Tap Fish maker responds to Daily Show piece

Written by

Last week Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” broadcast a segment on an iOS game called Tap Fish. They pitted the developer against a parent whose children ran up huge charges purchasing virtual goods inside the app. Now the developer wants to set the record straight.

“Video Game Dealers” was, by all accounts, a typical Daily Show field report. Correspondent Aasif Mandvi played the comedy for all it was worth, portraying the developer as greedy and exploitative and the consumer as an innocent rube. But it should be no surprise to anyone who watches The Daily Show regularly that all wasn’t as it appeared to be.

Tap Fish developer Gameview Studios’ co-founder Rizwan Virk has posted to his own blog, Zen Entrepreneur, to describe how the segment was shot, and it may give some insight to people unfamiliar with the process as to just how selective The Daily Show is in their interviews. Virk debunks some of the claims in the segment and notes that the parent had his money refunded (by Apple) long before the segment was shot. He also says that The Daily Show misrepresented why they were interested in interviewing Gameview Studios to begin with.

Jon Stewart is the first to admit that The Daily Show is there to entertain, not inform (in fact, the affable host has said a number of times that he’s a bit horrified that his show is cited as a primary news source by some of its viewers).

From where I’m sitting, Virk is mainly guilty of incredible naïvety. Anyone who’s approached by The Daily Show for an interview and who is even cursorily familiar with the show’s contents has to figure that the footage is going to be heavily edited for comic effect.

It’s good that Virk is clearing the air, but his sour grapes over being made to look a fool shows that while he’s a self-described serial entrepreneur, Virk’s Sloan Business School experience apparently didn’t prep him for media relations.



  • Steven Fisher

    I agree with your evaluation on it, but I’m not sure any amount of caution other than refusing to speak with them at all would have helped. We went through a similar thing years ago with local media; when they couldn’t find anything to support them, they just voiced over the entire segment.

    • Peter Cohen

      And that’s rather the whole point of having an experienced media relations person to consult with. If you can’t control the message, sometimes the best solution is not to say anything at all.

  • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

    Virk’s inexperience is showing, regardless of what kind of interview he was expecting. And how is it that The Daily Show is still able to find relatively educated people who don’t live in a cave, but are somehow unaware that it’s satirical comedy?

    • Anonymous

      It might be satirical comedy but it is also dredging up something that isn’t the evil that the piece claims. As Virk says Apple included the tools to stop this kind of nonsense from day one but parents haven’t bothered to use it even after all the press over other games. And yet the parents got a refund for something that was their fault. 

      And in this day and age, the video can be reposted, uploaded etc in ways that removes any mention of The Daily Show and leads people to think that it is simple truth. 

      • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

        Not the point. The facts of the matter are indeed important, but Virk allowed himself to be persuaded into giving an interview to a program that does remote interviews that almost always make fun of the interviewees. That was careless.

        Virk is complaining about having been deceived by the producers of a comedy program. His readiness to believe that they were legitimately interested in the details of any of these issues is itself hilarious. 

        “The piece” wasn’t offered as anything other than what it is: comedy at the expense of people too foolish to expect anything else. 

        If you’re trying to hold The Daily Show to some sort of higher journalistic standard, then I consider you to be just as hilarious.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QW6E2TQZQYNQGNXXYCO5JXD3UQ Sma

          The Daily Show doesn’t “almost always” make their interviewees look bad. In this interview, there were two interviewees: the child psychologist and the Tap Fish creator. The child psychologist looked fine; only the Tap Fish creator looked bad. At most you can say that they sometimes make their interviewees look bad, or make their interviewees look bad a fraction of the time.

          Comedy isn’t exempt from honesty or dishonesty. In using comedy to make a point, which the Daily Show does, you can be dishonest. Even The Daily Show acknowledged that when PolitiFact gave them a “pants on fire” rating for their statement that Congress met during most Christmases. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-12-2011/war-on-christmas—historical-fact-checking

          In fact, a large part of the reason The Daily Show has such a large fanbase is because they routinely expose lies made by politicians, such as in their “Mother F#@ckers:disqus” bit. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-22-2011/mother-f–kers

    • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

      “how is it that The Daily Show is still able to find relatively educated people who don’t live in a cave, but are somehow unaware that it’s satirical comedy?”

      Because “relatively educated people” are not necessarily very smart.

      I went thru this with David Pogue when I worked for him. He’s a guy who is perceived as being highly educated but, when The Daily Show wanted to “interview” him, I had to strongly argue with him to convince him not to do it.

      • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

        Then what’s at work here — hubris or dissociation? 

        One of Virk’s commenters accused him of being conceited enough to actually believe he’d be spared the treatment Daily Show gives everybody.

        • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

          Probably a combination of both. Pogue was so sure of himself, he believed they’d never make fun of him. Others simply don’t know what The Daily Show is and don’t bother to do any research. All they think about is “I’M GOING TO BE ON TV!!”

  • http://twitter.com/millere2773 Eric Miller

    In my view, if you have to fabricate a story in order to be funny, you have no business being in comedy.

    The Daily Show should be aware of the impact their segments can have. I mean, they’ve spurned major national legislation to be passed with their show. They manufactured a story here, but at no point was there any disclaimer about what really happened.

    And, no, the Daily Show isn’t a Fake News show. They lost that claim when they tore Jim Cramer apart on Cable TV (with facts!) and when they exposed just how shameful Congress was treating the 9/11 first responders health care bill.

    They lost that claim and they’re stronger for it, so they should at least try to maintain a modicum of journalistic ethics.

    • Peter Cohen

      When it counts, The Daily Show does do serious work. And you can tell from their tone and delivery what the difference is, unless you are fundamentally incapable of detecting sarcasm or are mistrustful of their message. (I admit, that describes a significant percentage of the viewing public.)

      This, however, wasn’t that opportunity – and I firmly believe that Virk should have known he was going to be on the receiving end of some shenanigans from the start.

      Bottom line – it’s a show on a network called Comedy Central.

      • Slphilips

        Yes, but Fox calls itself “News”, too! Presenting half truths as if they are “truth” and then laughing does not make it “comedy”. 

        • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

          True. But a show on a network called “COMEDY CENTRAL” that bills itself as a “FAKE NEWS SHOW” that everyone else on the planet recognizes as a “COMEDY SHOW” does…

        • Peter Cohen

          At one point in the segment Mandvi interviewed a child psychologist who explained how children’s lack of prefrontal cortex development affects their decision-making ability for things like spending money, and then asks whether there are other mental defects in children we can profit from.

          Again, no viewer with any ability to understand sarcasm could be reasonably expected to interpret this as anything but humor.

          Your mileage may vary, as in all things.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QW6E2TQZQYNQGNXXYCO5JXD3UQ Sma

            He asked if there are “any other mental defects in children we can profit from” to sarcastically suggest that the Tapfish creator is profiting from the mental deficiencies of children. That’s a point, and he used sarcasm to make it.

            Colbert uses that device a lot. If he’s interviewing someone the audience is supposed to think is shady, he will interview someone else — a neutral source — and take an overblown villain persona of the previous person he was talking about. To a lesser extent TDS uses that device as well, and this is one of those times.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QW6E2TQZQYNQGNXXYCO5JXD3UQ Sma

        Comedy can and is used to make points and frame national discussions, which satirical publications like The Onion and The Daily Show do every day. That’s the bottom line, not that they are “on comedy central.”

        Using humor to make a legitimate argument is the point of satire. If the Daily Show was “just” humor, their viewer base would be substantially lowe than it currently is.

        Even in your own reply you have a hard time juggling the inconsistencies that come with a soundbite like “it’s on comedy central.” You went from “anyone who is interviewed by the Daily Show has to know they will be heavily edited for comic effect” to “they do serious stuff sometimes, but anyone can tell the difference.” If they do “serious stuff” sometimes — meaning, not dishonest — a guest doesn’t have to assume that they will be treated dishonestly.

        And even in those cases where they edit the interview, they don’t always edit the interview at the expense of the interviewee. Sometimes, the humor is from the interviewer’s ridiculousness, as is often the case with Jason Jones’s interviews. As you mentioned, you can usually tell what type of interview it’s going to be from their tone and delivery. This was an interview obviously intending to make a point, and you’re glossing over that.

        The Daily Show gives interviews which are neither dishonest nor unfavorable all the time, and even sometimes posts extended interviews on their website so you can get a full idea of what happened. Most of the interviews with people like Mandvi and Oliver are neutral to the person being interviewed. Interviews critical of the interviewee only make up a portion of the show’s total interview content. The assertion that a guest should assume the Daily Show will treat them dishonestly is just wrong.

    • Dark Cyberian Knight

      I don’t see a problem with making up stories to be funny.

      It’s kinda odd that life is so absurd they very rarely have to make up stories.

      It’s odd and a little sad but not all that historically uncommon that we turn to satire for our news because other news programs aren’t all that good and don’t make us think about the real important issues as much as good comedy.

  • Robert White

    The funny part of this story is so many of you believe the daily show & Jon Stewart are funny & or news. Then you completely dismiss Fox where actual experienced, credible journalists work. I bet you also think Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O Donnell, Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Brian Williams… They all are such informant, independant voices of truth & honesty. Yep keep those rose colored glasses on.

    All journalists… I use that word loosely… Are playing you for their agenda. Left our right

    • http://www.theangrydrunk.com The Angry Drunk

      I love the smell of false equivalence in the morning. It smells like rutabagas.

    • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

      “I use that word loosely…”

      LMAO Reading your post, you used a lot of words loosely…

      • Robert White

        Typical left winger… Since you didn’t refute my statement then you acknowledge it as fact. See, thats progress.

        • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

          LOL I don’t need to refute anything. You’re not anyone I know or care about so I have no interest in getting into an intellectual discussion with you…

          I’ll leave it to others to add the obvious punchline to that….

          • Robert White

            Same.

            But funny you mention intellectual when referring to yourself. I looked at your website & it speaks volumes otherwise.

            Good day.

          • http://www.yourmaclifeshow.com/ Shawn King

            Yes, I did. Because “intellectual” is not a bad word. And a web site slam? Really? Oooh…burn!

            You have a good day too. I suppose this is the last we’ll hear of you then? HAHAHAAA! Sorry…couldn’t help myself.

  • Anonymous

    That gipsy is a robber, plain and simple.