33 ms·
Jon Stewart's Show on Apple Is Ending
- edgyquant 3y agoDidn’t the show just start?
- HenryBemis 3y agoThey were about to begin taping season 3 (please read the article).
- dghughes 3y agoOr at least read the top 1/3 of the page that isn't obscured due to the paywall.
- MegaDeKay 3y agohttps://archive.ph/GV0tU https://archive.ph/GV0tU
- Ylpertnodi 3y agoHuuuuge captcha on mobile. Thank you, though.
- MegaDeKay 3y agoI didn't get that on desktop. But I'm using Firefox and maybe one of my plugins saved me from the annoyance.
- xd1936 3y ago> "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." Oof.
- hx8 3y agoIt's okay, tech monopolies are not harming the consumers.
- gizmo686 3y agoIts a talk show. Far from having a monopoly, Apple is a small player in this space.
- sproketboy 3y ago[dead]
- jkestner 3y agoYeah, 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.
- asow92 3y agoIt's not about AppleTV, but geopolitical questions regarding Apple itself.
- mrtksn 3y agoAs 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.
- HenryBemis 3y agoTo 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.
- skywal_l 3y agoIn 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.
- foobarian 3y agoIf MrBeast can do it then so can Jon.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HenryBemis 3y agoAlthough 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.
- JustBreath 3y agoWho would have thought edgy progressive humor and international business interests don't mix.
- smoldesu 3y agoApparently nobody at Apple when they signed Jon Stewart.
- starcraft2wol 3y agoThis sounds exactly like Silicon Valley approved humor.
- bigfudge 3y agoIs 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.
- arprocter 3y agohttps://archive.ph/GV0tU https://archive.ph/GV0tU
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- waynenilsen 3y agoFor those that haven't seen it he backed the lab leak theory very publicly some time back https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?si=4XnKhOYu5mUiBZBs&t=172 https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?si=4XnKhOYu5mUiBZBs&t=172
- phone8675309 3y agoOkay, and?
- waynenilsen 3y agoIt is relevant because in other comments there are suggestions that his coverage of China is an issue.
- phone8675309 3y agoAh, okay. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for filling in that gap
- hattmall 3y agoGood 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.
- fullshark 3y agoHardly 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.
- mywittyname 3y agoThe 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.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y agoPeople 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.
- smt88 3y agoThey shouldn't stop being outraged though, which means it's still newsworthy and important to discuss.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y agoI 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.
- smoldesu 3y ago> 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.
- smt88 3y ago> 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. 1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virtue-signalling https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virtu...
- senthil_rajasek 3y agoI wonder what the viewership numbers were? 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.
- toddmorey 3y agoIt was a different animal altogether. But some of the finest interviewing Jon’s done.
- voisin 3y agoClips were all over TikTok
- willis936 3y agoThe 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.
- elif 3y agoI 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.
- Tactician_mark 3y agoAgreed. 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.
- perihelions 3y agoHere'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.
- trothamel 3y agoOther 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?
- dabbledash 3y ago"It doesn't infringe on constitutional speech rights." How is that? People who do significant business w the PRC have free speech rights like everyone else.
- perihelions 3y agoAbsolutely 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?
- guhidalg 3y agoI 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.
- spandextwins 3y agoTim Apple doesn't rock the boat. He's a lot of things, but an expert bean counter the most.
- ramesh31 3y agoWas 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.
- phone8675309 3y agoI think HBO would get a huge ratings boost if they cancelled Bill Maher and replaced him with Jon Stewart.
- willis936 3y agoI'd pay them $5 a month to add Jon Stewart and $5 a month to cancel Bill Maher.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- daft_pink 3y agoIt just wasn't good compared to the Daily Show. Not funny.
- voisin 3y agoIt’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.
- bbatha 3y agoGiven Jon's constant fallback to "I'm just a comedian" when encountering any criticism. Ya it should be funny.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoThat isn't the gotcha that you think it is. 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.
- BurningFrog 3y agoWas that even the intention? It seemed more to be champion leftist causes, using some wit.
- daft_pink 3y agoHonestly, I just loved him on the Daily Show. I watched an episode or two on Apple TV and it was terrible. He's just an amazing comedian, but serious journalist. Not so much.
- Supermancho 3y ago
- cxr 3y agoPreviously: "Jon Stewart's Apple TV show ends; Apple execs resisted coverage of AI and China" (9to5mac.com) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194> Submitted 14 hours ago; 25 comments.
- voisin 3y agoI 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.
- BurningFrog 3y agoThe Daily Show was the best thing on TV 2000-2008. 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.
- asimovfan 3y agoThe colbert report was also freakishly amazing.. now he is not funny..
- daveguy 3y agoJimmy 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.
- krustyburger 3y agoIn another timeline, Conan kept the Tonight Show and is still doing it, instead of all of his podcasting stuff. For me, he’s the funniest one since Letterman and probably actually funnier than Dave was.
- woooooo 3y agoMock conservative is way funnier than pious genuine liberal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ursuscamp 3y agoThe 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.
- fakedang 3y agoYour 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.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] More discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194
- brandonagr2 3y agoHe should put his show on X/Twitter
- afavour 3y agoYeah because Musk definitely doesn’t have any conflict of interest with China…
- diebeforei485 3y agoI haven't seen any censorship of China-related topics on X. There was a lot of fearmongering about it, but I'm curious if you have any examples. Apple, on the other hand, has a long history of kowtowing to China's demands.
- pauldenton 3y agoMusk hasn't pulled any of Tucker Carlsons interviews for being too controversial
- afavour 3y agoWhich of Tucker Carlson's interviews have posed a threat to his businesses?
- nabla9 3y agoRevenue from China: 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.
- xutopia 3y agoI want Stewart to end the show so he can run for president.
- sigzero 3y agoHell to the no.
- SavageHenry 3y agoIt 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. https://youtu.be/VtvjbmoDx-I?si=xe1-1i834RcxZrkn https://youtu.be/VtvjbmoDx-I?si=xe1-1i834RcxZrkn
- red-iron-pine 3y ago> US-headquartered company 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.
- serf 3y ago>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.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThe grateful American patriotic companies don't exist (well, they can exist, just not for very long...survival bias at work).
- zugi 3y agoHave you seen the South Park episode "Band In China"? Or followed the NBA's treatment of a player who simply tweeted once in short of Taiwan? Not much surprises me about China and censorship any more.
- ctvo 3y agoI 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.
- pauldenton 3y agoI can't remember when he entered the George Carlin phase of his career but that's all I can see now
- csours 3y agoI personally did not care for the angry tone. I think he covers a lot of very important topics, but I am perfectly capable of getting angry on my own.
- coding123 3y agoIt seems like everyone is angry lately. We're not hanging out anymore because people have gone nuts. Everyone is scary as hell.
- gspencley 3y agoOnly 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.
- erulabs 3y agoI 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.
- 3y ago
- jmyeet 3y agoI 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.
- pauldenton 3y agoThey 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_kerry_completely_bombs_jon_stewart_cleans_up_the_mess/ 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.
- gnicholas 3y agoMy sense is that the supposed controversy over content is cover for the fact that the show never did well. It just wasn’t funny or particularly entertaining. Comments on China could be controversial, but AI? That doesn’t make sense.
- lancesells 3y agoThe very first sentence says "abruptly coming to an end... the result of creative differences". 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.
- gnicholas 3y agoI think the creative differences stuff may have been ginned up. That is, Jon's people could see that this wasn't going well, but instead of calling it a failure and quitting they instead pushed hard on China stuff in order to trigger Apple's policy. I chalk up any weird timing issues to the recently-ended writer's strike, which would have thrown off calendars for taping etc.
- bdcravens 3y agoThe only thing I've ever watched on Apple TV+ are baseball games (when my team is playing), even though I have a free subscription.
- tomjakubowski 3y agoSeverance is excellent and I recommend it to anyone working a desk job with computers
- Supermancho 3y agoAlso, Silo.
- dr-smooth 3y agoFor All Mankind is superb
- GoofballJones 3y agoWhat a PR disaster this will be for Apple. I can't see how they could possibly spin this or defend it at all. That is, if it's true. It probably is, but I'm always dubious of "a person with knowledge of the meeting said".
- georgeburdell 3y agoI watched one episode at a friend’s house and Jon Stewart has taken a turn toward Andy Rooney. Those looking for him to reprise The Daily Show are understandably disappointed.
- interestica 3y agoA bit meta, but "on Apple" rather than a service or tool by Apple (Apple TV) is interesting.