By Matt Underwood ABC’s call for viewer support in its ongoing battles with Donald Trump seems to have landed with a decidedly mixed reception, to put it mildly. It feels like the network is asking for solidarity now, after a history that many viewers perceive as enabling, or at least not actively resisting, Trump’s rise and actions. The sentiment echoing through discussions is a weary “you reap what you sow.” Many recall past instances where ABC, or its parent company Disney, seemingly capitulated or made concessions to Trump, leading to a deep well of skepticism and resentment. It’s as if the network is now facing the consequences of past decisions and is seeking an audience to stand with them, but that audience feels burned and unwilling to offer unqualified backing.
A recurring theme is the feeling that ABC, and the broader media landscape, should have acted more decisively from the outset. The idea is that instead of appeasing or avoiding conflict, a stronger, more fact-based journalistic approach from the start might have prevented the current situation. There’s a palpable desire for ABC to engage in “actual journalism,” to “call him out on every lie,” and to broadcast facts without hesitation. This perspective suggests that genuine courage and a commitment to truth, even when it’s difficult or unpopular, would have earned ABC respect and loyalty much earlier on.
The financial aspect of the “Trump battles” is also a significant point of contention. The mention of a past settlement, reportedly in the tens of millions of dollars, looms large in the minds of many. This is seen by some as a “political bribe” that only emboldened Trump, creating a cycle of him “shaking you down for more bribes.” The analogy of “giving a bully your lunch money” is particularly potent, suggesting that such concessions don’t solve problems but rather create dependency and further demands. The idea of ABC asking for support now, after such a history, strikes many as disingenuous.
There’s a sentiment that ABC has “bent the knee” in the past, and now, when it’s convenient for the network, they’re asking for public backing. This perceived lack of consistent moral or journalistic fortitude is a major hurdle for viewer support. Specific incidents, like the suspension of a host to appease Trump, are cited as examples of ABC prioritizing its own interests or avoiding controversy over standing on principle. The question arises: if ABC prioritized appeasement before, why should viewers trust them to stand firm now, especially if shareholder value or profits are at stake?
Adding to the complexity, some viewers express a desire for ABC to stand up to Trump, but only if it’s a genuine, unwavering commitment. They are wary of what they see as performative gestures or a last-ditch effort to regain favor. The idea of “complying in advance” is seen as a failed strategy, and ABC is being urged to recognize that. There’s a clear distinction being drawn between genuine journalistic integrity and what is perceived as corporate self-preservation. The call for ABC to “say fuck off” to Trump’s demands is a strong indicator of the frustration.
The broader critique extends to the media ecosystem as a whole. Many believe that networks like ABC, along with others, have been complicit in allowing Trump’s influence to grow, at times acting as “dedicated Trump propaganda mills.” This has led to a deep distrust of these established media structures. The idea of supporting a “giant megacorporation” like ABC, especially when they are perceived to have failed in their duty to inform and uphold democratic values, is a bridge too far for many. They feel these corporations have already “caved” and no longer deserve their viewership or support.
However, amidst the widespread skepticism, there are glimmers of hope and conditional support. Some viewers are willing to back ABC, but their support is entirely contingent on the network demonstrating a significant shift in its approach. This means “doing the right thing,” investigating issues thoroughly, and refusing to back down. For these individuals, the fight against Trump is a cause worth supporting, but only when championed by a media outlet that has earned their trust through genuine courage and journalistic rigor. The re-airing of historically significant programs, like “Roots,” is suggested as a symbolic act that could demonstrate a commitment to truth and combating revisionist narratives, which some see as particularly relevant in the current political climate.
Ultimately, ABC’s appeal for viewer backing in its Trump battles highlights a deep rift between the network and a significant portion of its audience. The call for support is met with demands for accountability, a reassessment of past actions, and a clear demonstration of unwavering journalistic integrity. The path to earning that support is perceived by many as long and requiring a fundamental shift from appeasement to outright confrontation, rooted in a commitment to truth above all else. The underlying sentiment is that the time for hesitant steps and compromises has passed, and only a bold, principled stand will garner genuine, lasting public approval.