Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Jon Stewart Claims Apple Wouldn't Let Him Interview FTC Chair On His Podcast (axios.com) 85

Posted by BeauHD from the called-out dept.
Sara Fischer reports via Axios: Jon Stewart on Monday told Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan that Apple wouldn't let him interview her for a podcast. "I wanted to have you on a podcast and Apple asked us not to do it," "The Daily Show" host said to Khan, in reference to his former podcast that was an extension of his Apple TV+ comedy show "The Problem With Jon Stewart." "They literally said 'please don't talk to her,' having nothing to do with what you do for a living. I think they just... I didn't think they cared for you is what happened," he added during his conversation with Khan. "They wouldn't let us do even that dumb thing we just did in the first act on AI. Like, what is that sensitivity? Why are they so afraid to even have these conversations out in the public sphere?"

Stewart returned to "The Daily Show" in February after leaving in 2015 as its executive producer and host on Monday evenings through the 2024 election cycle. Stewart's Apple TV+ show ended late last year after Stewart and Apple executives parted ways over creative differences, including the comedian's desire to cover topics such as China and AI, the New York Times reported.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jon Stewart Claims Apple Wouldn't Let Him Interview FTC Chair On His Podcast More

Jon Stewart Claims Apple Wouldn't Let Him Interview FTC Chair On His Podcast

Comments Filter:
  • Confused, Did they actually block it or do as they said in the article and ask "please don't talk to her". Not wanting to defend Apple as they are scum, but asking is not a problem, actively blocking is.
    • Apple now owns the rights to the FTC

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by edwdig ( 47888 )

      The pushback from Apple was in the form of "Your show has been cancelled and you are released from your contract."

      • The pushback from Apple was in the form of "Your show has been cancelled and you are released from your contract."

        I think Elon pulled that with someone recently for asking him questions he didn't like.
        Here's saluting for the Free Speech absolutist!

      • No, the show continued after the attempt to interview the FTC chief...

        • That's because no attempt was made. He asked if he could, and they told him no.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )

          There were multiple similar incidents that eventually lead to the cancellation. I don't know which one was the final straw, but the cancellation was because this was a recurring problem.

    • Re:clarification? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @10:04PM (#64365570)

      Confused, Did they actually block it or do as they said in the article and ask "please don't talk to her". Not wanting to defend Apple as they are scum, but asking is not a problem, actively blocking is.

      Is this like the difference when one's boss "asks" versus "insists" or "orders"? When a superior "asks," it's not the same as when a peer "asks."

      • Is this like the difference when one's boss "asks" versus "insists" or "orders"? When a superior "asks," it's not the same as when a peer "asks."

        Yup. One of my grandfathers was a retired Navy Captain. When he politely asked to you to do something, it was pretty clear he wasn't asking.

      • Re:clarification? (Score:4, Funny)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2024 @12:50AM (#64365760)

        Is this like the difference when one's boss "asks" versus "insists" or "orders"? When a superior "asks," it's not the same as when a peer "asks."

        Yeah, or when my wife "asks"...

    • Exactly.

      "They literally said 'please don't talk to her,'..."

      That is about the weakest pushback I can imagine, and Jon Stewart is 'humble bragging' that he caved under such (almost) imperceptible pushback? Wow.

  • She also has some interesting views about the current state of the financial system I guess.

  • Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @08:06PM (#64365352)

    This explains why Apple TV+ original content is all so dull and lifeless...

    • They don't want to anger the companies that handle their supply chain, the global global economy is a race to the bottom and the bottom is way down there when you so business with nations that turn their own citizens into slaves for the industrialized world

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's Apple, famous for its walled garden and family friendly content.

      They have half some decent stuff like For All Mankind, but generally I agree with your assessment. A lot of it is bland and uninteresting. For example, Masters of the Air failed to do anything interesting, and the one line in the entire script that broke out of that got censored.

  • Yaaaaawn. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PubJeezy ( 10299395 )
    This is just an old media broadcasting monopoly attacking a new media tech monopoly.

    In an argument between Warner Media and Apple, consumers don't have a horse. They're both ripping off every single American household they do business with. Jon Stewart has been in the industry for decades and he's complaining about a podcast booker instead of the mass consolidation in broadcasting and entertainment?

    Jon Stewart is corny and his politics has not kept up with the evolving political climate. And...wasn't ap

    • Re:Yaaaaawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @09:18PM (#64365488)

      Jon Stewart is corny and his politics has not kept up with the evolving political climate. And...wasn't apple involved in several court cases against involving Khan's agency? The reasons not to book her were definitely practical and technical, not moral or political and Jon Stewart is smart enough to know that. This is a meaningless, self-serving stance from a lazy pundit. Jon Stewart has worked for the same small group of network executives at Viacom/Comedy Central/Waner for decades, they're his bosses. To describe Apple as his "boss" because of 20 podcast episodes is ridiculous and stretches language to the point of absurdity.

      Yet Viacom wasn't the one telling him to kill segments or not interview certain people.

      People have always been leery of having big corporations run news organizations for very obvious reasons. That's why there's typically a firewall protecting news departments from corporate interference, because the moment its found out the news side loses credibility. No one thinks the firewall is perfect, but for the corporate side it's more of a "break glass instead of emergency" situation as opposed to regularly passing notes under the door.

      Sure, Stewart isn't a pure journalist, but he definitely close enough that the audience expects him to have independence.

      I never heard about Comedy Central telling Jon Stewart was stories he could or couldn't cover, yet in 20 episodes Apple managed to do it twice, and they did it on topics that Apple shouldn't have really cared about.

      Honestly, that's Apple not understanding the role of journalists (even satirical ones) at all. They seemingly viewed Stewart as a typical employee where they could instruct him what projects to pursue.

      But that's not how the news is supposed to work.

      • Re:Yaaaaawn. (Score:5, Informative)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @11:15PM (#64365676)

        I know the South Park guys are given station to basically do whatever they want. I remember watching one of their commentaries where they said to the viacom studio head they were going to draw Mohammed and the response was basically "come on you guys! why do you have to do that?" to which they responded something to the effect of "We're going to give you an episode and you're going to pay us per the contract, whether you air it or not is on you." Apparently the only real pushback they ever get is from their legal team, basically so they don't get sued, though according to them it actually makes their material better. I guess the trapped in the closet episode they asked something like "can we say Tom Cruise is gay?" and the lawyer said no, so later they came back and said "can we say Tom Cruise is in the closet?" and that was also a no. So they said "what if he's in an actual closet?" and that was apparently fine.

        • I know the South Park guys are given station to basically do whatever they want. I remember watching one of their commentaries where they said to the viacom studio head they were going to draw Mohammed and the response was basically "come on you guys! why do you have to do that?" to which they responded something to the effect of "We're going to give you an episode and you're going to pay us per the contract, whether you air it or not is on you." Apparently the only real pushback they ever get is from their legal team, basically so they don't get sued, though according to them it actually makes their material better. I guess the trapped in the closet episode they asked something like "can we say Tom Cruise is gay?" and the lawyer said no, so later they came back and said "can we say Tom Cruise is in the closet?" and that was also a no. So they said "what if he's in an actual closet?" and that was apparently fine.

          I can still hear echoes of "Tom Cruise? Come out of the closet. Oh my gah." Classic episode.

    • Re:Yaaaaawn. (Score:5, Informative)

      by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @09:22PM (#64365502)

      Jon Stewart has been in the industry for decades and he's complaining about a podcast booker instead of the mass consolidation in broadcasting and entertainment?

      Consolidation in entertainment was literally the example Jon Stewart used in the interview as an example of consolidation the FTC should be concerned about.

      Jon Stewart has worked for the same small group of network executives at Viacom/Comedy Central/Waner for decades, they're his bosses. To describe Apple as his "boss" because of 20 podcast episodes is ridiculous and stretches language to the point of absurdity.

      Jon Stewart completely left Viacom/Comedy Central in 2015. He signed a deal with Apple in 2020 to make a show for Apple TV. He produced two seasons. The show was cancelled during production of season 3 because Apple didn't want him tackling serious issues. There were also clashes during the previous seasons. It wasn't any one particular issue that was the problem, it was a repeated pattern of Apple not wanting him to go near subjects they were sensitive about.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jack9 ( 11421 )

      > Jon Stewart is corny and his politics has not kept up with the evolving
      political climate.

      That's a matter of opinion, not fact. I mean, other than daily talk radio,
      how does he not keep up?

      > This is a meaningless, self-serving stance from a lazy pundit.

      This was a highly regarded rumor, before his statements. I'm not sure how
      this is self-serving.

      > Jon Stewart has worked for the same small group of network executives at
      Viacom/Comedy Central/Waner for decades

      What are you implying? He is an adult with

  • Considering all the shoddy products (Score:5, Informative)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Tuesday April 02, 2024 @08:27PM (#64365390)
    That are sold in the USA nowadays I don't think the FTC has been doing their job for over 20 years, Yeah I know caveat emptor but the FTC is supposed to be filtering the products that are dangerous and of inferior quality

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      You can't blame the FTC or even China for that kind of thing. The fact is Americans (all westerners really) say we want quality goods, but in truth we really don't. You may want quality goods, and all your friends and neighbors want quality goods, but it turns out a majority of people would rather pay a lower price for lower quality. It would take a huge FTC to protect us from our own short-sightedness.

      • Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I can confirm that goods made in China for both markets are qualitatively different. For one reason or another, we seem to get better value for money over here in Yurp. I've also seen Chinese goods that Chinese people have bought in China & brought with them over here. They seem to be even better quality still. My guess is that Chinese factories will make goods to whatever specifications you want & some customers insist on better quality than others.

        • Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I can confirm that goods made in China for both markets are qualitatively different. For one reason or another, we seem to get better value for money over here in Yurp. I've also seen Chinese goods that Chinese people have bought in China & brought with them over here. They seem to be even better quality still. My guess is that Chinese factories will make goods to whatever specifications you want & some customers insist on better quality than others.

          It's more like that the quality levels of goods they sell to a market is usually finely tuned to the standards set in that market. The highest quality goods go to markets that enforce high quality standards, this being countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore or and that socialist hell-scape know to people outside the United States as 'Western Europe'. Lower quality goods get dumped in deregulated markets with weak or no real enforcement of quality standards.

          • Could be. I remember a shop in the UK that used to sell processed foods imported from the EU. Sometimes they were the same brand & product as was available in the UK already but there was a noticeable difference in quality, i.e. the EU versions were better. Needless to say, for those who knew about it, it was a very popular shop. So was it different consumer demands, i.e. Brits liked crappier foods, or better QC by authorities? I think it'd be hard to say which.

            On the regulatory side, it's not legal

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I can confirm that goods made in China for both markets are qualitatively different. For one reason or another, we seem to get better value for money over here in Yurp. I've also seen Chinese goods that Chinese people have bought in China & brought with them over here. They seem to be even better quality still. My guess is that Chinese factories will make goods to whatever specifications you want & some customers insist on better quality than others.

          With Europe, they have to conform to stricter European standards or you just cant sell them over here. The chlorinated chicken argument comes up when US food standards are mentioned, it's not that chlorination is unsafe (as Americans will point out), it's that the UK and EU prohibit bacteria levels from reaching the point where a procedure like chlorination is necessary.

          With China, there are a whole bunch of Chinese products the Chinese refuse to touch, western produced milk powder (formula) is hotly dem

      • You're absolutely right that consumers claim to want to buy one product yet tend to purchase another, but attributing it to short sightedness is a stretch. The issue is that people are asked such survey questions when there's no actual cost attached to their decisions. Would you rather drive a BMW or a Tata Motors vehicle? Wouldn't it depend on who is paying for the vehicle?

        I don't like to presume what other people value versus me... it's a bit elitist to make such assumptions. Simply because I value a

    • Yeah I know caveat emptor but the FTC is supposed to be filtering the products that are dangerous and of inferior quality

      Yeah but won't someone thinking of the wallets! Americans worship the discount. You can see that with global stats on products and safety. e.g. notice how in NY there's an epidemic of battery related fires for e-bikes, while in the Netherlands there isn't despite the latter having several orders of magnitude more e-bikes, and both having access to the same shoddy Chinese crap on Amazon?

      You get what you pay for. And we know Americans like to live dangerously so that's what they pay for.

    • That are sold in the USA nowadays I don't think the FTC has been doing their job for over 20 years,
      Yeah I know caveat emptor but the FTC is supposed to be filtering the products that are dangerous and of inferior quality

      They probably should do a better job on filtering dangerous products, but inferior quality should not be something they filter against.

      Product X may be good quality but cost 1000 bucks, product Y may be of inferior quality and cost 100 bucks. What consumers decide to buy should be up to them (budget, etc matters to the individual).

    • If products are defective or misleading, there's an individual civil remedy through the courts. Even those without means can easily find a lawyer who will financially ruin a company for you if they have done something wrong.

      But the bigger tech companies are essentially immune to this sort of litigation because they don't sell products to people. But they do have a massive impact on our lives. That's why the FTC's role is to go after these sorts of actors that only the government can.

  • Then at least let him interview Ajit Pai on how he became the most crooked politician in all of recorded history.
  • Sorry, but she isn't. I watched the interview. She is well spoken and does a good job, but her answers were pretty canned and Jon served her softballs. Yes, she is suing Amazon. Yes she's made a bunch of lawsuits. Jon portrayed her as some crusader defending the rights of the average American from evil corporations. For someone who tries to portray himself as independent and not beholden to being a corporate shill, he served her softballs all night.

    Why didn't he ask her about her poor win record [levelup.com]?

    • For someone who tries to portray himself as independent and not beholden to being a corporate shill, he served her softballs all night.

      What did you mean by this? Are you suggesting that Lina Khan is a corporation? Or that she's acting on behalf of one?

      I haven't watched the interview, so I can't answer your questions, but I've seen him before and this doesn't sound like an adversarial interview. He does those sometimes. Most of the time really. The point is to get some expert or notable figure to come onto the show and explain their subject. That's it. It's not an aggressive style in the way that you're suggesting..

    • Why? Because Jon Stewart is a political hack. Why does Apple not want their employee to interview her? Because they were/are involved in litigation against the other political hack (Khan) and Stewart certainly knew that.

      When you are involved in litigation, the last thing you want to do is create the air of trying to influence the process which media companies certainly have the power to do, had he interviewed her there would have been outrage that Apple gets special treatment which is why there is outrage w

  • The number of Apple taint-lickers in here is appalling.
  • If this is their agenda, I would be especially suspicious of their sudden interest in shows about American political history. No fucking way am I watching "Masters of The Air" unless someone I trust both recommends it, and I'm still not paying money for it. Ditto the movie they're making about Ben Franklin.

  • This is just virtue signalling to show how super independent and trustworthy is our hero Jon. I wouldn't be surprised if "Apple" had never said anything of the sort:

    Stewart staffer to lowly Apple staffer: "How do you think Tim Cook would like it if our hero interviewed Lina Khan?" Apple staffer: "Haha, probably not that much."

    Next day: "News Bulletin: Apple doesn't want Hero Jon to interview Lina-san. Hero Jon holds to his guns and defies overlord Apple."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      STFU. We all know you're a foot soldier for the Trump Crime Family.

      And you do what your boss tells you to, regardless of if they say "please". Just like why you're posting here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close