By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show highlighted a power struggle between ABC and large broadcast groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, who own a significant number of ABC affiliates. Despite pressure from the FCC, the broadcast groups’ initial decision to remove Kimmel from their stations was ultimately unsuccessful. The economics of the situation favored ABC, as the broadcast groups risked losing viewers and revenue by preempting a popular program like Kimmel. Ultimately, the broadcast groups relented, recognizing that the long-term costs of the standoff outweighed the benefits, and the show was put back on air.
Read the original article here
Nexstar and Sinclair Lost Their Game of Chicken.
So, let’s talk about this whole situation with Nexstar and Sinclair, and how it seems like they played a game of chicken and ultimately, well, they lost. From what I gather, the main takeaway is pretty clear: messing with people’s access to content, especially when it’s politically motivated, isn’t a winning strategy. The whole thing seems to have backfired spectacularly, revealing a level of overreach that’s pretty astounding.
The initial idea was to try and flex some muscle, maybe silence some voices, or at least control the narrative. But the public reaction was swift and decisive. People voted with their wallets. They stopped watching, they cancelled subscriptions, and the financial consequences became undeniable. And that’s the language that corporations, especially in media, truly understand.
One of the biggest revelations here is how many people, myself included, weren’t even fully aware of the roles these companies played in the media landscape before all of this. It created a ripple effect. The initial outrage wasn’t necessarily about the specific issue, but rather about the underlying agenda. It exposed a clear agenda, which, for a lot of people, felt like an attack on free speech.
It’s like a giant, unforced error. The initial move to silence someone like Jimmy Kimmel seems to have been just the opening act of a larger play. The goal was to silence voices critical of their agenda, but the strategy just wasn’t clever enough. The public reaction seems to have been fueled by a number of factors, but at the core was a deep dissatisfaction with the attempt to control the narrative.
The power of the dollar, right? It’s the only language that really matters. When they lost access to things like SEC football games, or possibly the Super Bowl, all because of this posturing, it became clear that this game of chicken wasn’t going to end well. They lost and now they will now cry all the way to the bank as they reap the rewards of Kimmel’s higher ratings.
There’s a feeling that these companies were more interested in appeasing certain political factions than in serving their audience. They may have thought they could play the long game, exert pressure, and eventually get what they wanted. But, in the end, their reach exceeded their grasp. They underestimated the public’s appetite for content, the value of their services, and the determination of those they were trying to control.
The fact that the government, through the FCC, was seemingly involved in all this adds another layer of complexity. It becomes less about a business decision and more about the government trying to silence voices they don’t like. It’s a free speech issue, plain and simple. The First Amendment protects against government interference with speech, and the FCC seemingly bullying companies over political criticism crossed a line.
We’ve seen the effects of boycotts and consumer action, and they can be powerful tools in this landscape. The public showed that they can indeed vote with their wallets, and that’s a lesson that should resonate with everyone involved. This all underscores that money is speech in this day and age, and sometimes it’s the most effective form of protest.
Ultimately, the whole situation serves as a reminder of how powerful the public can be. When corporations push too hard, when they overreach and attempt to control content, the public has the power to push back. And in this case, they did. They exposed the players involved, the motivations behind the actions, and they voted with their dollars. They may not be getting the message, but they got the response.
It’s also important to remember this isn’t just a one-off battle. It’s a constant struggle, a war for free speech, and keeping that in mind is key. Even the execs behind these moves will likely have to live with the public’s response and, likely, will want their revenge. So let’s continue to vote with our dollars. Let’s make sure they understand that the public is watching, and they will be held accountable.