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 Monday night, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan. “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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
I guess that makes sense, like saying 'I'm doing ten toes' when you're walking, you toe the line means your walking close to the line but not over?
It came from the navy, with everyone standing with their toe to an imaginary line.
Toe the line... Haha.
Can you send a picture of your toe? Please I need it.
Please.
Potatoes are not friends
"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.
PBS exists 😶
**It's not state owned.
Though the people do pay them, so I guess that's the important part.
Also, NPR.
I knew I was forgetting one. But yes, a state ownd independent media would be nice. I'd be grateful just for reinstating the fairness doctrine at this point
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).
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?