Apple Censoring Stewart

[steve_bank]

Apple is concened because of its dependence on Chinese manufacturing.

MS long ago caved in to China.

Jon Stewart's show on Apple TV+ is reportedly coming to an end amid disagreements around China and AI

The longtime talk show host and Apple reportedly parted ways over editorial differences on China and AI.

www.businessinsider.com

According to the report, Stewart told his staff that Apple executives were concerned over potential show topics related to China and artificial intelligence; the same concerns also extended to some guests, not named in the Times report, who were expected to appear on the show. One source told the Times that the upcoming 2024 presidential election could have also led to more editorial disagreements.


Apple told Stewart he needed to be "aligned" with the company on the topics he chooses to discuss, but Stewart wanted full creative autonomy over his series, sources told The Hollywood Reporter. In turn, Stewart and Apple reportedly both agreed to go their separate ways.

 

[Rhea]

Since when is it censorship for a for-profit company to expect its divisions and spokespeople to maintain the brand? Stewart wanted “full creative autonomy”.

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

 

[steve_bank]

Censoring because it might offend those sensitive ,warm, and friendly Chinese communists. What was I thinking?

You might say it is China that is censoring Apple for permission to do business in China.

We feed the Chinese beast that is our enemy. The opposite of everything we believe in.

 

[Jarhyn]

Since when is it censorship for a for-profit company to expect its divisions and spokespeople to maintain the brand? Stewart wanted “full creative autonomy”.

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

It's a problem with a platform taking on Stewart knowing who he is (and that he FREQUENTLY is critical of EVERY network he works with) and then taking issue with who he is.

Its not exactly "censorship" but "censorship" does capture most of the ethical qualia that this sort of act provokes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apple isn't a news company. So I wouldn't consider it "censorship". I wouldn't consider it highly ethical either. I doubt Stewart was planning to lie about China and AI.

 

[TomC]

Since when is it censorship for a for-profit company to expect its divisions and spokespeople to maintain the brand? Stewart wanted “full creative autonomy”.

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

I'm with Rhea here.
Apple didn't censor Stewart. They made a business decision based on their bottom line.
China censored Stewart. But that's hardly new or different behavior from that government. It's not unique to them either, the planet is littered with authoritarian governments quite willing to squelch political dissent.
Tom

 

[bilby]

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

Apple isn't even the kind of entity that can engage in censorship.

 

[bilby]

Apple isn't a news company.

Yes, it is.

It's not only a news company; But it's definitely a news company.

News companies don't censor things; They make editorial decisions about what to publish and who to employ as reporters.

Governments censor things. News companies only censor things if they have an official monopoly - in which case, they're not really companies anymore, but rather a branch of government.

 

[TomC]

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

Apple isn't even the kind of entity that can engage in censorship.

Unfortunately, censorship is one of many words whose meaning has been diluted into near meaninglessness.

Censorship, IMHO, is preventing or punishing speech. Not providing a platform is quite different.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

Apple isn't even the kind of entity that can engage in censorship.

Unfortunately, censorship is one of many words whose meaning has been diluted into near meaninglessness.

Censorship, IMHO, is preventing or punishing speech. Not providing a platform is quite different.
Tom

Apple is being censored by China. China has told Apple "do not say things that will make China unhappy".

Apple has enforced China's censorship of Stewart. Stewart was prevented from saying things by China, and Apple was complicit in this act of censorship, though also in their own way are a victim of it as well.

Apple did not censor though. It is ethically just as suspect what they did do, in preventing political speech on a political show meant to transmit an authentic, serious, and independent voice about a wide range of political issues did attempt to leverage dishonesty out of Stewart. That is every bit of a reason for Stewart to walk in that hee did not want to be complicit in the use of "Jon Stewart" to peddle a lie of omission of examination.

China were the actual censors here.

It also bears consideration who "China" is in this discussion. It is unclear which Chinese interests approached apple, or which by reputation didn't need to, who intimidated merely through their existence the need to enforce their censorship of Stewart. Ultimately it does not matter whether it was the government or some Chinese oligarch, or Winnie the Pooh himself that drove this outcome, though considering.

 

[Gospel]

So, if I understand correctly: Geoffrey teases Bobby, then Bobby tells Skippy, "Hey Skippy, you need to do something about Geoffrey over there". Geoffrey goes missing. Skippy had nothing to do with it?

 

[TV and credit cards]

So, if I understand correctly: Geoffrey teases Bobby, then Bobby tells Skippy, "Hey Skippy, you need to do something about Geoffrey over there". Geoffrey goes missing. Skippy had nothing to do with it?

These aren't three people though. One's a company looking out for its shareholders and possibly its employees jobs. Another's an authoritarian government who can wake up tomorrow and wipe out 16% of its market and while Apple has a diversified supply chain and assembly, Xi Jinping could probably still gum up the works quite well for Apple.

Geoffrey had to go and there's nothing we could do about it.

 

[Patooka]

Governments dictating what types of literature is appropriate is censorship.

A business saying, "this course of action doesn't look profitable so we're not doing it" isn't.

Also, this thread is failing to point out Stewart wanted to criticise AI in an episode as well. Which is something Apple doesn't want. Finally, the idea that Jon fucking Stewart has been "censured by Apple" is fucking laughable. This is Bill Maher-esque "Wah! I'm a victim! Cancel culture" bullshit and you know who agrees with me? Jon fucking Stewart because he talked about this 2 fucking years ago.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find people apologizing for what Apple did here, even if it was not "censorship" to be unethical.

We all know Jon Stewart does not pull punches, mince words, or look pointedly away from anything really; you can expect Jon Stewart to call out the people that need calling out and to do so in a fair and balanced way.

That is who Jon Stewart is and what his image represents.

Apple asked Jon Stewart to have a show on their platform. Then they tried to bait-and-switch this image of balanced honesty with one of omissive lies about China and AI issues. It is a deeply unethical act to try to manipulate public opinion with a reputation like that, an even deeper and uglier sort of lie than if even Trump were to say it; it's a lie with a hope of actually being believed if Jon Stewart is the one [not] saying it.

I'm Pro-AI-Symbiosis and even Pro-AI-Rights. I don't know if Stewart would agree with my positions but I honestly would like to know and would like more discussion about it in media by people so interested in a fair treatment of issues.

Whatever it is you want to call it, what Apple did is shit, even if it is according to their "business interests" because their conduct involves an attempt to manipulate the public. I will absolutely hold Apple accountable for that, for the same reason I hold an individual human liar accountable when they tell a lie to avoid due consequences for, say, stealing or hitting or lying for personal gain. The fact that it was done in their personal interest does not make it any better, it makes it worse.

Apple here has hired someone known for being complete and completely biased towards the evidence of reality, and then tried use that knowledge to manipulate people into believing untrue things.

I don't think we should just blithely forget their attempt to corrupt a public resource and erode the public trust, of which Jon Stewart's reputation is a part. They might as well have just tried to bribe a judge in my mind.

 

[Jarhyn]

TLDR the above post: Apple has done something shameful no matter what it is to be called, in attempting to control Jon Stewart in this way. We now ought do the ritual shaming, lest they too easily forget their shamefulness and prematurely forgive themselves.

How to deliver this shaming is complicated, and the easiest way would be to platform Jon as we may for the sake of letting him speak exactly the words Apple and anyone else might oppose, and to do so with such classic bias towards reality.

If those words are controversial, particularly his words, I would expect to examine this controversy in discussion rather than not have them, because I personally value Jon Stewart's opinions in the mix even when they are wrong; Stewart has had both a platform and made good use of it and earned my respect.

 

[BH]

When I was in the Church of Christ no one expected to see an article written by a Baptist preacher in a Church of Christ religious magazine teaching a doctrinal stance different than the Church of Christ. It's understood that Church of Christ magazines teach only Church of Christ doctrine not Baptist. They aren't censuring the Baptist preacher---he can go teach his doctrine somewhere in another medium. The Church of Christ magazine is not unethical because it's honest in saying only Church of Christ shit er I mean doctrine will be taught here. Now, they would be unethical if they portrayed themselves as open minded and welcomed all opinions to write in their magazine and then would not print a Baptist preachers paper because he is Baptist.

I feel that is what Apple has done. It has portrayed itself as being something is had no intention of being or doing.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'll bet in Jon Stewart's contract there was a clause stating Apple had final say over what got aired. I'm thinking JS went into this with eyes wide open. Another key point is if Apple plans to have any similar shows. It could be that they have decided to distance themselves from any controversial platforms and stick with sports and entertainment. Contractually this could have been an out for either party.

 

[Jarhyn]

When I was in the Church of Christ no one expected to see an article written by a Baptist preacher in a Church of Christ religious magazine teaching a doctrinal stance different than the Church of Christ. It's understood that Church of Christ magazines teach only Church of Christ doctrine not Baptist. They aren't censuring the Baptist preacher---he can go teach his doctrine somewhere in another medium. The Church of Christ magazine is not unethical because it's honest in saying only Church of Christ shit er I mean doctrine will be taught here. Now, they would be unethical if they portrayed themselves as open minded and welcomed all opinions to write in their magazine and then would not print a Baptist preachers paper because he is Baptist.

I feel that is what Apple has done. It has portrayed itself as being something is had no intention of being or doing.

You miss something in this: it would be like the Church of Christ interviewing someone famous for their impartiality and then editing the interview to exclude the impartiality.

They could have hired anyone off the street to do that show and speak the words Apple wanted. They chose Stewart, the one who has a reputation that deserves and demands consideration.

It would be like the CoC publishing an article titled "an unbiased exploration on eclectic christian beliefs" and then featured only CoC doctrines and nothing about those other beliefs, or only a cursory and biased exploration and later used that title as evidence that they have an unbiased publication.

I don't think you realize quite how much Stewart's reputation speaks as to the newsworthiness of his subject matter, or the relative lack of newsworthiness evidenced by his lack of coverage.

It is an especially unconscionable form of manipulation to manipulate such a mouthpiece even out of organizational self-interest.

 

[jab]

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

Apple isn't even the kind of entity that can engage in censorship.

Unfortunately, censorship is one of many words whose meaning has been diluted into near meaninglessness.

Censorship, IMHO, is preventing or punishing speech. Not providing a platform is quite different.
Tom

Apple is being censored by China. China has told Apple "do not say things that will make China unhappy".

Apple has enforced China's censorship of Stewart. Stewart was prevented from saying things by China, and Apple was complicit in this act of censorship, though also in their own way are a victim of it as well.

Apple did not censor though. It is ethically just as suspect what they did do, in preventing political speech on a political show meant to transmit an authentic, serious, and independent voice about a wide range of political issues did attempt to leverage dishonesty out of Stewart. That is every bit of a reason for Stewart to walk in that hee did not want to be complicit in the use of "Jon Stewart" to peddle a lie of omission of examination.

China were the actual censors here.

It also bears consideration who "China" is in this discussion. It is unclear which Chinese interests approached apple, or which by reputation didn't need to, who intimidated merely through their existence the need to enforce their censorship of Stewart. Ultimately it does not matter whether it was the government or some Chinese oligarch, or Winnie the Pooh himself that drove this outcome, though considering.

So the linguistically more accurate statement is that Apple implemented the censorship of Stewart as per the direct or indirect direction of the govenment of China. One could extrapolate from this an accurate insight that Apple was involved in the censorship of Stewart.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don’t agree with Apple here, but is it “censorship”?

Apple isn't even the kind of entity that can engage in censorship.

Unfortunately, censorship is one of many words whose meaning has been diluted into near meaninglessness.

Censorship, IMHO, is preventing or punishing speech. Not providing a platform is quite different.
Tom

Apple is being censored by China. China has told Apple "do not say things that will make China unhappy".

Apple has enforced China's censorship of Stewart. Stewart was prevented from saying things by China, and Apple was complicit in this act of censorship, though also in their own way are a victim of it as well.

Apple did not censor though. It is ethically just as suspect what they did do, in preventing political speech on a political show meant to transmit an authentic, serious, and independent voice about a wide range of political issues did attempt to leverage dishonesty out of Stewart. That is every bit of a reason for Stewart to walk in that hee did not want to be complicit in the use of "Jon Stewart" to peddle a lie of omission of examination.

China were the actual censors here.

It also bears consideration who "China" is in this discussion. It is unclear which Chinese interests approached apple, or which by reputation didn't need to, who intimidated merely through their existence the need to enforce their censorship of Stewart. Ultimately it does not matter whether it was the government or some Chinese oligarch, or Winnie the Pooh himself that drove this outcome, though considering.

So the linguistically more accurate statement is that Apple implemented the censorship of Stewart as per the direct or indirect direction of the govenment of China. One could extrapolate from this an accurate insight that Apple was involved in the censorship of Stewart.

Yes. All of these things are correct. A more apt headline is "Apple Helps China Censor Stewart"