Jon Stewart's Show on Apple Is Ending
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Comments on China could be controversial, but AI? That doesn’t make sense.
Next paragraph "taping of episodes... scheduled to begin within a couple weeks"
Why do you think it would be because the show wasn't doing well? Networks usually would have a system to not renew a show for a third season if it wasn't doing well. Maybe the reasons are something other than China and AI but I don't think there's some cover here from Apple. This makes them look awful.
I chalk up any weird timing issues to the recently-ended writer's strike, which would have thrown off calendars for taping etc.
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
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.
That is, if it's true. It probably is, but I'm always dubious of "a person with knowledge of the meeting said".
More discussion yesterday:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oof.
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 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.
Apple, on the other hand, has a long history of kowtowing to China's demands.