven and doesn't need any more investigation, despite not a single US intelligence agency agreeing with that sentiment.
Speaking out like that put his very life in danger; without exaggeration. Scientists who spoke about the lab leak possibility were receiving death threats at the time.
Also, a large part of his fan-base were (and still are) wholly convinced that the lab leak theory was 'racist', or some kind of Republican plot.
He spoke up anyway, and he did it so, so well. By making it funny he made it memorable, and easier to tolerate thinking of.
You can see Colbert begging him to stop, and John just keeps ramping it up. It's awesome.
People get death threats online for almost anything you can think of. I wouldn't say that he was putting his life on the line. He was also exaggerating the evidence in ways that went beyond pure humor (the word "Coronavirus" is not actually in the name of the building). I'm not saying he was wrong, but I am saying he was not heroic.
He was accused of being "racist", and of "aligning himself with the alt-right". He got messages like: "Fuck you... I’m done with you... I will never forgive you, you have crossed an unforgivable line."
Jon said: "It was like I had put 'Hilary For Prison' on my forehead".
... And all he was saying was, 'this is a possibility, and we shouldn't pretend it isn't'.
0 - https://twitter.com/TheProblem/status/1630307406390390784
Virtue signalling is when you do something menial or deferent to target a specific population. Like when you'd modify a film to remove certain flags or introduce story-beats for an overseas audience.
Outrage is not really virtue signalling, especially when the "virtue" is a anti-American trait being exploited by a company outside American jurisdiction. People are justifiably angry, and expressing that because they know their vote isn't worth anything as citizens of certain world powers.
This is not correct. You're describing pandering.
Virtue signalling isn't when you do something meaningful for a target audience, it's when you don't do something. It's limited to speech.
From Cambridge Dictionary[1]:
> "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media"
Only expressing outrage and doing nothing with is would certainly be virtue signalling.
In this case, the outrage can and should lead to people watching less Apple TV+ or rethinking their relationship with Apple as a whole.
1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virtu...
Only if it’s performative.
The Daily Show had a constant buzz, and popped up in my newsfeed every once in a while.
I've never once had his Apple show pop up in my feed!
I haven't seen the show but I wonder if it had the same quality as The Daily Show.
Without the ironic humor, (and without editorial oversight) jon comes across as arrogant and self righteous rants which don't use hyperbole as a punch line but as if a legitimate replacement for informed journalism. The script reads as an unhinged op-ed with rare and cherry-picked factual justifications.
Even when I agree with 90% of what he's saying, I cringe at how over the top he takes it and at how his emotional investment and self-righteous attitude undercuts any thoughtful or reasoned articulation of the facts of the issue he is discussing.
I'm not shocked at all that apple cut this show, and I don't even see it as censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#Reception
The one good thing I'll say about Stewart is I think he's genuine, even if I don't like that side of him. For that reason, I respect him more than Stephen Colbert whom I think is always "on" and is more of a people pleaser, even though I think he's (somewhat) funnier than Stewart and is more likeable.
EDIT: Wow, he was more insufferable on Millionaire than I remembered. I just found the episode on YouTube and he starts being a dickbag in the first few minutes. Apparently people still think he was funny here, but to me this is one of the least funny Jon Stewart moments I've ever seen. My personal taste, I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0vcmhmaCY
As this lady says, what people feel they're coming across might be quite different to how others perceive them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owORxKqX0nU .. in her book she uses an example of Obama feeling great after a debate with Mitt Romney, but the public's perception was he was too stand-offish...
I think they also just had an incredibly high concentration of talent for a while.
Sure it was a product of its time, and Stewart himself was a big part of its success, but in the early 00's (especially before Colbert left) they had some really talented comedians on the show at the same time.
I dunno, maybe it's a loss leader/retention play, but it's a deeply strange product to me. Right up there with HBO Max dropping the only part of their brand that anyone recognized.
Interestingly, the headline doesn't even refer to the service (Apple TV), but it refers to just "on Apple" -- which further reinforces that consumer thinking that it's an Apple-device-specific offering.
* Was a streaming service with a library that could stream on any smartTV, like Netflix
* Only cost $5/month (I assumed since it was Apple it would cost double what other services cost, as opposed to half)
That said, it doesn't have much I want to watch. Severance and Ted Lasso season 1 are good and what else?
Also I had high hopes for Salvor because they were a badass in the first part of the first book. Instead now they are a scowling child who defaults to violence. The writers really screwed up the characters.
Shrinking is the "sophomore" Apple TV+ show from many of the creators of Ted Lasso. It's far less "twee" and covers a lot more dark topics more regularly, but still tries to be rooted in "punch up" comedy when it is trying to be a comedy and still manages some incredible "feel good" moments from out of the darkness. (It's also the wildest reunion of Bill Lawrence show regulars of the past: you'll spot many character actors from Spin City, Scrubs, Cougartown, and others. It's also especially fun because many of those cameos are incredibly dark in contrast to their past roles, but the actors seem to presumably be having a grand reunion just off screen.)
Schmigadoon is an amazing comedy if you either really love Musicals and/or really hate them. (If you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum it can be a fun dumb thing with the right libations.) If find out that you do love musicals and enjoy the "Bento Box" animation format (Bob's Burgers, etc) you will want to watch Central Park while you are at it.
Every time I tried it, we needed to find a Mac in the house and that was a faff.
We have an Android TV with all the other apps on it.
E.g., Apple TV would be compelled to be spun off as independent entity, with no ties to the phone manufacturer. And Elon Musk would be compelled to either sell Twitter/X, or pull Tesla manufacturing out of mainland China. &c.
How is that? People who do significant business w the PRC have free speech rights like everyone else.
Am I rationalizing this wrongly? I'm not a lawyer and might genuinely have Dunning-Krugered myself into a corner. There are already established laws about lobbying and influencing US politics as an agent of a foreign government. This looks similar to that: in the one case a foreign government is paying you to speak; in the other case, a foreign government is threatening your assets in their country, with your speech as the demanded condition. Are these not similar?
I think what you are describing is that PRC offers an enticing deal to many businesses: use Chinese labor to get higher margins on your consumer products. If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country or (gasp) back to the US and figure out how to get higher margins. In that way, China is merely a business partner for private industry. You wouldn't bad-talk a business partner and expect them to continue to do business with you.
The victim in this scenario isn't the company—it's the US speakers being censored by a foreign dictator, with this company acting as an intermediary. I.e. in this thread, we're not talking about Tim Cook's speech; we're talking about Jon Stewart's speech, and Tim Cook censoring him at the behest of Beijing.
I also love that you confuse "not being paid to say things" with "banned from saying things". Speech rights aren't even at risk here. But yes, let's infringe on some freedoms.
The guy asks serious questions to people which SHOULD rightfully be asked by journalists, but aren't for business reasons. Compare this to Lex Friedman or Joe Rogan, both of which are not only categorically unserious people but have made their careers by essentially hosting propaganda sessions with their guests.
It seemed more to be champion leftist causes, using some wit.
He's just an amazing comedian, but serious journalist. Not so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3rGFyN5uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50MusF365U0
It's not surprising that the show was finally shuttered.
"Jon Stewart's Apple TV show ends; Apple execs resisted coverage of AI and China" (9to5mac.com) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194>
Submitted 14 hours ago; 25 comments.
I watched a few episodes and couldn’t stomach them. His personality seems to have changed since the Daily Show and he just seems so much more self righteous and arrogant. I didn’t enjoy them, even though I am predisposed to be interested in the content.
I also don’t think this is limited to this show. I heard him as a guest on the Strike Force Five podcast and again he came across as just unbearable.
Then Obama became president, and the show tried to be as scathing and funny as they had been with Bush, but I think their hearts just weren't in it.
For me, he’s the funniest one since Letterman and probably actually funnier than Dave was.
edit: speech not crime
That's not funny and I don't need to be funny, but I feel like the people in this hug box should be made fun of.
I didn't label dissent as derangement and I even outlined (my) definition of TDS. You could easily apply it to other people than orange-utan and it isn't strictly limited to political affiliation either. However, nobody today embodies the baseless outrage triggering like the guy with the tiny hands. And let's face it, baseless outrage is also more often seen in one political movement today.
Some even say they are suppressed by challenging opinions ;)
> I said you were trying to suppress dissent ...
No, you did not.
I get that reading comprehension isn't your thing. And living in denial is your thing. But that's just pathetic. Try again.
Where in that sentence is the "trying"? It's not even implied; it's just not there.
TDS really disables any rational thought.
CR had more going for it. Writers on a comedy network also have more balls. Maybe Colbert himself changed but I think he just molded into his role, which was inevitable.
I don't know if there's a definitive way to tell, but it sounds like "The Problem" probably had dismal viewership.
We'll see if the show moves on.
If Apple cared that much about viewership, they'd cancel most of their shows, not just Jon Stewart's.
1. https://9to5mac.com/2023/10/11/heres-how-apple-tv-growth-com....
Source? They don’t publish this info afaik. Your link is about market share, likely via subscriber counts?
this is an assumption based on an unattributed quote. the assumption could be real, or it could be bad ratings.
I think that is just an issue with expectations. I also started watching his new show assuming it would be funny and lighthearted and was initially disappointed. The title of the show should have given me a clue about the change in format.
The Problem with Jon Stewart is not comedy. He's trying hard to bring our attention to problems, so we can change our public stance and fix them collectively. I'm sad the show has ended.
All who have gone onto bigger things, like:
- Stephen Colbert (has his own show now)
- Jon Oliver (has his own show now)
- Samatha Bee (has her own show now)
- Larry Wilmore (has his own show now)
- Steve Carell (movies/own show)
- Hasan Minhaj (who had his own show and probably the best "Daily Show" like spin off)
... and many more
(I'm even more shocked bc I don't enjoy any of his writers' shows you mentioned)
[0] https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/the-rise-of-clapter-comedy.h...
Jon Stewart was great on the delivery.
Clearly by his new show, he needs better writers.
I think JS legitimately is more arrogant and self righteous. I think part of it is the DGAF everyone goes through as they get older, and part of it is pent up frustration from watching the MSM decline. I'd contend that his usual DS bit - mocking the MSM - wouldn't work today because the veneer of rehearsed professionalism is gone, and news openly doubles as media. Lacking his biggest tool in the toolbox, he centers on himself...which makes for a less interesting show, which is probably why they're canning the show (the 'creative differences' is a cop out - those always disappear when ratings are high enough).
The sheer level of selfishness, lies, obstruction and callousness in American politics would change anyone and he's been exposed to it all for too long. He fought tooth and nail against the US government for the healthcare of 9/11 responders - and it was a fight spanning many years. That alone would change most people's outlook on things. He knows he's right about a lot of things and it must be maddening to continuously see how awful elected officials can be while people suffer. Can't blame him for being tired of repeating common sense to people who don't want to listen.
More discussion yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949512
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194
Apple, on the other hand, has a long history of kowtowing to China's demands.
Apple: $74 billion, 19% of the total.
Tesla: $18 billion, 22% of the total.
Other companies like Disney are in the same kid of binge. People say that Elon Musk is unhinged, but I don't think he is. He knows people he must bow to if he wants to make money. Hollywood can be woke except when it comes to China, Saudi Arabia (or Scientology.)
People capitalists can't insult in the free world: Xi from China and MSB from Saudi Arabia.
https://youtu.be/VtvjbmoDx-I?si=xe1-1i834RcxZrkn
an important phrasing, because they're not an American company, they just kinda hang out in California.
They're a Multinational, and they don't have a country, and don't have allegiance outside of keeping that stock price high.
how convenient for them now that they're rich and successful after being handed a lot of opportunity from various US sources and origin benefits.
i'm sure that such gracious recipients of various US-centric startup/early business support will cause the proud U.S. tradition of government support for small and upstart businesses to continue and flourish well into the future.
Not much surprises me about China and censorship any more.
Since the Daily Show, Stewart has developed this man-yells-at-the-clouds persona that's self-righteous, and... not surprisingly still not funny. Glad he's cancelled so hopefully someone more talented can get a shot.
Even if we ignore news and media, and "rage bait" headlines, consider when and why people turn to comment sections and social media in general. People are there to unwind, de-stress and share recipes and cat gifs. That is their motivation. But WHEN do people do that? Typically on a break or after a long day of work or when the kids have finally fallen asleep. So most people are already in an agitated state to begin with. Then they read something that annoys them, or they have something from work to vent about. And so not only does everyone seem angry, they were a bit on edge to begin with and then created a feedback cycle through mutual participation.
I personally started to feel so much less anxious and uptight when I started to use social media and read comments less. Same with most news, but I won't begrudge anyone for trying to keep informed. It's really the angry feedback cycle that I think is creating a lot of stress and anxiety for people.
"The Problem" is hyperbole. I've never wanted to defend something awful more than after having to hear an hour long angry rant, even when I agree.
I haven't really tried that in the real world, and I don't think you can phrase it exactly like that to someone who is angry in the moment, it will just make them more angry. But if you have a loved one who is being controlled by someone else's anger, it may be worth thinking about how you might communicate the idea.
This influence over content isn't new. Richard Gere was allegedly ostracized in Hollywood for being critical of China over Tibet. Ellen DeGeneres lost her sitcom after coming out (which extended to co-stars in the episode like Laura Dern). The American flag was noticeably missing from the Moon landing in First Man. So dedicated studios have this problem. Apple has all these problems and more.
The likes of Apple will never push the envelope in the way, say, that HBO did with the Sopranos. And now it's so rare that any of these series actually run to conclusion before being cancelled due to not hitting some nebulous set of metrics.
It's also worth noting that the political climate has changed since Jon Stewart was on The Daily Show. I mean that was before Trump got elected. I think for a lot of people, Jon Stewart is now seen as too much of a centrist liberal.