It's just crazy to think that what Jon is doing is more traditional journalism, than the news now is. Nothing like it used to be. Journalists used to be almost like private investigators except giving what they find to just one person, they published it in the paper and reported on it on the news.
And then John and Jane Q. Public decided that their goldfish level attention span was a feature that had to be catered to as opposed to a character flaw that had to be overcome
The are moments where we see the birth of what we have now. When the OJ trial went on, everybody knows it was all over the news. Video from in front of houses. Helicopters overhead. Obviously it was the "big story" at that time. What people don't generally know is that a lot of news organizations literally blew most of their budgets covering that *one* story. My brother was a sound man for hire and for that entire year, business was down. They didn't hire him for as many gigs nor fly him out to places where the stories were happening. News organizations literally had to cover less interesting stories more locally because they couldn't afford to send crews out or to do research and vetting of stories. The sad part about it all is that for all the attention on the OJ stories, they didn't get *any* more depth or more facts. They just felt they had to cover the story as much as everyone else (kids running to the ball). Fact is, at the time, a lot of people didn't really give a sh!t about that story. Not really. These days they don't do nearly enough research, validation, verification, etc. They have to get to that ball *now* just a few minutes before everyone else, if they can. I had hopes for a few shows that supposedly would take the 60 minutes approach with more investigation, less hype, but after a little while I noticed their stories got more and more skewed and there sources were sometimes flat out wrong or fringe but it fed a certain segment of viewer's opinions. The good writers and "investigators" are out there. I think there's a decently sized audience for them too. There are serious issues with producers and middle-management and understanding why *they* choose or are pushed to what we have would be very interesting to learn. Actually.. if you want to get more of that traditional journalism, check out some podcasts. NPR has some good ones. Science VS has been talking about this stuff recently. Intercept is deeply researched. Some of them work in small teams with quality researchers and verify sources etc and the content is typically close to what we used to have. Way better reporting than the "news alert" shots in the dark or opinion-as-news we get on the major cable channels pretty much 24/7.
Misrepresenting the news is not solely about reporting it inaccurately. That’s the easiest to spot. It’s about the news manipulating what stories they tell you about and what stories they DONT tell you about
Yes. In my youth I lived for a few years in a country where the President was regarded by other countries as a dictator. The media self censored. Even the state radio and TV didn't lie, they just knew what to report and what not to report. And so it is today with our "free" media. For example we all know about the corruption and suppression of opposition opinion in Russia. We get no coverage of the corruption and suppression of opposition opinion in Ukraine because we need a "villain" and a "hero".
I would argue that that's also easy to spot. News services can be silent about a war or an insurrection, but people will notice anyway. The real danger is in bending reality and shaping the facts to suit a narrative. That is why most Americans believe that murdering millions in the Middle East is perfectly okay, but when Putin lashes out, we start caring about human rights and suffering. It's why we see every single bomb dropped on the Ukraine analyzed on tv, but when an entire schoolbus full of children gets blown up by our side, the ones reporting on that get smeared by the media as enemies of the nation, and have to flee and hide for decades in other countries. It's why an illegal war could be started in Iraq with lies about weapons of mass destruction, and why nobody, not even a war criminal president, is held accountable for that. And the list goes on and on, being added to on a daily basis. - I would have liked to see John be more direct with examples like these. The list is endless, so why not pick a few of the most noticeable ones. Bending reality by the media is why America functions abnormal compared to the rest of the world, it's why you still have ancient gun laws causing mass shootings, no decent healthcare, no pandemic relief, no decent infrastructure, religious extremism, anti-abortion laws, "anti-voting" laws, a racist police force, legalized political bribery, legalized election meddling, trillions of your taxes pumped to the rich, trillions of your taxes pumped in to wars, hundreds of thousands of new homeless people in the richest country in the world. Even large sections of the Left believe these things to be normal, because they too have been influenced by American propaganda for all of their lives. Bending reality to suit a narrative and lying by omission, THAT is the real danger of our main stream media, and any media in general. And that's why the left started their own independent news sources presenting *all* of the facts *and* the history attached to them, even if they're inconvenient or painful. The right-wing on the other hand, let themselves be paid to tell the narrative that their donors want to hear, while trying to cancel anything that hurts their fee-fee's, from books to sneakers to athletes to women's rights, while crying that the left always tries to cancel things.
Very true. Al Jazeera doing "quality journalism" against every other country except Qatar. Or Ameican or Russian TV praising only their way of thinking.
This is why Jon Stewart’s work is so important. He is sitting across from, arguably, the most powerful man in media in the world and he is not shying away from the tough questions nor is he holding back his beliefs about the dangers and inadequacies of television news. Most people would be terrified to sit across from Bob Iger, nonetheless hold his feet to the fire on camera. I’d like to see Jon do an updated story on the new documentary “The American Dream and Other Fairy Tales.”
@@noleftturnunstoned Well, at this point, Bob Iger is more powerful than Rupert because Rupert had to sell his most valuable media assets to Bob Iger (20th Century Fox, Hulu, etc) and they’ve all been swallowed up by Disney. All Rupert has left are his newspapers and Fox News, which is on life support as we speak.
@@noleftturnunstonedimagine thinking he's the only issue with media. Ignoring all the rest that flood the air waves with left wing neoliberalism. But i guess its ok if its on your side, even if it is just as or even more divisive.
@internethardcase neoliberalism is center right. Traditional liberalism is liberal in that it believes in free trade, deregulation, and trade liberalization.
And that, literally, if they did that sort of news with a picture-in-a-picture of silly cat videos running inside it along side that news, it would improve those ratings dramatically. I say that as someone that occasionally just has to go find animal videos to cheer myself up :P
Yes. I heard that loud and clear. This guy, and I'm sure he's not alone, is so wrapped up in his bubble that he isn't even cognizent of what news is meant to be. These are public airwaves they have been given the rights to. I believe it used to be that news was not meant to be a money maker. It was just the news. Reporting what happens or is happening period. They still controlled the narrative ie. what wasn't said etc. But people were pretty much allowed to digest that information amd form their own opinions.
@@debraperez7171 We have an idealized view of history - that is just human nature. The paper/news/press was never as free as we think. The news divisions during different periods of history were loss leaders letting the reader save face. Every survey has people reporting that they read the newspaper front page first, and the local news second. When they watch someone read the paper they read the biggest headline on the front page - but usually no deeper in the story, then readers go to the sports, comics or obits next.
I work in medicine and feel the same way about standing up for an ethical, responsible approach to healthcare. Pipe dream to practice with integrity and actually maintain credibility in the medical community
People like Bob Iger believe that information needs to be controlled by a handful of organizations. For the failure of this model, one only needs to look at the US in the 2000s and Russia right now. Did the (often mis)information they provided enable to the public to make informed decisions? No. It caused them to senselessly send young men into bloodbaths while dissenting voices were silenced. WMDs in Iraq? That was a transparent lie.
I gotta say, I really enjoyed the back and forth, conversational tone of this video, with each man asking/answering questions, seeking clarification when needed, to better present their position, and move the dialogue along. Instead of the typical interviewer/interviewee format we've become accustomed to. While I don't think it was necessarily planned to be that way, for me at least, I found it to be far more compelling... almost like overhearing a discussion between two intelligent people. I realize that it wouldn't be appropriate in all circumstances, but it was a welcome deviation from what we're normally feed, and one I genuinely hope we see again, some time in the near future.
nah, this is classic Stewart spinning his web to set him up, that's the beauty of his schtick, it's got layers, if this was a chess match, he's six moves ahead painting his quarry into a logical corner, he knows this guy is full of shit, (8:07)just speaking in generalities without mentioning any specifics, as soon as he started doing that, Jon gave that little smirk as I've seen him countless times before like he's thinking "oh is this how we're doing this"? and then he just slowly moves in
@@dbunik44 But it's not as widely available in other media arenas as it once was (ie 60 minutes), so the o.p. is correct in that it is refreshing these days.
I agree. I think that sentiment is at the heart of the endpoint of the conversation. Bob Iger was stating that he's pessimistic about the marketability of non-sensationalist news, but Jon Stewart's success with his new show, and 61 likes of your comment at time of writing disagree. I think after decades of the sugar rush of the 24-hour hyperbolic news cycle, people are craving a calmer rational style reporting. Or maybe I'm the optimistic one.
This conversation between two highly intelligent people and you see their opinions change on the fly after thoughtful conversations is great. Huge respect for Bob Iger for having this great conversation. I wish we had more people like this
Bob Iger and Jon Stewart have flaws, but they are willing to bounce off of each other in such a way that they polish each other's flaws, rather than exacerbating them. Great discussion!👍
They key disconnect here is that news is supposed to be informative not interesting or entertaining. The problem, once again, has come down to profitability. News is a service to society, maximum profit should not be the motivation for that industry. Do they need to be profitable to stay in business, yes, but could they forgo profit optimization and focus on being genuinely informative.
This is the difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism rests on the idea that people should work together for the greater good, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Human nature is motivated by self determination. You have to work with that and create a solution that harnesses the so called "selfish" nature. Trying to force a round peg into a square hole is a fools errand.
Honestly, if they truly need to chase ratings, they should probably just make the news an entirely informative, truthful endeavour, but have a video overlay in the corner that just shows gyrating & scantily-clad, beautiful people. This should be able to be turned off by people that aren't interested, but for the morons that need entertainment & titillation in every waking aspect of their life, they can leave it on, and maybe we'll luck out and they'll learn something in the background via osmosis.
The alternative to a profit-based news business is a government one. Which is more trustworthy? Iger said that a proper news agency is not financially viable. Where's the middle ground?
The major TV networks used to view news as a public service and they didn't particularly try to make it profitable, they used the success and the revenues of their network TV shows to subsidize news coverage and broadcasts. Nowadays if you watch a 1/2 hour of nightly news you get more TV commercials then you do news, and a significant portion of the so-called "news" is taken up with "human interest" stories.
Oddly enough, this show makes me sleep easier at night. I honestly thought in 2022 we weren’t capable of having these types of discussions anymore. Jon’s ability to get these people to actually engage with him on issues gives me hope that change can still happen.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
We shouldn't thank our lucky stars that one human is able to get incredibly powerful people to sit there and defend their choices against very well-reasoned concerns. This is how our fourth estate should work!!
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I can't believe how you can't seem to miss a shot, Jon! And only you to in the heat of the moment keep your cool and think of the right thing to say. I was vibrating when you brought up the Afghanistan example.
He got one of the biggest news guys to admit that it's not financially viable to run a proper news agency that's responsible to the public... that in itself is brilliant.
I feel like this is the most important question of our generation. If we can't figure out how to inform ourselves in a balanced and unbiased way, how can we possibly make the right choices about anything?
The fact that disinformation channels can exist is what screw the entire plan. Even if you truly have the best media on all other channels, Fox & right-wing media will continue to poison the discourse by telling susceptible people what they want to hear, and amplifying their fears to keep them watching. It's a nightmare situation because none of us want to set a precedent that government be allowed to shut down media, as it violates the 1st Amendment, nor do we want the government acting as the arbiter of what's true or not. But to allow the sheer density of lies onto our airwaves results in someone like Trump getting elected President, who then proceeds to tell literally thousands of lies when in office (30,573 of them, per the WaPo fact-checkers), with almost no impact on his supporters' opinion of him. How do we make truth matter?
Another problem is we don't want unbias. Facebook already figured out we don't care what the truth is, we want what we already believe to be reinforced. That might be from the conditioning we have been going through without real news.
@@apexnext I agree completely. This biased news only works because a large percentage of the population wants their viewpoint validated more than they want the truth. I'm constantly having to ask myself 'is this what I want to believe or is this true' and many people don't bother...I don't know how we fix that problem.
@@overseastom I do think regulation should be put in place to stop actual lies. Editorialization and opinion can not be stopped as that would be a breach of rights but presenting lies as factual information shouldn't be. There are such regulations in many countries and there used to be in the US too.
It's impressive how John's able to bring a conversation to the crux of an issue in a way that even someone with strongly opposing view points will seriously consider and respond to with a great deal of respect. It also doesn't hurt that he is hilarious, thoughtful, and considerate. I think a lot of folks (including myself) could learn by watching how John Stewart brings forth constructive conversation about topics that could otherwise be a dumpster fire if discussed in bad faith, moral superiority, or with opposition as a focus. Imagine if all of our extended family Thanksgiving conversations played out like the conversation in this video. Better yet, imagine comment sections filled with Republicans and Democrats debating as constructively as this. News media that gauged it's success on how accurate and informative it is, and politicians who respect each other enough to truly try to understand the opposing perspective and compromise with public interest as the only priority. That dream might be a long way off, but every movement of progress has to start somewhere. We can all start by simply recognizing how inspiring John Stewart is in this regard.
Absolutely the fight cannot be won when considered a fight no matter how much you feel someones opinion is bonkers or evil or just false if your goal is to be listened to or change anyones mind you must (as hard as it can be) to come from a place of respect.
This is how most people talk and discuss. Politicians and talking heads perform for the camera and skews reality. It's a shame that this feels novel...
@t j disagree look im a middle of the road liberal. I live on cape cod ma. Its hard to have a rational convo with the far right even when they are friends. If we are going to unite as a nation (as much as we ever have been when not in a war) is to have rational discussion so we can find middle ground.
You already highlighted the problem with the American political system, that it is only a conversation between two parties, Democrats and Republicans. The lobbyists and oligarch class of the USA ie the real people who own the politicians who run the show absolutely love the two party system because it's so easy to divide everything into a simple Team Red vs. Team Blue conflict. It's all very deeply undemocratic.
When you ask the guy who has been responsible for news for 35 years about extreme bias in the news , he is going to get defensive. This didn’t disappoint
Yet Iger didn't realize that he contradicted himself: he said news agencies aren't biased toward engagement, but that one that doesn't isn't financially viable.
@@watamatafoyu NO - he said that he doesn't believe it would truly be helpful to society. He is a kind and caring person who doesn't only think in $$$$. /S Forreal though, that line was the biggest lie in this whole thing. He even had to backpedal after he first said it wouldn't be financially viable! haha
@@bradley2349 That's even worse 😆 Responsible journalism not healthy?! So irresponsible journalism like Jon complains about is healthy? OK! Carry on, status quo.
I could watch interviews like this all day long. This is how news should be discussed, and decisions about it made. Not with money and viewers being the only determining factor.
@@soroosha Exactly, but it's that pursuit of the sensational that creates the issue with news coverage in general. Since the revenue stream is defined by ads, and ads pay based on traffic, it incentivises the same behavior that propegates on UA-cam with the sensational and sometimes misleading video titles, and the building of hype around sometime innocuous things.
@@CrypticFoxGaming yeah. I’m not even sure how real neutral news can ever compete with emotional “news” in terms of engagement. But it would be beneficial to differentiate them at least. It’s very misleading that these entertainment companies are calling it “news”.
this really is a great interview. you can tell that they start off at sort of opposite ends, with Iger being somewhat defensive, and Jon being aggressive, but eventually they reach this sort of middle point and connection with each other. they both know what the problem is, there's just a genuine question as to how to resolve it, or if it can even be resolved.
And there's two keys to a conversation like this, that we all need to take a lesson from: The person on the defensive needs to stay calm and sure of their position, while open to hearing the aggressive person (most of us tend to lock up in our defense and then go on offense and cause conflict), and the aggressive person needs to, as Jon does, pick at the defense without resorting to name calling, poor logical fallacies, and on top of that, when they see the person has budged a little toward the middle, they let off the gas to allow for the person across the table to continue to move toward the middle as if it's their own idea. Bravo to Jon and Bob in this one.
The resolution is happening as we speak, but I don't think they know exactly what it is. It's actually happening on a much smaller, localized scale on global platforms (i.e. Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, UA-cam) - you get your news independently to whomever you subscribe to. While Iger finds that to not be practical because it can be misinformation, Jon is seeing the optimism - most people go to get free information from independent news sources who can still make profit the same way news organizations do. It's actually putting news in competition - what it means to be a journalist these days and disruption of monopolies - because optimistically, stories that the news doesn't cover someone else will.
Bob Iger deserves a lot of respect for doing this interview. I don't really agree with his views, but this was a tough interview. He gets my respect for even showing.
He’s also hardly to blame for the disaster that is televised news. That lays at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, the past 20 years of the devolving of CNN into the Chris Cuomo-esque pile of shit it is now and MSNBC masquerading as the 24hr news for liberals when it’s really just a well hidden whitewashing front for Wall Street with a few decent hours of actual news mixed in. ABC News really isn’t any of those things.
@@stefanc4520 more than Sith Lord Rupert Murdoch would ever do. Disney might not be the perfect (far from it) multimedia corporation, but it isn’t platforming a TuKKKer KKKarlson to spew Kremlin approved anti-democratic Russian/white supremacist propaganda every night.
I served in Afghanistan 2014-2015. I almost died several times, but when I came back my family thought I had done nothing. It was hurtful. I was disappointed none of the deadly attacks that happened weren’t covered while I was there.
I feel your pain bro, I was in Iraq 07,08,09 and a few years after I got out, people make it seem (even to this day) I was at a day camp or something. So disrespectful
@@snarf0596 I'm sorry that sucks. Veterans deserve better and I think the news has been failing us because the lack of coverage minimizes our experiences.
I'm sorry. It sucks because the wars were largely disapproved and unnecessary. But thousands of servicemen/woman and civilians sacrificed their lives, and many came back home to absolutely nothing. It's so hard and disheartening to hear because the repurcussions of war never go away after it ends. It's ongoing.
@@user-bv6fh7nk8g6x It's disheartening to hear someone, who probably never served, call what I did unnecessary and disapproved. The fact of the matter is military service personnel do not get a choice in where they go or what they do while they're in the military. They do, however, raise their hand and say they are willing to lay down their life for others and for the good of their country. It would be nice if what I, and other veterans did, was acknowledged. It would be nice for it not to be called nothing. That's all.
I know what you mean. As soon as the war became unpopular it ceased to exist in the media. Our enemies are minimized to become not legitimate threats for PR and it really steals the bravery and honor for our servicemen and women. Thank you for your service
I've been frustrated since I was a teenager that the only decent and visible reporting and critique that we get is from comedians, not journalists. It's embarrassing that we've allowed things to get this way.
Comedians can say things journalists can't. I've watched reporters get hundreds of hateful emails, death threats and hate mail for stories that were fairly and accurately reported. Comedians hardly deal with that kind of backlash.
try ProPublica, for one. since journalists need both the budget and the freedom to operate, your only choices are a) state media (expect propaganda and censorship in varying state-dependent degrees), b) for profit media (expect distortions from profit motive based on corporate, audience, and advertiser interest) or c) independent, not for profit media dependent on donations and operating in free states. there are a few organizations that are excellent examples of c). Pro Publica is one. read them, and also donate if you can.
6:43 I love this moment. The brief look on Bob’s face after Jon says “…maybe we wouldn’t have even been there that long”. It’s almost like Iger is re-evaluating an option he never previously considered. The fact Jon can make Iger seemingly reconsider his entire business model with a single sentence is really quite astounding.
I think this is more a positive of Iger than of Jon. Throughout the interview it is clear that Iger is listening and letting John speak his piece before responding to him and what he just said. In contrast, Jon misses out on listening to many of Iger's thoughts and opinions because as soon as Iger says something that Jon has an opinion on he will cut Iger off and push his opinion on the issue. Iger then will generally listen and consider Jon's statement before starting to respond. It felt like Iger was there to discuss news media with Jon while Jon was there to debate Iger.
@@Me2893me Absolutely. Jon is incredibly guilty of coverage bias. All the daily show ever covered was outrageous stories that he could make fun of. His excuse that "this is a comedy show" never held water.
Huge props to both Bob Iger and Jon for this insightful interview. It got me thinking about whether it’d be even possible to run a successful news organization that is not hyperbolic in today’s world. I also agree with Bob that it would be impractical and that such a company would probably not create enough revenues to grow and make a true impact on the world. Perhaps a show like this, which combines comedy, journalism, and education, is the best way to inform people of current events and important topics that may not be inherently entertaining. Keep up the great work, Jon and the team!
it's impractical for the system these news orgs created yes. unbiased informative news wouldn't attract the same amount of consumers as the other hyperbolic do. system would need an overhaul (according to iger as well).
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
many countries in europe (mine included) have a independent news channel funded by taxes. it doesn’t completely solve the problem (sometimes there are still politicians that try to infiltrate it from the insight) but in comparison to the privately funded news in America it’s a very good solution.
I like how Bob Iger asks if his understanding of the question is correct and answers the confirmed understanding of the question. And I like how he honestly says he can't think of a way of having a responsible, honest and successful media organization today.
I love how Jon Stewart will identify a problem, seek out a major facilitator of said problem and than ask (with a straight face) how said facilitator would fix the problem they happily started.
Bob Iger was hardly involved in "starting" this problem. News changed when organizations realized they could make it a profitable business. Prior to that, news was a government requirements and lost money. Once it started making money, the game was already over. You simply can't make a successful news organization with a profit motivation because profit and accuracy often end up at odds with each other.
I wish this was a longer interview. Jon was brilliant. This is powerful stuff. I have been searching for programming like this that makes us think. ...there sure has been a lack of that for some years now. I am so glad you are back, Jon. You have come to the aid of your country!
I’m so impressed by how unbothered he is by it all. I mean, it was a great interview. It must be nice to have ascended to a strata that one can be so whimsical about whatever one chooses.
Jon always asks smart questions. They don’t trap people, “my shortcoming”, but they do beg an honest answer regardless of how hard it might be to answer.
The Democrat Party Inconvenient Truth: The 2020 US Presidential election was stolen. The 2016 US Presidential election was almost stolen. In 2016 Bill " Slick Willie" Clinton was the con man. Donald Trump was a Republican "plant" recruited by Bill Clinton to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 US Presidential election. The Clinton election theft plan backfired because Donald Trump couldn't stay ahead of Hillary Clinton's continuous damaging Wikileaks. Part One: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Donnna Brazile all publicly claimed that the Clintons rigged the 2016 Democrat Party nomination. Wikileaks proved this. Part Two: New York Times reporter Amy Chozick wrote in her book "Chasing Hilary" that in 2014 Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton "casually encouraged" Donald Trump to run for President in 2016. Why would Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton do that? Part Three: May of 2015, one month after Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for President in 2016 as a Democrat, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton called Donald Trump and they talked about Presidential politics. Three weeks later Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President in 2016 as a Republican. The Washington Post covered this story. Now you know the truth! The Democrats tried to steal the 2016 US Presidential election but failed. They succeeded in 2020, however. But at a future cost.
@@rockyzrockyx917 I'm genuinely mildly curious about how you judge whether the information you read is true instead of seeing it as absurd conspiracy theory. My guess is that you feel more convinced if a story connects many dots in a way that makes it seem like everything happened as a part of some grand plan by people or entities in power. The thing you might be missing is that most things don't happen for a single reason, they happen for many reasons that are completely out of our control as humans and out of the control of any single power (unless you consider God to be all that exists as a single entity.) Everything is connected in a way where everything influences everything else rather than the idea that everything is controlled by a secret conspiracy. I know this can make life harder to comprehend, but that's okay, because we don't need to understand everything to do our best. We can still contribute by working together and trying to make things better in a way that brings contentment. That's just how life and the universe goes, so we might as well embrace it and hope for the best. Best wishes for you, Rockyz Rockyx.
@@AnneALias Not sure why your comment pooped up in my UA-cam notifications, but I think it was obvious what was meant when the original comment said, "Beg an answer" instead of "Beg for an answer.' It sounds like the intent was to say, "the question begs for an answer," rather than, "I beg for an answer to the question." Maybe you're focusing more on grammar, instead focusing on meaning? If grammar is more important than meaning to you, would it help if I clarify that when I said, "Not sure why...", I actually meant, "I'm not sure why?" Or that I intentionally said "pooped," instead of, "popped?"
Bob has been in the ivory tower so long, he doesn't view any particular issue as having significance. Jon tries to help him see how the people calling shots on the front lines end up having a big impact on the big picture, which Bob seems to not understand at all. So while Iger may not have been the best get for this conversation, he reveals what is likely a typical issue with people who are in charge of such large organizations - that they lose sight of how the small moves on the ground lead to enormous shifts that can impact even those living comfortably in the ivory tower.
His opinion i think is ... even if there is such a good reliable news source ... it won't make a difference because the mass will never care first and therefore will be no difference (less outrage) for example ...
exactly, he may as well have been talking to the chair. Bob and Disney by extension are no stranger to using information to manipulate. This interview was never going to go anywhere.
WOW! This is the most honest I've ever heard Bob Iger talk about anything at all whatsoever, and it's about the declining quality of mainstream news of all things, if only we could have Jon interview Steve Burke, Bob Bakish, Rupert Murdoch, and Jeff Zucker and ask them about the exact same thing...
Jeff Zucker is out, as he should be. He needs to stay gone for his roll in creating and promoting Trump for many years. And for making CNN even further into a sensationalist gossip channel, away from its roots as an international news channel with credibility.
To Bob, thank you for sitting with Jon Stewart. I appreciate when prominent executives are willing to be uncomfortable, publicly examine difficult topics and give them an honest assessment. Your credibility in my book just went up.
When I was back at Emerson College, I had intended to major in Broadcast Journalism, but it only took about three weeks into the core course of "News history, analysis and research" for me to understand that the bottom line was not about informing people, as I had imagined. The gatekeepers controlling the news were beholden to profit and that meant that the purpose of the news in that zeitgeist was essentially a function of entertainment, geared towards drawing an audience. We had to watch several different news channels a day and I realized that if I were to go into that field, I would likely be at constant odds with my conscience against my employers, no matter what. It was not the noble pursuit I had thought it was and I switched my focus in Communication Studies to Advertising and PR instead. I felt it was a more honest pursuit, because when you see commercials and public relations people, you at least understand you are dealing with something that has an agenda and it is pretty clear what it is. One of my professors really drove the point home with something we talked about in Mass Communications 101. He asked us if the media had the power to tell people what to think, and the class responded unanimously that it did not. He nodded and said, "That's correct, it doesn't have THAT much power that it can dictate what to believe... BUT it does have the ability to do something else - it CAN dictate what we think ABOUT... And really, when it comes down to it, isn't that almost just as powerful?" I have never forgotten that lecture, and I have not looked at anything the same way ever since...
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I think in terms of progress in society.. having CEO's on podcasts and shows like this helps in many ways open up dialogue that will lay the foundation for communication, discussion and ultimately accountability to the public in the future. Don't really think this interview amounted to much of a discussion in the short term but at the end of the day progress is won by thousands of small victories and not some lottery ticketesque gotcha moment. Thanks John for helping our country a little even into the sunset years of your life by using your clout to open dialogue with people that would not normally engage!
Hahahaha okay, I'm sure this will open up a wonderful communication and accountability connection from the CEO of Disney to Progressive leftists, I'm sure we can sway him a little and get him to meet us half way now
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Sorry to say but that's a fairy-tale. Independant of rhetoric and discussion there's where the real action takes place and that's institutional and ideological.Jon,great that he is,is very much a Liberal.. which by design is only there to maintain the continuity of the system when the natives get restless for one reason or another.It does this by making cosmetic changes around the margins and a lot of window dressing.When will we see a more radical critique for a system that is so fundamentally corrupt and has failed so many people ?
I feel like Bob managed to take every side of every issue discussed here. When it seemed that the discussion could be turned back on him and his time overseeing a company that did news, he says that he feels the news does a pretty good job of not editorializing content and pushing people's buttons. But when they get away from anything that reflects on him personally, and speaking more generally about companies like Fox and how it reflected on the media landscape as a whole, he feels the news industry needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
@@duanealbers4985 I'm sorry, but who ISN'T pushing agenda driven ideology on children? This feels like a disingenuous accusation that anyone can point at virtually any institution, regardless of its ideological affiliation. Even parents have an agenda driven ideology they push on their children. Furthermore, many of those parents SUPPORT the agendas driven by institutions.
Every one of these interviews has a moment where Jon asks someone in a position of power what steps they would take to enact the change they purport to want and it is the single most interesting part of this whole show
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
The frustrating thing, especially in this case, is even someone like Bob Iger who I, perhaps naively, believe would want to do it the right way, essentially throws his hands up and says "we could do it, but it would go bankrupt"
This show really should be on broadcast network television. It seems like such a shame that it's paywalled behind a streaming service that most don't use. These questions should be headlines not pushed to the back.
You gotta love his reaction to the idea that the news should have been covering the war better. It was basically "Why would the public knowing about it help? It's not like they could have done anything about it."
Jon is getting better at putting the interviewee at ease and defusing defensiveness in the way he asks his questions and follows up, in order to get better more honest answers, without easing up on the pressure. This is not easy stuff. Great to see.
Ironic to hear former Disney CEO talk about how the growth in volume is decreasing quality considering Disney has absolutely saturated the industry by milking IP dry.
but decreasing quality doesnt mean decreasing profit at thats wat a ceo is supposed to do toward its shareholders its actually law for ceo's to always have shareholder intrests first and always do the maximun possible to do benefits those intrests = profits thats why everything is short term driven and heartless because if they did something like that benefitted there employees, or was just better for the greater good but that caused a slight decrease in profits there actually liable for suits.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
So loving the interviews John is doing . His informed questions and honest inquiry addressing dysfunction is so needed. Keep it up John? You are the best!
"when a business grows and grows and explodes, it results in a loss of quality" Says the CEO of Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world gobbling up every other corporation.
@@aquapyro1 90% of what you read, watch, and listen to is owned by 6 corporations. Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News-Corp, General Electric, and CBS. 232 executives control what 277 million Americans watch, read, and listen to.
@@yoshismokey42 Good to know, now I can add my own balance to what Im told by understanding it thru my own thought process .... Wait! I've been doing that for 40 years - why doesn't everyone?
That's how a corporation leader runs business. It's not his fault that the company killed your spouse through his leadership, it's the company. An entity that is hard to take to jail in the first place.
I believe the discussion around the creation of FOX and the reaction of the other networks to counter their position is why we have the situation we have now. Add all the new technology and it is now magnified. This was a great interview with someone who is absolutely a key influencer for the way our society is today, but don't be mistaken, Bob Iger is as responsible as anyone.
I feel like they established the truly guilty party (Fox) but then passed the blame onto everyone who reacted to the, "Original sin", let's call it. Should they have countered the way they did? No, absolutely not. But to place the bulk of the blame for the current situation on them is ignoring the most obvious problem
In Canada we don't have a FOX and it seemed like that was OK until the trucker protests then it was obvious they were all just towing the government line, no pushback at all to some of the insane accusations
Though I respect your opinion, I believe that to be a cop out. When someone does wrong, you don’t also do wrong, then simply point to the “other guys” and say, “hey, at least we’re not THAT bad.” How about be a beacon of truth and trust people will come to the right conclusion. It’s patronizing to think you know better than your audience and should, therefore, skew the news.
Everything is a reaction to everything. As a former editor/journalist, what was very clear to me was the loss of ad revenue that resulted in management pushing clickbait heavily from 2015. Every decision we made was more or less "write what gets clicks or you won't get paid, but that's up to you" and "don't write things that piss off people we have personal connections to".
This is one example why I've missed John Stewart so much.... I'm so grateful for this show is available on UA-cam, I've been loosing so much faith in television (news and in general) here in Portugal, everything is about sensationalism. I hate the fact that the news keeps telling us what to think, I don't need that, their mission should be to inform me, with facts, than I make my own mind about a subject. Really enjoyed this interview. Thank you.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I stand by my belief that "Advertisement" is a crime against humanity. The profit models of too many critical services rely on trying to trick you into consuming a specific product.
“Vertical integration” and mergers in media need to stop, and then be rolled back. There is no good reason for a company like GE to own a news corporation.
@@benharper1087 C'mon, man. There's no call for that. IMO, this kind of immediate need to tear each other down is what has caused this exact problem. Try this: Watch conversation on the Internet. Notice how the immediate assumption is that everyone else is a complete idiot, until proven otherwise. Watch how people refuse to give up ground if they're confronted with an opposing viewpoint. It's not healthy, and we wouldn't act that way if we were all face-to-face. Unfortunately, more and more of our engagement is virtual these days. Something has got to change.
@@nickwallette6201 Preach Nick - tell me how people act face-to-face. I would absolutely call M S's opinion that "corporations like GE shouldn't own news corporations" a lame-brain idea to his face. I would certainly tell you that you come off as fragile as well... And while you're rambling about what people would-not say face-to-face there are a few thousand hours of video on youtube disproving your premise. What you wrote sure feels good, doesn't it - but reality doesn't always feel good.
I'll give this guy credit - I was expecting a bunch of shallow, non-answers from him, but he actually engaged with the conversation and it was very interesting.
This was a very interesting interview. I think it will stay with me - especially when I ask myself "Why cant someone just create a truthful, factual news organisation?" for the billionth time.
Becuase they used to be REQUIRED TO DO THAT for a certain amount of air time but Regan said nahhhh, you are acting like this isn't a problem we had fixed and was purposely broken.
This is such an important interview. Lots of softball features and other light interviews of one of the most powerful media head but this is one actually trying to hold him to account.
@Andrew Dunn Lets be real here, he threw about as hard as he could, any harder and he was risking Bob walking out and throwing the whole interview. There was definitely some substance here either way, as he got Bob to answer questions hes never been asked in front of a camera before.
Wow. This kind of conversations is what we truly need. It certainly is what America needs. And as a Finn I think this is what we're going to need - more and more - in the coming years. Yes, we have one very strong public broadcasting company like the BBC in the UK, Yleisradio/YLE that is funded by the taxpayers but as years go by they are starting to compete with private, ad-funded etc. companies. Who gets the most clicks and views instead of producing quality content that gives you ALL the perspectives of the world and not just one, heavily narrated one..
Damn, Jon. You were right to talk about the actual concepts behind newsroom decisions and not just about the stories themselves. Iger’s formative years were spent in one at an ABC affiliate and as a veteran of that same background, I can see a lot of that narrow mindedness coming through here.
Wait really? Damn he really worked his way up the chain then. He went from an affiliate to head of the company to head of the parent company. Probably the only media conglomerate CEO to leave the job with any positive public image whatsoever.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
@@caseyrayharris.esquire489 Right. My only concern would be how far the law goes in defining what separates "opposing views" from "opposing opinions," because there's definitely some gray area there. "Both side-ism" also has issues of its own, because it assumes our values, morals and ethics are black and white.
This show continues to provide the highest quality content per minute than any other program. This conversation in particularly is incredibly powerful. Thank you Bob and John for engaging in this fantastic conversation.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Jon, we missed you terribly all these years, thanks for being back to show America what a brilliant interviewer sounds like. I have to say that it takes tons of self confidence and smarts to agree to sit down with him on a one-on-one on touchy topics like how opinion replaced news and the power that can be exercised with it. What surprises me is how beaten down Bob Iger sounds. I remember listening to a master class on business strategy and leadership he taught on some digital platform and he sounds like a different person now, i can hear such discouragement in his voice. From what I’ve been able to see, he’s a true visionary and has an incredible capacity to convey highly strategic, complex ideas into clear, simple language. Very impressive.
I tend to want to agree, but I'm also thinking, if it's not commercially financed, what is the better alternative? I don't want any government controlling funding for the news, and I don't want it privatized. So then how does it get the money to operate?
@@bradley2349 news for profit, I think, is the issue I'd pivot to. News orgs should be non-profit. I think you're right that we've seen enough big brother news orgs to not go down that path, but we have also, now, seen enough clickbait profiteers to know that's also not the option. Independently owned, and potentially government subsidized news orgs, who can generate revenue to cover costs is all that's needed. News isn't supposed to be about money so pull it from the equation. News is supposed to question power, so get that power's control away from them as well. No presidentially appointed heads or whatever, no vulture capitalist investors, just just enough money to make it work.
@@bradley2349 The common variant is a news organization financed by taxes on a governmental budget, but independent from the administration. Sure, just HOW independent media, the judicial system, or governmental institutions are towards ruling politicians is always a point of conflict. But as said above, For-Profit motivation for the media is a much bigger problem, as all focus will be to generate said profit by pleasing Money.
Fairness doctrine repealed in 87 opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints. The fairness Doctrine repealed in 1987 actually required a Counterpoint. Now they can walk around selectively leaving out facts so we don't get to make a fully educated opinion
I have missed you Jon. These videos are amazing and the questions you ask are the question some of us (including me) have forgotten to ask. And why have we forgotten to ask? I guess we went down the media rabbit hole you are exposing. Thank you
This was a great interview. It is so true that all the NOISE of ego driven opinion programs drives behavior - especially the division in this country. Thanks for the interview.
Jon, I know you don't want to be a politician, but obviously you know what the problem is. The real problems, spanning our society and culture. You would have my vote.
What I think Bob touches on is the reality of being able to be successful in breaking through the noise with silence. I have great admiration for the fact that he doesn't shy away from this practicality in favor of answers that appeal to what we want to hear. That seems apropos to the question of credibility.
Good on Bob Iger for having the balls to do this interview, it truly says allot about his character. It's refreshing to see someone outright have an opinion rather than skate around the answer.
To be fair, most of Iger's responses were carefully crafted non-responses. Bob has cultivated a likeable personality. When you've spent enough time in the C-Suite, your interpersonal skills mature to an elite level. These are the masters of deception and misdirection. Notice how Iger sits, what he wears, how he casually smiles, how he never responds in a threatened or a threatening way, how he takes time to formulate his thoughts. All of this exudes confidence, and confidence elicits trust and high likability. As listeners, therefore, when someone like an Iger speaks, we must learn to analyze the space in between the words; at times, in between the letters themselves -- both in what is said, and, often more importantly, what is left unspoken. We must parse truth from fiction, intent from bias, charisma from competence, etc.
and this response here is why I have little faith in change. Bob said nothing of relevance, there's nothing to praise him for. He danced around the questions and when he didn't want to answer something he subtly changed the questions he was asked by throwing it back at Jon and then he answered that question. The entire conversation was misdirection after misdirection. Watch it again and check how many times he responded to Jon by asking him a question.
This was a fantastic interview. I'm an idealist at heart, so it saddens me to hear Bob Iger's opinion, but it would be hard for me to argue with his perspective or experience. I'm glad that they sat down together for this.
Thanks to Jon Stewart for doing what no one else has the backbone to do which is ask the real questions and holding their feet to the fire and doing so in a way that is not toxic or offensive. Thank you for being the ONLY one to continue the fight for the first responders of 9/11 to get the healthcare they need.
*You can notice, perfectly, why Bob is in command of the Death Star, he knows how to say it and it sounds right even if he's telling you that there's no hope*
Bob is brilliant and master of media and doesn't give in to Jon's sometimes black and white framing of an issue. But Jon is also a master and deftly gets Bob to engage in a candid conversation that he wasn't expecting to have.
Imagine a veteran of the industry saying, I don't know how a news organization that is responsible, accountable and truthful is financially viable and socially practical. Now. In this day and age. It's nuts.
"We have the tools to fix a lot of wrong in humanity, but because we wouldn't make a penny for fixing it, we won't even try." What a wonderful world we live in.
Jon isn't just being critical of the news media for having a very narrow view of the topics they share, but that this has continued for so many years that the American people don't have the understanding that they have to do a lot of work to stay aware of all the aspects of the issue; that they can't just focus on what the news media focus on
He admitted it right at the end. Its about money. Consumption and advertising. They no longer care about actual news or facts, its all about what is flashy, loud and keeps you watching.
Bob Iger is an amazing example of what it looks like to really listen and consider before responding (much like Jon.) He and Jon are engaging in next level dialogue here. This was great!
7:52 That was really the climax and the ultimate point Jon was making. And that's definitely true. It's narrowing coverage based on selecting what they think will be most stimulating or emotionally engaging to audiences in correspondence with past data and current data and trends on audience engagement.
There is a lengthy decades-long process of socialization and programming that selects for competent individuals who have internalized the necessities of self-censorship.
"By hyping conflict aren't they also escalating that conflict?" I'm reminded of this argument being made against the media hype around school shootings and how it might even, indirectly, cause more of them to happen, as a sort of publicity stunt from the perpetrator.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
That was a great interview and I really enjoyed how civilised it was. I know that can be a hot button word, but Jon let the man speak and express himself and held the space with warmth and humour despite it being a topic very close to his heart. I liked what Iger said about the pivoting of news organisations in reaction to Fox. I hadn't considered that before (I'm not from the USA) and it explains how news has become so polarised and tied to identity politics. Insane that you can get conservative and liberal news channels instead of just "the news". While I appreciate that there are biases in all news coverage, they should be as close to neutral as possible.
Bob says "I don't think their are stories told inaccurately, just to make them more interesting". So until guys like this can honestly admit the problem, this crap will never go away.
Walter Cronkite earned his reputation at a time when he didn't have to make money for the network. It wasn't until the '70s that networks started requiring their news divisions to not lose money. That change has made the difference.
@@JeffCaplan313 “There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars.”
Really enjoyed this conversation. And candidly I’m on Bob’s side of theis discussion…loved the debate and wish for more sensible and intelligent conversations like this.
It's just crazy to think that what Jon is doing is more traditional journalism, than the news now is. Nothing like it used to be. Journalists used to be almost like private investigators except giving what they find to just one person, they published it in the paper and reported on it on the news.
Jon has been doing this for a long time, likely 20 years now. He is a true hero IMHO.
And then John and Jane Q. Public decided that their goldfish level attention span was a feature that had to be catered to as opposed to a character flaw that had to be overcome
The are moments where we see the birth of what we have now. When the OJ trial went on, everybody knows it was all over the news. Video from in front of houses. Helicopters overhead. Obviously it was the "big story" at that time. What people don't generally know is that a lot of news organizations literally blew most of their budgets covering that *one* story. My brother was a sound man for hire and for that entire year, business was down. They didn't hire him for as many gigs nor fly him out to places where the stories were happening. News organizations literally had to cover less interesting stories more locally because they couldn't afford to send crews out or to do research and vetting of stories. The sad part about it all is that for all the attention on the OJ stories, they didn't get *any* more depth or more facts. They just felt they had to cover the story as much as everyone else (kids running to the ball). Fact is, at the time, a lot of people didn't really give a sh!t about that story. Not really.
These days they don't do nearly enough research, validation, verification, etc. They have to get to that ball *now* just a few minutes before everyone else, if they can. I had hopes for a few shows that supposedly would take the 60 minutes approach with more investigation, less hype, but after a little while I noticed their stories got more and more skewed and there sources were sometimes flat out wrong or fringe but it fed a certain segment of viewer's opinions. The good writers and "investigators" are out there. I think there's a decently sized audience for them too. There are serious issues with producers and middle-management and understanding why *they* choose or are pushed to what we have would be very interesting to learn.
Actually.. if you want to get more of that traditional journalism, check out some podcasts. NPR has some good ones. Science VS has been talking about this stuff recently. Intercept is deeply researched. Some of them work in small teams with quality researchers and verify sources etc and the content is typically close to what we used to have. Way better reporting than the "news alert" shots in the dark or opinion-as-news we get on the major cable channels pretty much 24/7.
@@dreamcoyote thanks for the podcast recommendations.
Jon has always done traditional journalism. The Daily Show was the best news source on television when he was hosting it.
Misrepresenting the news is not solely about reporting it inaccurately. That’s the easiest to spot. It’s about the news manipulating what stories they tell you about and what stories they DONT tell you about
Israel/Palestine and Russia/Ukraine are the worst offenders. Yemen is also conveniently ignored, along with all Saudi atrocities.
Yes. In my youth I lived for a few years in a country where the President was regarded by other countries as a dictator. The media self censored. Even the state radio and TV didn't lie, they just knew what to report and what not to report. And so it is today with our "free" media. For example we all know about the corruption and suppression of opposition opinion in Russia. We get no coverage of the corruption and suppression of opposition opinion in Ukraine because we need a "villain" and a "hero".
I would argue that that's also easy to spot. News services can be silent about a war or an insurrection, but people will notice anyway.
The real danger is in bending reality and shaping the facts to suit a narrative. That is why most Americans believe that murdering millions in the Middle East is perfectly okay, but when Putin lashes out, we start caring about human rights and suffering. It's why we see every single bomb dropped on the Ukraine analyzed on tv, but when an entire schoolbus full of children gets blown up by our side, the ones reporting on that get smeared by the media as enemies of the nation, and have to flee and hide for decades in other countries.
It's why an illegal war could be started in Iraq with lies about weapons of mass destruction, and why nobody, not even a war criminal president, is held accountable for that. And the list goes on and on, being added to on a daily basis. - I would have liked to see John be more direct with examples like these. The list is endless, so why not pick a few of the most noticeable ones.
Bending reality by the media is why America functions abnormal compared to the rest of the world, it's why you still have ancient gun laws causing mass shootings, no decent healthcare, no pandemic relief, no decent infrastructure, religious extremism, anti-abortion laws, "anti-voting" laws, a racist police force, legalized political bribery, legalized election meddling, trillions of your taxes pumped to the rich, trillions of your taxes pumped in to wars, hundreds of thousands of new homeless people in the richest country in the world. Even large sections of the Left believe these things to be normal, because they too have been influenced by American propaganda for all of their lives.
Bending reality to suit a narrative and lying by omission, THAT is the real danger of our main stream media, and any media in general. And that's why the left started their own independent news sources presenting *all* of the facts *and* the history attached to them, even if they're inconvenient or painful. The right-wing on the other hand, let themselves be paid to tell the narrative that their donors want to hear, while trying to cancel anything that hurts their fee-fee's, from books to sneakers to athletes to women's rights, while crying that the left always tries to cancel things.
Right, that was Jon's earliest point, one Iger denied, then unwittingly admitted when he said it's not financially viable to NOT do that.
Very true. Al Jazeera doing "quality journalism" against every other country except Qatar. Or Ameican or Russian TV praising only their way of thinking.
This is why Jon Stewart’s work is so important. He is sitting across from, arguably, the most powerful man in media in the world and he is not shying away from the tough questions nor is he holding back his beliefs about the dangers and inadequacies of television news. Most people would be terrified to sit across from Bob Iger, nonetheless hold his feet to the fire on camera. I’d like to see Jon do an updated story on the new documentary “The American Dream and Other Fairy Tales.”
Did you forget about that Australian guy? You know, the one who's company floods the American "airwaves" with right-wing nonsense?
@@noleftturnunstoned Well, at this point, Bob Iger is more powerful than Rupert because Rupert had to sell his most valuable media assets to Bob Iger (20th Century Fox, Hulu, etc) and they’ve all been swallowed up by Disney. All Rupert has left are his newspapers and Fox News, which is on life support as we speak.
SO Was OJ innocent? According to law yes he is.
@@noleftturnunstonedimagine thinking he's the only issue with media. Ignoring all the rest that flood the air waves with left wing neoliberalism. But i guess its ok if its on your side, even if it is just as or even more divisive.
@internethardcase neoliberalism is center right. Traditional liberalism is liberal in that it believes in free trade, deregulation, and trade liberalization.
Kinda scary that reporting done with “credibility, responsibility, and accountability” is considered an idealistic pipe dream : \
And that, literally, if they did that sort of news with a picture-in-a-picture of silly cat videos running inside it along side that news, it would improve those ratings dramatically. I say that as someone that occasionally just has to go find animal videos to cheer myself up :P
Yes. I heard that loud and clear. This guy, and I'm sure he's not alone, is so wrapped up in his bubble that he isn't even cognizent of what news is meant to be. These are public airwaves they have been given the rights to. I believe it used to be that news was not meant to be a money maker. It was just the news. Reporting what happens or is happening period. They still controlled the narrative ie. what wasn't said etc. But people were pretty much allowed to digest that information amd form their own opinions.
@@debraperez7171 We have an idealized view of history - that is just human nature. The paper/news/press was never as free as we think. The news divisions during different periods of history were loss leaders letting the reader save face. Every survey has people reporting that they read the newspaper front page first, and the local news second. When they watch someone read the paper they read the biggest headline on the front page - but usually no deeper in the story, then readers go to the sports, comics or obits next.
I work in medicine and feel the same way about standing up for an ethical, responsible approach to healthcare. Pipe dream to practice with integrity and actually maintain credibility in the medical community
People like Bob Iger believe that information needs to be controlled by a handful of organizations. For the failure of this model, one only needs to look at the US in the 2000s and Russia right now. Did the (often mis)information they provided enable to the public to make informed decisions? No. It caused them to senselessly send young men into bloodbaths while dissenting voices were silenced.
WMDs in Iraq? That was a transparent lie.
I gotta say, I really enjoyed the back and forth, conversational tone of this video, with each man asking/answering questions, seeking clarification when needed, to better present their position, and move the dialogue along. Instead of the typical interviewer/interviewee format we've become accustomed to.
While I don't think it was necessarily planned to be that way, for me at least, I found it to be far more compelling... almost like overhearing a discussion between two intelligent people. I realize that it wouldn't be appropriate in all circumstances, but it was a welcome deviation from what we're normally feed, and one I genuinely hope we see again, some time in the near future.
Well said, totally agree it's refreshing to hear a conversation like this
Same here, its a nice change of pace imo with how they speak with one another.
nah, this is classic Stewart spinning his web to set him up, that's the beauty of his schtick, it's got layers, if this was a chess match, he's six moves ahead painting his quarry into a logical corner, he knows this guy is full of shit, (8:07)just speaking in generalities without mentioning any specifics, as soon as he started doing that, Jon gave that little smirk as I've seen him countless times before like he's thinking "oh is this how we're doing this"? and then he just slowly moves in
@@dbunik44 But it's not as widely available in other media arenas as it once was (ie 60 minutes), so the o.p. is correct in that it is refreshing these days.
I agree. I think that sentiment is at the heart of the endpoint of the conversation. Bob Iger was stating that he's pessimistic about the marketability of non-sensationalist news, but Jon Stewart's success with his new show, and 61 likes of your comment at time of writing disagree. I think after decades of the sugar rush of the 24-hour hyperbolic news cycle, people are craving a calmer rational style reporting. Or maybe I'm the optimistic one.
This conversation between two highly intelligent people and you see their opinions change on the fly after thoughtful conversations is great. Huge respect for Bob Iger for having this great conversation. I wish we had more people like this
F*** him. He over saw the ruining of Star Wars.
I see a predatory person using careful language as a deflection. I don't mistake lying for intelligence.
@@hannahb9195 why is he a predator?
@hannahb9195 Sounds like you are the one with a bias in this case. Accusations without merit are more likely confessions.
Bob Iger and Jon Stewart have flaws, but they are willing to bounce off of each other in such a way that they polish each other's flaws, rather than exacerbating them. Great discussion!👍
They key disconnect here is that news is supposed to be informative not interesting or entertaining. The problem, once again, has come down to profitability. News is a service to society, maximum profit should not be the motivation for that industry. Do they need to be profitable to stay in business, yes, but could they forgo profit optimization and focus on being genuinely informative.
This is the difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism rests on the idea that people should work together for the greater good, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Human nature is motivated by self determination. You have to work with that and create a solution that harnesses the so called "selfish" nature. Trying to force a round peg into a square hole is a fools errand.
Honestly, if they truly need to chase ratings, they should probably just make the news an entirely informative, truthful endeavour, but have a video overlay in the corner that just shows gyrating & scantily-clad, beautiful people. This should be able to be turned off by people that aren't interested, but for the morons that need entertainment & titillation in every waking aspect of their life, they can leave it on, and maybe we'll luck out and they'll learn something in the background via osmosis.
@@micahgmiranda EVErythiNG fits into the square hole! ua-cam.com/video/evthRoKoE1o/v-deo.html
The alternative to a profit-based news business is a government one. Which is more trustworthy? Iger said that a proper news agency is not financially viable. Where's the middle ground?
The major TV networks used to view news as a public service and they didn't particularly try to make it profitable, they used the success and the revenues of their network TV shows to subsidize news coverage and broadcasts. Nowadays if you watch a 1/2 hour of nightly news you get more TV commercials then you do news, and a significant portion of the so-called "news" is taken up with "human interest" stories.
Oddly enough, this show makes me sleep easier at night. I honestly thought in 2022 we weren’t capable of having these types of discussions anymore. Jon’s ability to get these people to actually engage with him on issues gives me hope that change can still happen.
that fact that they even come on the show is amazing....I bet they have his question screen in advance before they agree.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
@@jk484 and then things changed
If it makes you sleep then it fullfiled its purpose.
We shouldn't thank our lucky stars that one human is able to get incredibly powerful people to sit there and defend their choices against very well-reasoned concerns. This is how our fourth estate should work!!
This interview is a great lesson on how to debate and disagree respectfully and effectively. Lot to learn from here
Disagree? It isn't a disagreement. Jon isn't debating. Jon is exposing.
They didn’t even disagree on anything though, Bob is hesitant at first but his thinking and points eventually swing around to what John is saying
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I don’t even think it was that so much as getting Iger to stop separating only what abc/traditional news orgs do vs the rest
good point ... but do you think anyone cares to learn how to do that, let alone, have the interest and intellect to follow the example?
I can't believe how you can't seem to miss a shot, Jon! And only you to in the heat of the moment keep your cool and think of the right thing to say. I was vibrating when you brought up the Afghanistan example.
He got one of the biggest news guys to admit that it's not financially viable to run a proper news agency that's responsible to the public... that in itself is brilliant.
Kind of a creepy thing to admit
..."your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they _could_ do something they never stopped and questioned whether they _should_ ..
Shot missed. Bob iger is with meta not Disney.
@@franklinkz2451 🤣🤣🤣 I was going to ask if they finished...
I feel like this is the most important question of our generation. If we can't figure out how to inform ourselves in a balanced and unbiased way, how can we possibly make the right choices about anything?
The fact that disinformation channels can exist is what screw the entire plan. Even if you truly have the best media on all other channels, Fox & right-wing media will continue to poison the discourse by telling susceptible people what they want to hear, and amplifying their fears to keep them watching. It's a nightmare situation because none of us want to set a precedent that government be allowed to shut down media, as it violates the 1st Amendment, nor do we want the government acting as the arbiter of what's true or not. But to allow the sheer density of lies onto our airwaves results in someone like Trump getting elected President, who then proceeds to tell literally thousands of lies when in office (30,573 of them, per the WaPo fact-checkers), with almost no impact on his supporters' opinion of him. How do we make truth matter?
Another problem is we don't want unbias.
Facebook already figured out we don't care what the truth is, we want what we already believe to be reinforced.
That might be from the conditioning we have been going through without real news.
@@apexnext I agree completely. This biased news only works because a large percentage of the population wants their viewpoint validated more than they want the truth. I'm constantly having to ask myself 'is this what I want to believe or is this true' and many people don't bother...I don't know how we fix that problem.
@@overseastom I do think regulation should be put in place to stop actual lies. Editorialization and opinion can not be stopped as that would be a breach of rights but presenting lies as factual information shouldn't be. There are such regulations in many countries and there used to be in the US too.
@@overseastom dude cnn and msnbc are just as bad.
For Bob Iger to even sit down for this conversation and be totally honest is admirable.
@@Ben-pd2bx he wasnt working for disney when this was taken.. so no lmao
@@NOI2Z He knew Jon would be asking tough questions, so yes, it takes a lot of guts to walk in front of a firing squad.
@@NOI2Z he still has millions of stock in Disney. It’s in his best interest to present the company in a good light
or the bare minimum. He is a greedy leech. He is no hero.
Igers the BEST. 😂
It's impressive how John's able to bring a conversation to the crux of an issue in a way that even someone with strongly opposing view points will seriously consider and respond to with a great deal of respect. It also doesn't hurt that he is hilarious, thoughtful, and considerate.
I think a lot of folks (including myself) could learn by watching how John Stewart brings forth constructive conversation about topics that could otherwise be a dumpster fire if discussed in bad faith, moral superiority, or with opposition as a focus. Imagine if all of our extended family Thanksgiving conversations played out like the conversation in this video. Better yet, imagine comment sections filled with Republicans and Democrats debating as constructively as this. News media that gauged it's success on how accurate and informative it is, and politicians who respect each other enough to truly try to understand the opposing perspective and compromise with public interest as the only priority.
That dream might be a long way off, but every movement of progress has to start somewhere. We can all start by simply recognizing how inspiring John Stewart is in this regard.
He is actually used as an example of rhetorical speaking some college.
Absolutely the fight cannot be won when considered a fight no matter how much you feel someones opinion is bonkers or evil or just false if your goal is to be listened to or change anyones mind you must (as hard as it can be) to come from a place of respect.
This is how most people talk and discuss. Politicians and talking heads perform for the camera and skews reality. It's a shame that this feels novel...
@t j disagree look im a middle of the road liberal. I live on cape cod ma. Its hard to have a rational convo with the far right even when they are friends. If we are going to unite as a nation (as much as we ever have been when not in a war) is to have rational discussion so we can find middle ground.
You already highlighted the problem with the American political system, that it is only a conversation between two parties, Democrats and Republicans. The lobbyists and oligarch class of the USA ie the real people who own the politicians who run the show absolutely love the two party system because it's so easy to divide everything into a simple Team Red vs. Team Blue conflict. It's all very deeply undemocratic.
When you ask the guy who has been responsible for news for 35 years about extreme bias in the news , he is going to get defensive. This didn’t disappoint
Yet Iger didn't realize that he contradicted himself: he said news agencies aren't biased toward engagement, but that one that doesn't isn't financially viable.
He’s playing to his shareholders. He came around and said the same thing Jon did. He knows what he did. He’s covering his ass.
Do none of you realize bob iger retired?
@@watamatafoyu NO - he said that he doesn't believe it would truly be helpful to society. He is a kind and caring person who doesn't only think in $$$$. /S
Forreal though, that line was the biggest lie in this whole thing. He even had to backpedal after he first said it wouldn't be financially viable! haha
@@bradley2349 That's even worse 😆 Responsible journalism not healthy?! So irresponsible journalism like Jon complains about is healthy? OK! Carry on, status quo.
I could watch interviews like this all day long.
This is how news should be discussed, and decisions about it made.
Not with money and viewers being the only determining factor.
Money is always the determining factor and it will always be that way
The sensationalization of information is part of the problem too. Things don’t go “up” and “down” in the news. They “soar” or “plunge” :)
right on. digital world is driven by clicks
that's just a side effect of businesses wanting to make money off of views and ads. People won't watch if its not sensationalized.
@@soroosha Exactly, but it's that pursuit of the sensational that creates the issue with news coverage in general. Since the revenue stream is defined by ads, and ads pay based on traffic, it incentivises the same behavior that propegates on UA-cam with the sensational and sometimes misleading video titles, and the building of hype around sometime innocuous things.
@@CrypticFoxGaming yeah. I’m not even sure how real neutral news can ever compete with emotional “news” in terms of engagement. But it would be beneficial to differentiate them at least. It’s very misleading that these entertainment companies are calling it “news”.
@@soroosha Yeah it likely can't. The current format works to get attention because it's how people are wired.
this really is a great interview. you can tell that they start off at sort of opposite ends, with Iger being somewhat defensive, and Jon being aggressive, but eventually they reach this sort of middle point and connection with each other. they both know what the problem is, there's just a genuine question as to how to resolve it, or if it can even be resolved.
And there's two keys to a conversation like this, that we all need to take a lesson from: The person on the defensive needs to stay calm and sure of their position, while open to hearing the aggressive person (most of us tend to lock up in our defense and then go on offense and cause conflict), and the aggressive person needs to, as Jon does, pick at the defense without resorting to name calling, poor logical fallacies, and on top of that, when they see the person has budged a little toward the middle, they let off the gas to allow for the person across the table to continue to move toward the middle as if it's their own idea. Bravo to Jon and Bob in this one.
The resolution is happening as we speak, but I don't think they know exactly what it is. It's actually happening on a much smaller, localized scale on global platforms (i.e. Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, UA-cam) - you get your news independently to whomever you subscribe to. While Iger finds that to not be practical because it can be misinformation, Jon is seeing the optimism - most people go to get free information from independent news sources who can still make profit the same way news organizations do. It's actually putting news in competition - what it means to be a journalist these days and disruption of monopolies - because optimistically, stories that the news doesn't cover someone else will.
It's refreshing to see such a respectful exchange during an interview
Bob Iger deserves a lot of respect for doing this interview. I don't really agree with his views, but this was a tough interview. He gets my respect for even showing.
probably the last time a paid leftist will join John in a interview
He’s also hardly to blame for the disaster that is televised news.
That lays at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, the past 20 years of the devolving of CNN into the Chris Cuomo-esque pile of shit it is now and MSNBC masquerading as the 24hr news for liberals when it’s really just a well hidden whitewashing front for Wall Street with a few decent hours of actual news mixed in.
ABC News really isn’t any of those things.
He doesn’t seem nice and hungover from too much red wine
So the bar for multimillionaire CEO's for you is "at least he showed up".
No wonder they feel they can get away with anything.
@@stefanc4520 more than Sith Lord Rupert Murdoch would ever do.
Disney might not be the perfect (far from it) multimedia corporation, but it isn’t platforming a TuKKKer KKKarlson to spew Kremlin approved anti-democratic Russian/white supremacist propaganda every night.
I served in Afghanistan 2014-2015. I almost died several times, but when I came back my family thought I had done nothing. It was hurtful. I was disappointed none of the deadly attacks that happened weren’t covered while I was there.
I feel your pain bro, I was in Iraq 07,08,09 and a few years after I got out, people make it seem (even to this day) I was at a day camp or something. So disrespectful
@@snarf0596 I'm sorry that sucks. Veterans deserve better and I think the news has been failing us because the lack of coverage minimizes our experiences.
I'm sorry. It sucks because the wars were largely disapproved and unnecessary. But thousands of servicemen/woman and civilians sacrificed their lives, and many came back home to absolutely nothing. It's so hard and disheartening to hear because the repurcussions of war never go away after it ends. It's ongoing.
@@user-bv6fh7nk8g6x It's disheartening to hear someone, who probably never served, call what I did unnecessary and disapproved. The fact of the matter is military service personnel do not get a choice in where they go or what they do while they're in the military. They do, however, raise their hand and say they are willing to lay down their life for others and for the good of their country. It would be nice if what I, and other veterans did, was acknowledged. It would be nice for it not to be called nothing. That's all.
I know what you mean. As soon as the war became unpopular it ceased to exist in the media. Our enemies are minimized to become not legitimate threats for PR and it really steals the bravery and honor for our servicemen and women. Thank you for your service
Watching John's face develop while processing the idea that Ailes wanted to run ABC was just fantastic
My God. Wow. Well done. I believe "The Problem w/ JS" might be the non-biased news station the world needs. Thank you
so far from non-biased. BUT, he is being as honest as he can. His agenda, if you will, is right out in front of everything he does.
yeah i dont think hes unbiased but i do think the world needs his respect, honesty, and genuine approach.
I've been frustrated since I was a teenager that the only decent and visible reporting and critique that we get is from comedians, not journalists. It's embarrassing that we've allowed things to get this way.
Comedians can say things journalists can't. I've watched reporters get hundreds of hateful emails, death threats and hate mail for stories that were fairly and accurately reported. Comedians hardly deal with that kind of backlash.
Can't bite the hand that feeds. It's a big problem when you're relying on private companies for everyones source of news
try ProPublica, for one. since journalists need both the budget and the freedom to operate, your only choices are a) state media (expect propaganda and censorship in varying state-dependent degrees), b) for profit media (expect distortions from profit motive based on corporate, audience, and advertiser interest) or c) independent, not for profit media dependent on donations and operating in free states.
there are a few organizations that are excellent examples of c). Pro Publica is one. read them, and also donate if you can.
Jon at this point is acting as a real journalist. And he's good at it.
Tim Pool is not a comedian.
6:43 I love this moment. The brief look on Bob’s face after Jon says “…maybe we wouldn’t have even been there that long”. It’s almost like Iger is re-evaluating an option he never previously considered. The fact Jon can make Iger seemingly reconsider his entire business model with a single sentence is really quite astounding.
I think this is more a positive of Iger than of Jon. Throughout the interview it is clear that Iger is listening and letting John speak his piece before responding to him and what he just said. In contrast, Jon misses out on listening to many of Iger's thoughts and opinions because as soon as Iger says something that Jon has an opinion on he will cut Iger off and push his opinion on the issue. Iger then will generally listen and consider Jon's statement before starting to respond. It felt like Iger was there to discuss news media with Jon while Jon was there to debate Iger.
It's less about Jon and more about Bob Iger being an incredible leader who is always open to contradictory opinions.
@@Me2893me Absolutely. Jon is incredibly guilty of coverage bias. All the daily show ever covered was outrageous stories that he could make fun of. His excuse that "this is a comedy show" never held water.
And the collapse was set up by Trump. He made a deal with the Taliban...and both of these guys forget that here.
@@greenforce888 that's absolutely legitimate, I don't know what your thinking
much more honest than i expected! he pretty much admited that the problem is money and we cant fix it because its "probably" not profitable.
Yep, and the reason he stated why was what he denied before: that news agencies choose the stories they feel will get the most engagement.
Its not about controlling content but creating context.
In Germany every household have to pay 20$ a month for free Media. I'm glad that we have this kind of institution
So is that the reason, we don't get real reliable news coming from our major media platforms, what's the point in consuming it..🌝
@@rolandkloka Then it's not free, is it?
Doesn't seem like there's too many of these types of interviews with top end people that is so pointed and revealing. Thanks Jon!
Huge props to both Bob Iger and Jon for this insightful interview. It got me thinking about whether it’d be even possible to run a successful news organization that is not hyperbolic in today’s world. I also agree with Bob that it would be impractical and that such a company would probably not create enough revenues to grow and make a true impact on the world. Perhaps a show like this, which combines comedy, journalism, and education, is the best way to inform people of current events and important topics that may not be inherently entertaining. Keep up the great work, Jon and the team!
it's impractical for the system these news orgs created yes. unbiased informative news wouldn't attract the same amount of consumers as the other hyperbolic do. system would need an overhaul (according to iger as well).
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Reuters...all I gave to say. It already exists and supplies the major organizations with their base stories before it's blown out of proportion.
Democracy Now?
many countries in europe (mine included) have a independent news channel funded by taxes. it doesn’t completely solve the problem (sometimes there are still
politicians that try to infiltrate it from the insight) but in comparison to the privately funded news in America it’s a very good solution.
I like how Bob Iger asks if his understanding of the question is correct and answers the confirmed understanding of the question. And I like how he honestly says he can't think of a way of having a responsible, honest and successful media organization today.
I love how Jon Stewart will identify a problem, seek out a major facilitator of said problem and than ask (with a straight face) how said facilitator would fix the problem they happily started.
I think he should bring people who can give actual reasonable solutions and an analysis that's not so myopic.
I suppose a charitable interpretation would be that he is putting them on the spot and getting them on record.
Totally!
Bob Iger was hardly involved in "starting" this problem. News changed when organizations realized they could make it a profitable business. Prior to that, news was a government requirements and lost money. Once it started making money, the game was already over. You simply can't make a successful news organization with a profit motivation because profit and accuracy often end up at odds with each other.
@@dannyarcher6370 that'd be good if they cared.
I wish this was a longer interview. Jon was brilliant. This is powerful stuff. I have been searching for programming like this that makes us think.
...there sure has been a lack of that for some years now.
I am so glad you are back, Jon.
You have come to the aid of your country!
Watch the full episode!
A year later, how do you get your news?
I’m so impressed by how unbothered he is by it all. I mean, it was a great interview. It must be nice to have ascended to a strata that one can be so whimsical about whatever one chooses.
Jon always asks smart questions.
They don’t trap people, “my shortcoming”, but they do beg an honest answer regardless of how hard it might be to answer.
The Democrat Party Inconvenient Truth: The 2020 US Presidential election was stolen. The 2016 US Presidential election was almost stolen. In 2016 Bill " Slick Willie" Clinton was the con man. Donald Trump was a Republican "plant" recruited by Bill Clinton to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 US Presidential election. The Clinton election theft plan backfired because Donald Trump couldn't stay ahead of Hillary Clinton's continuous damaging Wikileaks. Part One: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Donnna Brazile all publicly claimed that the Clintons rigged the 2016 Democrat Party nomination. Wikileaks proved this. Part Two: New York Times reporter Amy Chozick wrote in her book "Chasing Hilary" that in 2014 Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton "casually encouraged" Donald Trump to run for President in 2016. Why would Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton do that? Part Three: May of 2015, one month after Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for President in 2016 as a Democrat, Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton called Donald Trump and they talked about Presidential politics. Three weeks later Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President in 2016 as a Republican. The Washington Post covered this story. Now you know the truth!
The Democrats tried to steal the 2016 US Presidential election but failed. They succeeded in 2020, however. But at a future cost.
@@rockyzrockyx917 I'm genuinely mildly curious about how you judge whether the information you read is true instead of seeing it as absurd conspiracy theory. My guess is that you feel more convinced if a story connects many dots in a way that makes it seem like everything happened as a part of some grand plan by people or entities in power. The thing you might be missing is that most things don't happen for a single reason, they happen for many reasons that are completely out of our control as humans and out of the control of any single power (unless you consider God to be all that exists as a single entity.) Everything is connected in a way where everything influences everything else rather than the idea that everything is controlled by a secret conspiracy. I know this can make life harder to comprehend, but that's okay, because we don't need to understand everything to do our best. We can still contribute by working together and trying to make things better in a way that brings contentment.
That's just how life and the universe goes, so we might as well embrace it and hope for the best. Best wishes for you, Rockyz Rockyx.
What does it mean to beg an answer. You mean beg for an answer?
@@AnneALias you’ve heard statements that weren’t actual questions, but you were still prompted to give answer.
@@AnneALias Not sure why your comment pooped up in my UA-cam notifications, but I think it was obvious what was meant when the original comment said, "Beg an answer" instead of "Beg for an answer.' It sounds like the intent was to say, "the question begs for an answer," rather than, "I beg for an answer to the question."
Maybe you're focusing more on grammar, instead focusing on meaning? If grammar is more important than meaning to you, would it help if I clarify that when I said, "Not sure why...", I actually meant, "I'm not sure why?" Or that I intentionally said "pooped," instead of, "popped?"
This is super engaging! Love this interview! And much respect to Bob for answering these hard questions...
Bob has been in the ivory tower so long, he doesn't view any particular issue as having significance.
Jon tries to help him see how the people calling shots on the front lines end up having a big impact on the big picture, which Bob seems to not understand at all.
So while Iger may not have been the best get for this conversation, he reveals what is likely a typical issue with people who are in charge of such large organizations - that they lose sight of how the small moves on the ground lead to enormous shifts that can impact even those living comfortably in the ivory tower.
Which is why he's not the person to be interviewed about this issue.
His opinion i think is ... even if there is such a good reliable news source ... it won't make a difference because the mass will never care first and therefore will be no difference (less outrage) for example ...
Like "the damage has already been done" and you have to recreate the wheel
exactly, he may as well have been talking to the chair. Bob and Disney by extension are no stranger to using information to manipulate. This interview was never going to go anywhere.
My thoughts exactly
WOW! This is the most honest I've ever heard Bob Iger talk about anything at all whatsoever, and it's about the declining quality of mainstream news of all things, if only we could have Jon interview Steve Burke, Bob Bakish, Rupert Murdoch, and Jeff Zucker and ask them about the exact same thing...
Jeff Zucker is out, as he should be. He needs to stay gone for his roll in creating and promoting Trump for many years. And for making CNN even further into a sensationalist gossip channel, away from its roots as an international news channel with credibility.
Murdoch would be a fascinating dive into the mind of a sociopath
To Bob, thank you for sitting with Jon Stewart. I appreciate when prominent executives are willing to be uncomfortable, publicly examine difficult topics and give them an honest assessment. Your credibility in my book just went up.
This was a fantastic interview. We need A LOT more of these.
End Op-Ed.
When I was back at Emerson College, I had intended to major in Broadcast Journalism, but it only took about three weeks into the core course of "News history, analysis and research" for me to understand that the bottom line was not about informing people, as I had imagined. The gatekeepers controlling the news were beholden to profit and that meant that the purpose of the news in that zeitgeist was essentially a function of entertainment, geared towards drawing an audience. We had to watch several different news channels a day and I realized that if I were to go into that field, I would likely be at constant odds with my conscience against my employers, no matter what. It was not the noble pursuit I had thought it was and I switched my focus in Communication Studies to Advertising and PR instead. I felt it was a more honest pursuit, because when you see commercials and public relations people, you at least understand you are dealing with something that has an agenda and it is pretty clear what it is.
One of my professors really drove the point home with something we talked about in Mass Communications 101. He asked us if the media had the power to tell people what to think, and the class responded unanimously that it did not. He nodded and said, "That's correct, it doesn't have THAT much power that it can dictate what to believe... BUT it does have the ability to do something else - it CAN dictate what we think ABOUT... And really, when it comes down to it, isn't that almost just as powerful?"
I have never forgotten that lecture, and I have not looked at anything the same way ever since...
Fellow Emerson grad here. This was one of the most formative takeaways from my time there, too. Cheers, friend.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I think in terms of progress in society.. having CEO's on podcasts and shows like this helps in many ways open up dialogue that will lay the foundation for communication, discussion and ultimately accountability to the public in the future.
Don't really think this interview amounted to much of a discussion in the short term but at the end of the day progress is won by thousands of small victories and not some lottery ticketesque gotcha moment. Thanks John for helping our country a little even into the sunset years of your life by using your clout to open dialogue with people that would not normally engage!
Hahahaha okay, I'm sure this will open up a wonderful communication and accountability connection from the CEO of Disney to Progressive leftists, I'm sure we can sway him a little and get him to meet us half way now
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Sunset years? Shiiiit that man’s gonna keep kickin’ ass a few more decades lol!
Sorry to say but that's a fairy-tale. Independant of rhetoric and discussion there's where the real action takes place and that's institutional and ideological.Jon,great that he is,is very much a Liberal.. which by design is only there to maintain the continuity of the system when the natives get restless for one reason or another.It does this by making cosmetic changes around the margins and a lot of window dressing.When will we see a more radical critique for a system that is so fundamentally corrupt and has failed so many people ?
I feel like Bob managed to take every side of every issue discussed here. When it seemed that the discussion could be turned back on him and his time overseeing a company that did news, he says that he feels the news does a pretty good job of not editorializing content and pushing people's buttons. But when they get away from anything that reflects on him personally, and speaking more generally about companies like Fox and how it reflected on the media landscape as a whole, he feels the news industry needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
You don't become the CEO of Disney without amazing diplomatic skills and ability to do exactly what you've noticed
@@MrGreenAKAguci00 yes and how proud he must be pushing agenda driven ideology on children.
@@duanealbers4985 you are forgetting adults
@@duanealbers4985 I'm sorry, but who ISN'T pushing agenda driven ideology on children? This feels like a disingenuous accusation that anyone can point at virtually any institution, regardless of its ideological affiliation. Even parents have an agenda driven ideology they push on their children. Furthermore, many of those parents SUPPORT the agendas driven by institutions.
This is a honed skill
Every one of these interviews has a moment where Jon asks someone in a position of power what steps they would take to enact the change they purport to want and it is the single most interesting part of this whole show
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
The frustrating thing, especially in this case, is even someone like Bob Iger who I, perhaps naively, believe would want to do it the right way, essentially throws his hands up and says "we could do it, but it would go bankrupt"
yeah and EVERY TIME the fatcat in his comfy chair refuses to entertain such idealistic notions of change lest the precious shareholders get upset
This show really should be on broadcast network television. It seems like such a shame that it's paywalled behind a streaming service that most don't use. These questions should be headlines not pushed to the back.
I was spoiled with John Stewart on the daily show. Its refreshing to see John in a like capacity again. Thank you all involved
You gotta love his reaction to the idea that the news should have been covering the war better. It was basically "Why would the public knowing about it help? It's not like they could have done anything about it."
Guys detached from reality. Hopefully the people who clean his house and make his dinner see this.
You are actually doing it, Jon. That credible, trustworthy, profitable news is you! I love this show & podcast!
Jon is getting better at putting the interviewee at ease and defusing defensiveness in the way he asks his questions and follows up, in order to get better more honest answers, without easing up on the pressure. This is not easy stuff. Great to see.
Ironic to hear former Disney CEO talk about how the growth in volume is decreasing quality considering Disney has absolutely saturated the industry by milking IP dry.
Now Chapek has them pumping out a show for every single side character from the past and present 🙄
but decreasing quality doesnt mean decreasing profit at thats wat a ceo is supposed to do toward its shareholders its actually law for ceo's to always have shareholder intrests first and always do the maximun possible to do benefits those intrests = profits thats why everything is short term driven and heartless because if they did something like that benefitted there employees, or was just better for the greater good but that caused a slight decrease in profits there actually liable for suits.
That and sexualizing childrens shows. I dont let my kids watch Disney at all.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Good interview. But DisneyCorp produces absolute crap.
So loving the interviews John is doing . His informed questions and honest inquiry addressing dysfunction is so needed. Keep it up John? You are the best!
"when a business grows and grows and explodes, it results in a loss of quality"
Says the CEO of Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world gobbling up every other corporation.
Though he isn't wrong.
@@nathanracher2911 no its just a way to wrap a lie in a truth
Disney is far from the biggest. There are many more that are quietly eating everything else
@@aquapyro1 90% of what you read, watch, and listen to is owned by 6 corporations. Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News-Corp, General Electric, and CBS. 232 executives control what 277 million Americans watch, read, and listen to.
@@yoshismokey42
Good to know, now I can add my own balance to what Im told by understanding it thru my own thought process .... Wait! I've been doing that for 40 years - why doesn't everyone?
You have to admire how Bob Iger acts as if he's not directly responsible as the head of the most powerful media machine on earth.
Was**
@@dag0620 *STILL RESPONSIBLE
That's how a corporation leader runs business. It's not his fault that the company killed your spouse through his leadership, it's the company. An entity that is hard to take to jail in the first place.
@@JamieRobles1 A company can't be worse than the people making up that company.
@Melvin Deeply What do you think Apple pays him for?
I love how Jon Stewart is spending his time these days. There are people out there who care in the same way. We got your back Jon. Keep going!
I believe the discussion around the creation of FOX and the reaction of the other networks to counter their position is why we have the situation we have now. Add all the new technology and it is now magnified. This was a great interview with someone who is absolutely a key influencer for the way our society is today, but don't be mistaken, Bob Iger is as responsible as anyone.
I feel like they established the truly guilty party (Fox) but then passed the blame onto everyone who reacted to the, "Original sin", let's call it. Should they have countered the way they did? No, absolutely not. But to place the bulk of the blame for the current situation on them is ignoring the most obvious problem
In Canada we don't have a FOX and it seemed like that was OK until the trucker protests then it was obvious they were all just towing the government line, no pushback at all to some of the insane accusations
To place the blame on fox makes zero sense, one network went right so 12 went left? That makes absolutely no sense.
Though I respect your opinion, I believe that to be a cop out. When someone does wrong, you don’t also do wrong, then simply point to the “other guys” and say, “hey, at least we’re not THAT bad.” How about be a beacon of truth and trust people will come to the right conclusion. It’s patronizing to think you know better than your audience and should, therefore, skew the news.
Everything is a reaction to everything. As a former editor/journalist, what was very clear to me was the loss of ad revenue that resulted in management pushing clickbait heavily from 2015. Every decision we made was more or less "write what gets clicks or you won't get paid, but that's up to you" and "don't write things that piss off people we have personal connections to".
Tying advertising to the news, like other programming, was the death nail for the ability for the news to serve the public appropriately.
This is one example why I've missed John Stewart so much.... I'm so grateful for this show is available on UA-cam, I've been loosing so much faith in television (news and in general) here in Portugal, everything is about sensationalism. I hate the fact that the news keeps telling us what to think, I don't need that, their mission should be to inform me, with facts, than I make my own mind about a subject. Really enjoyed this interview. Thank you.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
I stand by my belief that "Advertisement" is a crime against humanity. The profit models of too many critical services rely on trying to trick you into consuming a specific product.
if I were pronounced king of America, the first thing I'd do is outlaw outdoor billboards
@@MH5tube I hereby pronounce you King of America.
This COVID coverage brought to you by Pfizer.
Is it really a crime against humanity, or is it more an indication of how easily manipulated the average idiot is?
The end will have paying corporate sponsors , mostly
Tough conversation- thank you both for having it. Gratitude
“Vertical integration” and mergers in media need to stop, and then be rolled back. There is no good reason for a company like GE to own a news corporation.
Telecom Act of 96’ Baaaaaaby. It’s amazing how the political consensus of the 90’s was to fuck over today.
@@benharper1087 C'mon, man. There's no call for that. IMO, this kind of immediate need to tear each other down is what has caused this exact problem. Try this: Watch conversation on the Internet. Notice how the immediate assumption is that everyone else is a complete idiot, until proven otherwise. Watch how people refuse to give up ground if they're confronted with an opposing viewpoint. It's not healthy, and we wouldn't act that way if we were all face-to-face. Unfortunately, more and more of our engagement is virtual these days. Something has got to change.
GE owning news companies is old news
that's who does. the bezos post. it's what the billionaires want said.
@@nickwallette6201 Preach Nick - tell me how people act face-to-face. I would absolutely call M S's opinion that "corporations like GE shouldn't own news corporations" a lame-brain idea to his face. I would certainly tell you that you come off as fragile as well...
And while you're rambling about what people would-not say face-to-face there are a few thousand hours of video on youtube disproving your premise.
What you wrote sure feels good, doesn't it - but reality doesn't always feel good.
John is a genius interviewer plain and simple. The best I’ve ever had the privilege to witness.
I'll give this guy credit - I was expecting a bunch of shallow, non-answers from him, but he actually engaged with the conversation and it was very interesting.
Agree! Thoughtful responses to real questions, amazing
This was a very interesting interview. I think it will stay with me - especially when I ask myself "Why cant someone just create a truthful, factual news organisation?" for the billionth time.
Becuase they used to be REQUIRED TO DO THAT for a certain amount of air time but Regan said nahhhh, you are acting like this isn't a problem we had fixed and was purposely broken.
This is such an important interview. Lots of softball features and other light interviews of one of the most powerful media head but this is one actually trying to hold him to account.
And he handled it well, not getting upset or being short or jumping to negative conclusions and overreacting.
@Andrew Dunn Lets be real here, he threw about as hard as he could, any harder and he was risking Bob walking out and throwing the whole interview. There was definitely some substance here either way, as he got Bob to answer questions hes never been asked in front of a camera before.
Wow. This kind of conversations is what we truly need. It certainly is what America needs. And as a Finn I think this is what we're going to need - more and more - in the coming years. Yes, we have one very strong public broadcasting company like the BBC in the UK, Yleisradio/YLE that is funded by the taxpayers but as years go by they are starting to compete with private, ad-funded etc. companies. Who gets the most clicks and views instead of producing quality content that gives you ALL the perspectives of the world and not just one, heavily narrated one..
Damn, Jon. You were right to talk about the actual concepts behind newsroom decisions and not just about the stories themselves. Iger’s formative years were spent in one at an ABC affiliate and as a veteran of that same background, I can see a lot of that narrow mindedness coming through here.
Wait really? Damn he really worked his way up the chain then. He went from an affiliate to head of the company to head of the parent company. Probably the only media conglomerate CEO to leave the job with any positive public image whatsoever.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
@@caseyrayharris.esquire489 Right. My only concern would be how far the law goes in defining what separates "opposing views" from "opposing opinions," because there's definitely some gray area there. "Both side-ism" also has issues of its own, because it assumes our values, morals and ethics are black and white.
@@istrumguitars just a counter point with a label of option news
@@istrumguitars en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints.
This show continues to provide the highest quality content per minute than any other program. This conversation in particularly is incredibly powerful. Thank you Bob and John for engaging in this fantastic conversation.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Matthew Cooke also has great content and information. Jon,Matthew and Politics Girl are my go to for information without the spin.))❤
Jon, we missed you terribly all these years, thanks for being back to show America what a brilliant interviewer sounds like. I have to say that it takes tons of self confidence and smarts to agree to sit down with him on a one-on-one on touchy topics like how opinion replaced news and the power that can be exercised with it. What surprises me is how beaten down Bob Iger sounds. I remember listening to a master class on business strategy and leadership he taught on some digital platform and he sounds like a different person now, i can hear such discouragement in his voice. From what I’ve been able to see, he’s a true visionary and has an incredible capacity to convey highly strategic, complex ideas into clear, simple language. Very impressive.
You can't fix this as long as commercially financed opinion-peddling is legally allowed to call itself "News" or "Journalism".
I tend to want to agree, but I'm also thinking, if it's not commercially financed, what is the better alternative? I don't want any government controlling funding for the news, and I don't want it privatized. So then how does it get the money to operate?
@@bradley2349 news for profit, I think, is the issue I'd pivot to. News orgs should be non-profit. I think you're right that we've seen enough big brother news orgs to not go down that path, but we have also, now, seen enough clickbait profiteers to know that's also not the option. Independently owned, and potentially government subsidized news orgs, who can generate revenue to cover costs is all that's needed. News isn't supposed to be about money so pull it from the equation. News is supposed to question power, so get that power's control away from them as well. No presidentially appointed heads or whatever, no vulture capitalist investors, just just enough money to make it work.
@@bradley2349 The common variant is a news organization financed by taxes on a governmental budget, but independent from the administration.
Sure, just HOW independent media, the judicial system, or governmental institutions are towards ruling politicians is always a point of conflict. But as said above, For-Profit motivation for the media is a much bigger problem, as all focus will be to generate said profit by pleasing Money.
Fairness doctrine repealed in 87 opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints. The fairness Doctrine repealed in 1987 actually required a Counterpoint. Now they can walk around selectively leaving out facts so we don't get to make a fully educated opinion
I have missed you Jon. These videos are amazing and the questions you ask are the question some of us (including me) have forgotten to ask. And why have we forgotten to ask? I guess we went down the media rabbit hole you are exposing. Thank you
This was a great interview. It is so true that all the NOISE of ego driven opinion programs drives behavior - especially the division in this country. Thanks for the interview.
Jon, I know you don't want to be a politician, but obviously you know what the problem is. The real problems, spanning our society and culture.
You would have my vote.
It worked for Zelenskyy, it could work for John.
"I'm saying that if we had been covering it more, maybe we wouldn't have been there that long." That my friends, is a brilliant answer.
What I think Bob touches on is the reality of being able to be successful in breaking through the noise with silence. I have great admiration for the fact that he doesn't shy away from this practicality in favor of answers that appeal to what we want to hear. That seems apropos to the question of credibility.
"Profiting from inaccuracy" has been the business model for the entire American media industry for the past 20+ years.
Good on Bob Iger for having the balls to do this interview, it truly says allot about his character. It's refreshing to see someone outright have an opinion rather than skate around the answer.
To be fair, most of Iger's responses were carefully crafted non-responses. Bob has cultivated a likeable personality. When you've spent enough time in the C-Suite, your interpersonal skills mature to an elite level. These are the masters of deception and misdirection.
Notice how Iger sits, what he wears, how he casually smiles, how he never responds in a threatened or a threatening way, how he takes time to formulate his thoughts. All of this exudes confidence, and confidence elicits trust and high likability.
As listeners, therefore, when someone like an Iger speaks, we must learn to analyze the space in between the words; at times, in between the letters themselves -- both in what is said, and, often more importantly, what is left unspoken. We must parse truth from fiction, intent from bias, charisma from competence, etc.
and this response here is why I have little faith in change. Bob said nothing of relevance, there's nothing to praise him for. He danced around the questions and when he didn't want to answer something he subtly changed the questions he was asked by throwing it back at Jon and then he answered that question. The entire conversation was misdirection after misdirection. Watch it again and check how many times he responded to Jon by asking him a question.
It’s crazy how many of you are fawning over Bob Iger of ALL people. He doesn’t deserve this level of respect.
One of your more intelligent, and well spoken guests . . Really thoughtful banter.
I’m so glad to see John back in the game. I remember his first day at the Daily Show and always liked him.
This was a fantastic interview. I'm an idealist at heart, so it saddens me to hear Bob Iger's opinion, but it would be hard for me to argue with his perspective or experience. I'm glad that they sat down together for this.
Thanks to Jon Stewart for doing what no one else has the backbone to do which is ask the real questions and holding their feet to the fire and doing so in a way that is not toxic or offensive. Thank you for being the ONLY one to continue the fight for the first responders of 9/11 to get the healthcare they need.
*You can notice, perfectly, why Bob is in command of the Death Star, he knows how to say it and it sounds right even if he's telling you that there's no hope*
Bob is brilliant and master of media and doesn't give in to Jon's sometimes black and white framing of an issue. But Jon is also a master and deftly gets Bob to engage in a candid conversation that he wasn't expecting to have.
Probably my favorite guest on The Problem with John Stewart. Love Bob.
Imagine a veteran of the industry saying, I don't know how a news organization that is responsible, accountable and truthful is financially viable and socially practical. Now. In this day and age. It's nuts.
"We have the tools to fix a lot of wrong in humanity, but because we wouldn't make a penny for fixing it, we won't even try." What a wonderful world we live in.
This is probably the best I’ve seen someone stand up to Jon Stewart. He did really well.
Jon isn't just being critical of the news media for having a very narrow view of the topics they share, but that this has continued for so many years that the American people don't have the understanding that they have to do a lot of work to stay aware of all the aspects of the issue; that they can't just focus on what the news media focus on
He admitted it right at the end.
Its about money.
Consumption and advertising.
They no longer care about actual news or facts, its all about what is flashy, loud and keeps you watching.
In many ways PBS Newshour fulfills the concept that Iger and Stewart talked about at the end of this interview. We just need more of it out there.
Jon, you're a beacon of hope in an age burdened with balancing advancement and corruption. Keep it up man. Thank you for everything you do.
Bob Iger is an amazing example of what it looks like to really listen and consider before responding (much like Jon.) He and Jon are engaging in next level dialogue here. This was great!
7:52 That was really the climax and the ultimate point Jon was making. And that's definitely true. It's narrowing coverage based on selecting what they think will be most stimulating or emotionally engaging to audiences in correspondence with past data and current data and trends on audience engagement.
There is a lengthy decades-long process of socialization and programming that selects for competent individuals who have internalized the necessities of self-censorship.
"By hyping conflict aren't they also escalating that conflict?" I'm reminded of this argument being made against the media hype around school shootings and how it might even, indirectly, cause more of them to happen, as a sort of publicity stunt from the perpetrator.
Nixon repelled a law to have an opposing view on any opinion News segment some version of that reinstated that would be great. And they had to disclose opinion news as opinion news
Yes. Obviously. That is one reason popular support for the War on Terror was gained...excessive 9/11 coverage with an anti-middle east bias
Great interview, John. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Mad respect to Bob Iger for being willing to have this conversation!!!
I'm thinking CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL of FREEDOM 😅
That was a great interview and I really enjoyed how civilised it was. I know that can be a hot button word, but Jon let the man speak and express himself and held the space with warmth and humour despite it being a topic very close to his heart. I liked what Iger said about the pivoting of news organisations in reaction to Fox. I hadn't considered that before (I'm not from the USA) and it explains how news has become so polarised and tied to identity politics. Insane that you can get conservative and liberal news channels instead of just "the news". While I appreciate that there are biases in all news coverage, they should be as close to neutral as possible.
This slaps Jon, good shit G
Bob says "I don't think their are stories told inaccurately, just to make them more interesting". So until guys like this can honestly admit the problem, this crap will never go away.
Thank you Bob and Jon for a healthy discussion.
Walter Cronkite earned his reputation at a time when he didn't have to make money for the network. It wasn't until the '70s that networks started requiring their news divisions to not lose money. That change has made the difference.
Speaking of networks, have you seen the movie Network?
@@JeffCaplan313 “There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars.”
@@GevinShaw "It's the economy, stupid." 😅
Money = energy = power...
Man he came back when we needed him the most. Hate Apple, but I can appreciate them giving him a show.
Really enjoyed this conversation. And candidly I’m on Bob’s side of theis discussion…loved the debate and wish for more sensible and intelligent conversations like this.