By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Disney is facing boycott calls after suspending Jimmy Kimmel, allegedly due to pressure from the Trump-appointed FCC chairman. Progressive groups like Indivisible are urging subscribers to cancel Disney services and contact the company to express disapproval. They are also lobbying for a congressional investigation into the FCC chairman’s actions, while some members of congress are attempting to force him to testify. Furthermore, former Disney CEO Michael Eisner has criticized the company’s decision, viewing it as a result of intimidation and self-interest.
Read the original article here
Calls to Boycott Disney Explode After ABC Submits to FCC Threats by Ousting Jimmy Kimmel
The outrage is palpable. Disney, and specifically ABC, submitting to pressure, allegedly from the FCC, to silence Jimmy Kimmel has ignited a firestorm. It’s not just about a comedian; it’s about free speech, perceived corporate complicity with political machinations, and a widespread feeling that the values of fairness and independence are under assault. The cancellation of a Disney+ bundle, the dropping of subscriptions to streaming services, and the outright refusal to patronize Disney properties, including theme parks, are all actions being taken. It’s a clear signal: silence isn’t golden, it’s unacceptable.
Many are taking the opportunity to reassess their relationship with all things Disney, extending the boycott to Marvel movies, Disney merchandise, and any other revenue stream flowing towards the conglomerate. The sheer scope of Disney’s ownership, encompassing 21st Century Fox, Lucasfilm, Pixar, and more, is being used to demonstrate the far-reaching consequences of this decision. Canceling subscriptions to Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN is just the start. This is not just about one show, it’s about sending a message.
The sentiment is clear: Disney is not a victim; they are complicit. They are perceived as trying to curry favor with a political entity, possibly to secure future regulatory advantages or expand their market dominance. The feeling is that Disney has chosen profit over principle, and the public is responding in kind. They are using their wallets and their voices to express their disapproval, advocating for class consciousness and collective action to punish corporate greed.
Some express that despite not having subscriptions they do not want to support Disney and their subsidiaries, which demonstrates the reach of the boycott’s message. Several individuals are actively targeting any advertisers on ABC and ESPN, urging others to do the same. The rationale is that advertisers will quickly withdraw support if they feel financial pressure. This is a crucial tactic to pressure corporations into rethinking their decisions and show support for those who are advocating for free speech.
The current media landscape, with corporations such as Sinclair and Nexstar, adds another layer of complexity. Many feel that these companies are actively destroying the fabric of the United States by supporting their own biased political narratives. The public reaction is clear: people are boycotting, they are spreading the word, and they are making a difference. The emphasis is on collective action and fighting back against those who want to limit or destroy the ability of free speech.
The cancellation is extended to the local television station, owned by companies like Sinclair and Nexstar. Many are seeking out and targeting local advertisers on stations owned by these companies, urging them to make public statements. The ultimate goal is to cripple these companies and protect free speech. Actions range from contacting congressional representatives, and canceling cable subscriptions, to even making plans to protest businesses that advertise on networks perceived as complicit.
The focus on local advertisers signals an effort to pressure the companies, who may not even be aware of the political implications. The hope is to encourage them to reassess their advertising choices and to force their stations to adopt more neutral stances. It’s about making those who fund the media machine that is perceived as attacking free speech feel the consequences of their actions.
People want more than just boycotts; they want to make a difference. There is a strong desire to redirect finances away from those who support political views that they disagree with. The message is that individuals can influence the market by their spending and investment habits. Changing financial behaviors, from where one gets their morning coffee, to where you purchase goods, all show a desire for change. It’s about showing that every dollar counts, and that consumer choices can have a powerful impact on the political landscape.