Jon Stewart takes aim at his former Apple bosses on ‘The Daily Show’
Jon Stewart takes aim at his former Apple bosses on ‘The Daily Show’
“I wanted to have you on a podcast, and Apple asked us not to do it,” Stewart told his guest, Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, Monday night. “They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her.’”
This week, Jon Stewart devoted his edition of The Daily Show to tackling a topic that he claims his former bosses at Apple barred him from exploring. “I wanted to have you on a podcast and Apple asked us not to do it,” the late-night host said to his guest Monday night, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, referencing the companion podcast to his former series, The Problem with Jon Stewart that ended last October. “They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her.’”
Stewart’s remarks arrive less than two weeks after the U.S. Justice Department sued Apple for exploiting its monopoly in the tech market and violating antitrust laws. The lawsuit highlights Apple’s “power over content creators and newspapers” and notes that the company’s conduct “even affects the flow of speech,” adding, “Apple is rapidly expanding its role as a TV and movie producer and has exercised that role to control content.”
After joking that Apple killed Khan’s potential appearance on the podcast because “I didn’t think they cared for you,” Stewart alleged that Apple also told him not to discuss artificial intelligence. “They wouldn’t let us do even that dumb thing we just did in the first act on AI,” he said, referring to a segment earlier in that episode on the “false promise” of that technology. Stewart then asked Khan: “What is that sensitivity? Why are they so afraid to even have these conversations out in the public sphere?”
Khan replied, “I think it just shows the danger of what happens when you concentrate so much power and so much decision making in a small number of companies.”
When you work for Apple, Apple gets to tell you what to do. Same goes for any corporate owned media outlet.
Jon Stewart has more than enough money to just quit, which he did. Most normal folks do not have this luxury so they tow the line.
Welcome to the reality that the US economic system.
No real free speech, no real agency in our economy, captive regulators that like to masquerade as populist heros but rarely actually do any real damage to sociopathic corporations.
Common misconception, it's actually "toe the line". I used to think it was tow too.
"He who pays the piper, calls the tune" is an old saying and not any less true today. If your livelihood and that of your family depends on someone, very, very few people will antagonize this someone.
State owned news media sounds like a bad idea from communistic countries, but nevertheless, plenty of European countries have just that, and it's noteworthy how it's much less biased than the commercial outlets. The people pay the piper.
It actually works in democratic countries where the government is representative of the people, so that any single party can't push their agenda to the media by laws. On the contrary it happens more often that the media is told to keep a straight line if they go too far in any direction.
It's no wonder it doesn't work in dictatorships, and I don't think it would work in two party politics, but in European countries the state media is very likely the less biased one.
In Dutch we say: "wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt" which convolutedly translates to: "who's bread one eats, thine word one speaks".. which shows this is present in many cultures.
I sympathize with the cynicism in your last paragraph, but I push a little optimism back on a couple points. 1: our capability for speech may be limited by the corporations who have grabbed control over our media platforms, but insofar as freedom of speech refers to our ability to speak freely without retaliation from the government, we do still have real free speech. It's a juvenile point, but given events in the last few years it's not a right I take for granted as I did previously. That being said, I did just watch a video of FBI agents interrogating a woman in front of her house for posting non-violent content on Facebook relating to Gaza that you can add to a pile of evidence that the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech, so... that's not good.
2: Regulatory authority has become almost laughably meek, granted, but you're commenting on a video of one of the most aggressive regulators to hold the position in as long as I'm aware. This is a powerful sign that regulatory capture is not inevitable if we care enough to vote for candidates who will appoint strong regulators -- even if it hurts our pride to do so (<<conscientious vote objectors).
the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech
We need to have a lemmy-wide class on the phrase "toe the line" because this is the 2nd time it's been used incorrectly in this thread.
I think what you mean to say is "pushing the envelope". To "toe the line" means to support and parrot what an authority body says, even if you personally have different ideas, like Sanders endorsing Biden. What the government is doing is infringing on free speech.
Jon Stewart has more than enough money to just quit, which he did.
Celebrity is often its own reward. And Stewart wasn't getting much coverage when he didn't have a show, despite some very sincere and fervent lobbying efforts during his retirement period.
No real free speech, no real agency in our economy, captive regulators that like to masquerade as populist heros but rarely actually do any real damage to sociopathic corporations.
One of the more infuriating bits about liberal agitprop shows is how fucking devoid of agitprop they actually are. Yeah, guys like Stewart and Colbert and Oliver can go on rhetorical tirades about the Big Evil Business Thing. But when push comes to shove, what do they actually advocate? Noncompliance? Organized revolt? A general strike? Confrontations with abusive and cartelized law enforcement? Any kind of material self-defense or defense of one's friends and neighbors? Anything that might violate the latest round of right-wing prohibitions on health care or gender or speech?
Or do they just put on a "Rally to Restore Sanity" that tells people activism begins and ends with voting, in an election system that's increasingly threadbare?
The fact that Jon Stewart worked for Apple for a podcast and is now again on television working for some TV station shows that he has very little to offer in the way of anything meaningful. He had more than enough notoriety to start a podcast in his basement where he could say anything he wanted and get compelling guests. He has more than enough money to hire a crew and create a self-produced show online and get real viewership. People should really ask themselves why he is sticking with the big companies. It's because he likes the money and is an expert at getting the narrative out there. The Daily Show has always been lowest common denominator "subversion" that takes itself seriously enough to shame non-approved worldviews but not enough to be held accountable in any meaningful way. It's like if a teenager was a show.
Love or hate Tucker Carlson he is doing what Jon Stewart should have done years ago.
Good reminder that Monday's The Daily Show is Jon Stewart day
Lena Khan is amazing and taught me the word monopsylony. Absolutely stoked that Biden chose her and the fact that she is going so hard on creating a competitive environment
I want people to understand that when they vote for a president they're also voting for all the administrative appointments as well. The stakes of who is president is already high enough, but if you want people like Lena Khan in charge, that also comes from your presidential vote.
As I'm Australian, I can't do much haha. But I do know that the vibe on corporations and monoplane monopolies is being imported into Australia from the US particularly around our supermarkets and airlines
You mean "monopsony"?
Sorry, yeah that'll teach me for writing before I've woken up
Is this the "30 Rock" vertical integration equivalent?
and taught me the word monopsylony
mo·nop·so·ny
noun.
ECONOMICS.
a market situation in which there is only one buyer. Definitions from Oxford
Man I wish he'd somehow start that podcast back up. It was so good. I really watch the show but the podcast I listen to every time it came out.
Edit: hold up, there might be hope. After making this post on a whim I checked on the podcast and there was a one minute trailer from February saying stick around he wants to do something with the podcast feed again. How about that? I mean almost 2 months ago so not quick but maybe hope.
"Apple asked us not to do it"
...
"They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her.’"That sounds like a request; a request that he bowed to and didn't say anything about until his contract with them was up. Either he granted them way too much editorial control in the contract because money or he acquiesced to a request to self-censor because money.
What a fucking hero.
Apple is a monopoly that "affects the flow of speech" yet I know nothing of any of this and am completely unaffected.
I don't get it. Just buy different phones.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if a monopoly was powerful enough to "affect the flow of speech", wouldn't they try to use that power to ensure you know nothing of it?
Cool.
How do you like the fact that Apple news on iOS affects headlines for literally everyone due to visibility on iOS, and thus will still affect you.
Or that their ownership of AppleTV and now Apple+ puts them in direct position to edit that speech, even if you see it elsewhere and don't know Apple did it.
That's the point. They're huge.
Honestly what was he expecting? I think it was shitty and morally shady of him to even take Apple's money, and he got what he should have expected.
Like working for Paramount is really any god damn different?
You can use that excuse sure. But apple having and wanting to keep good relations with China is expected, and taking their money and complaining about their shadyness, would be like taking money from Starbucks and then being surprised that they don't like your anti union stories.