By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trump’s war against late-night talk shows is escalating, with ABC pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air indefinitely following Kimmel’s criticism of right-wing reactions to an assassination. The decision, influenced by threats from the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, and potential regulatory repercussions, highlights corporate cowardice. This event is a part of a broader attack on free speech and the fear of financial harm stemming from Trump’s potential retaliation. The author posits that this repression extends beyond late-night shows and calls for opposition to defend free speech.
Read the original article here
Jimmy Kimmel’s bosses sold us all out. It’s a sentiment that’s resonating, a growing frustration at the perceived capitulation of major media corporations like Disney and ABC. The underlying feeling is that these entities, driven by profit and fear of political repercussions, are sacrificing journalistic integrity and free speech on the altar of appeasement. The narrative suggests a chilling reality: corporations, wielding immense power, are bending to the will of those in power, potentially a future administration, at the expense of the very freedoms they should be defending.
This perceived betrayal isn’t just about Jimmy Kimmel’s show. It’s about a larger pattern of behavior, a trend of bowing to pressure, and a lack of resistance. The core concern is that the mainstream media, dominated by a handful of powerful corporations, is failing to hold those in power accountable. This inaction is interpreted as a deliberate choice, a strategic calculation made by corporate leaders who prioritize their own financial interests and fear of retribution above all else. It’s a modern echo of historical patterns, where power brokers choose loyalty and obedience over principle.
The argument also posits that this isn’t just a matter of individual political affiliations or preferences. It’s a systemic issue, a consequence of late-stage capitalism and the increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few powerful oligarchs. The implication is clear: when the bottom line becomes the sole guiding principle, ethical considerations and the public good are inevitably sidelined. This is exacerbated by shareholder primacy, where executives are incentivized to maximize profits above all else, even at the cost of journalistic integrity and the First Amendment.
The examples used to illustrate this point are stark and suggestive of a deliberate trend. The apparent silencing of boycott news across media, and the comparison to how other companies have acted, hint at a coordinated effort to control the narrative and downplay any negative repercussions. This fear of retribution is a significant driving force in this narrative, leading to self-censorship and a reluctance to challenge those in power. This narrative mirrors the way that Putin controlled the Russian oligarchs.
The proposed solutions are equally straightforward: speak with your wallets, and make your voices heard. Boycotting the media outlets in question is presented as a potent tool for enacting change, a way to demonstrate the power of the public and hold corporations accountable. Cancelling subscriptions, refusing to consume content, and making your voices heard are all key components of this approach. This can be seen as a call to arms, urging citizens to become active participants in the fight for free speech and journalistic integrity.
The narrative also highlights the vulnerability of corporations that appease those in power. Drawing parallels to past events, the argument asserts that giving in to bullies only emboldens them. Instead, these corporations should confront them.
Ultimately, this narrative is not just about one show, one corporation, or one political figure. It’s about a fundamental shift in the relationship between power, money, and the media. It is a warning about the dangers of unchecked corporate influence, the erosion of free speech, and the importance of active civic engagement. It’s a call to action, a demand for accountability, and a reminder that the future of freedom depends on the choices we make today.