
Jon Stewart Talks SOPA, at Last - FluidDjango
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2012/01/12/reddit-user-ventures-to-the-daily-show-gets-jon-stewart-to-talk-sopa-on-air/
======
newhouseb
It's good to note, before anyone jumps to any conspiracy theories about Viacom
silencing Jon Stewart, that Stephen Colbert has talked about SOPA on multiple
occasions (see [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act) and
[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg---
jonathan-zittrain)). I don't know the editorial overlap between the two these
days but they are certainly under the same corporate roof - Viacom.

~~~
ja2ke
I read somewhere that the writers rooms of Daily Show and Colbert rarely
cross, at least day to day. I believe they deliberately keep them separate to
keep them tonally unique, even though it sometimes results in both shows
covering the same topic, and even occasionally making the same joke.

(Sorry for no source on that.)

~~~
irondavycole
I did some UX consulting for The Colbert Report that required me to research
their entire writing and production workflow and my understanding is that the
executive producers of the shows might check in with each other, but it's true
that there's essentially no overlap, and there's no effort to coordinate
topics.

------
Terretta
If even Jon Stewart's team hadn't picked up on SOPA, that goes a long way to
suggest why a Wikipedia/Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc blackout would be useful.
If they're not up to date, how could we expect any non industry insiders to
be?

A brief blackout is like tapping the media on the shoulder.

"We'll be all, like, SOPA what? ... uh ... I have some reading to catch up
on."

Nobody thinks about dial tone until it's not there.

~~~
chernevik
If you think Mr. Stewart is simply behind in his reading, I have a nice bridge
for you.

He's in entertainment, he comments endlessly about policy. You think he
somehow missed the #1 policy initiative of his employer?

He is very well paid, with a large budget that employs a lot of people. But I
don't think his show breaks even on its revenues, it is a tent-pole for his
channel. He's paid not for his own audience but the larger strategic benefit
he brings to his employer. So think on what might happen if he starts to pose
still larger strategic problems for that employer? And what happens to Mr.
Stewart should he want to move on from his current perch? [EDIT: As suggested
below, the 'strategic benefit' payment is speculation. Probably a mistake to
go there, b/c I think my point still stands: if he hurts a major legislative
initiative of his industry, his life gets a lot harder and riskier.]

And while he himself seems reasonably secure, he has a staff of writers and
producers, many of whom would like to move on to bigger and better things. Who
will be greenlighting those various ventures?

Remember, Hollywood blacklisted people for (alleged) Communism. Those people
lost their whole careers. Imagine what might happen to those who challenge the
studios' interests still more directly.

I'd say this is the perfect moment for Mr. Stewart's reputed bravery,
independence and courage.

~~~
redthrowaway
Can we get a source on TDS not making money? It's one of the most popular
shows on Comedy Central, syndicated in many countries. If _it_ doesn't make
money, it's hard to see how Comedy Central stays afloat.

~~~
chernevik
No source, I seem to recall reading his salary is pretty high given his
ratings, but I couldn't point to it.

I don't it's speculative to say networks will lose money on some product to
build audience. Stuff like the NFL, Letterman?, that sort of thing.

Even if he's making them money directly, he's not untouchable if he gets
blamed for hurting a major political priority.

They probably wouldn't be so clumsy as to just fire him -- but his next
negotiation could get a lot harder, and he'd be a lot more exposed to
"business decisions" should his ratings stumble. And his people could find it
a lot hard to move on and up with other projects.

~~~
its_so_on
can I get a disclosure from you about anything that would impede your
neutrality (either way) like employers, business partnerships etc on the
subject of SOPA

that last part just sounds like a threat from the other side, you know?

~~~
chernevik
Wow, hadn't thought of that.

Zero industry connection, nada. Formerly in finance (not covering media), now
freelance and building my own business.

Anyone peronally worried about my post can find my email in profile -- send me
a phone number, I'll call you.

EDIT: Wasn't me. Downvotes never make sense to me. Downvote me for _admitting_
I said something speculative? With all the crazy guesses posited as Gospel
truth here?

~~~
its_so_on
thank you, didnt expect this to get mod-worthy. I was just curious. I wasn't
"worried" or anything, the part about 'anyone who wanted to move up...' just
seemed out of place to me, like you never hear that about other 'support'
jobs. Basically I wanted to know if you were even more cynical than me or an
insider -- I guess the former! thanks for the detailed response.

------
danilocampos
We're in desperate need of a Ted Stevens moment, here.

There has been absolutely no art to show the absurdity of the pro-SOPA
position. Without a visual, Stewart has very little to work with.

It's not hard – you've got dinosaurs born decades before the internet was
conceived trying to make critical policy decisions around it. There's got to
be something brief and absurd to be said there.

But until we get that soundbite, it's going to be a much more difficult story
to pitch.

~~~
jerfelix
>> you've got dinosaurs born decades before the internet was conceived trying
to make critical policy decisions around it.

But weren't the people who conceived the internet born decades before the
internet was conceived?

As someone born before the internet was conceived, I find that comment
particularly offensive.

Edit: Now get off my lawn!

~~~
praptak
I believe that jab was aimed at organizations with no ability to adapt, not at
people.

~~~
lukesd
But... corporations are people.

------
blutonium
"The Internet" was basically Reddit and a guy who asked if he should ask
Stewart about SOPA.

This is the follow up thread:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/od6qy/i_asked_jon_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/od6qy/i_asked_jon_stewart_about_sopa_he_said_hed_look/)

Edit: Original thread -
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ocely/i_have_vip_p...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ocely/i_have_vip_passes_to_the_daily_show_tonight_what/)

~~~
blahedo
Sure, but "the Internet sent me" was a brilliantly concise way to give context
to the question (and be funny, and memorable). These Q&A sessions are fast-
moving and questions with long rambling introductions are not good ones.
"There's a site on the internet called Reddit, which is an aggregator of links
with a large community, and I posted there to see..." No.

------
ahoysailors
Here is a link to the video for Canadians:
[http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPacka...](http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=101367)

------
fredley
Is there a way us non-Americans to watch this?

~~~
stephank
Curiously, the clip plays for me in the Netherlands. But there was little on
SOPA in it.

~~~
nextparadigms
Yes, the title is a bit misleading. He only said he would talk about it in the
next show.

------
gerggerg
Mmmmm... The funny to flack offset probably isn't worth it to Stewart and
Colbert. They're not news shows and there's not much comedy to draw from the
SOPA proceedings. Especially with Ameraca's favorite reality show cramming up
the broadcast space.

~~~
mkr-hn
Their interviews are the real deal. Getting a famous Internet person on to
talk about SOPA wouldn't be an unusual thing for either of them.

~~~
stfu
"Famous Internet Person": I don't know. I would much more prefer some artist,
director, politician and not another "internet activist".

~~~
freehunter
Niel DeGrasse Tyson? I don't know his position on SOPA, but I'd imagine he's
against it. John Hodgman? He's a writer for Wired, been on Diggnation, Attack
of the Show, and TED, and works with Jonathon Coulton. He's got a ton of 'net-
cred and is frequently on TDS.

~~~
stfu
I would much more prefer seeing one of the household names in the "old" media
see speak out - some of the more expected opponents like Al Gore, Mc Hammer or
Aston Kutcher would give the issue a better face and show that the opponents
are not just some people from the internet who want to "to kill our beloved
music and movie culture".

------
benawabe896
I don't want to play down the clip as it was humorous, but the actual sopa
content was from :17 - :35. Out of a 6 minute clip, I was thinking that there
would be more.

------
swombat
"This content is unavailable from your location"

Oh, sweet irony...

------
networkjesus
Stop posting comments where they will never see them, go and post this on
their facebook pages, do it en masse and they will not be able to ignore it...

~~~
sili
I am surprised this has not been done by anti-SOPA activists. This would be
using the tools Internet has created to save it shows well it's reach. This I
think is the easiest way an individual can get attention of the regular
public, after he is done talking to his friends.

------
drivebyacct2
Not sure I understand the headline chosen for the HN submission. "at last"?
Jon Stewart is a comedian, it's a disappointing reflection of news, media, and
political informedness that we're desperate for Stewart to cover an important
political issue.

~~~
pyre
I think that people are looking for someone to put a good, satirical spin on
the whole pro-SOPA movement. The Daily Show is good at that. Most political
writers not so much.

If The Daily Show can use humor to point out the absurdity of the pro-SOPA
position it will definitely sink in with their viewership.

------
crikli
It would surprising if Viacom allowed anyone in their empire, even a fake news
program, to engage in commentary that is critical of SOPA/PIPA.

They're one of the largest proponents of this bullshit legislation: they
couldn't win at the judicial level so they've shifted the attack to the
legislative branch where they can buy the support.

~~~
ktsmith
The colbert report has done two segments on SOPA.

This one calls out the bogus FBI theft numbers.
[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act)

This one has Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain giving their viewpoints on the
legislation. [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-
videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg---
jonathan-zittrain)

~~~
crikli
Thank you; I stand corrected.

------
grandalf
It's telling that someone like Stewart (and Al Gore for that matter) waited
this long to speak up (after SOPA is already dead). Scary.

~~~
bad_user
How is SOPA dead? Am I missing anything?

