Dem
47
GOP
53
Jimmy Kimmel, and the First-Amendment-violating censorship thereof, was the big story yesterday, extending into a second news cycle.
Using the government's power to silence those who express disfavored views is hardly new for this administration. Sometimes, the censorship is just an excuse. For example, the claim that the administration cares about anti-Israel/antisemitic stuff said on campus cannot be taken seriously; that's just an excuse to justify crackdowns on the universities, which are perceived as pro-education, pro-science, and anti-fascist (aka, three strikes and you're out, from the vantage point of this administration).
In other cases—and those cases almost always seem to involve situations where Trump's personal feefees were
hurt—the censorship really is the point, and isn't just cover for some other agenda. The lawsuits against The
New York Times (cause of action unclear, as yet) and The Wall Street Journal (Epstein letter) come to mind.
The money that came from Trump's extortion of settlements with CBS ($16 million over the Kamala Harris interview)
and ABC ($15 million because George Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump is a rapist). Trump and his underlings
certainly appear to have shut down Stephen Colbert's show, and they definitely shut down Jimmy Kimmel's show, at least
for the time being, and maybe forever.
And it's not going to end there. We could say that with 100% confidence, without any additional evidence, because
we know how Trump rolls. But we don't need to operate without evidence, because Trump and his houseboy FCC
chair Brendan Carr both provided it in a nice, gift-wrapped package yesterday. Trump, for his part,
told reporters:
I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states. They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.
Trump added that the final decision would be up to Carr, a claim that we believe about as much as we believe that Trump actually reads. Nonetheless, Carr appeared on CNBC after Trump spoke and made the threats he was expected to make, accusing Kimmel of "mislead[ing] his viewers," and promising that "we're not done yet" with the changes in "the media ecosystem."
Now, we recognize that we don't answer to a board of directors, and that our careers and our stock options are not on the line, but we do not understand why one of these CEOs or executive vice presidents or heads of programming, particularly if they are employed by an outlet that does NOT have a pending merger, does not tell the White House: "fu** off, do your worst, and we'll see you in court (after PLENTY of discovery)."
The pattern with Trump could not be clearer. If you give him an inch or two (kind of like his maker did), he will take a mile. Keeping in mind the Stephanopoulos settlement, this is the second shakedown of Disney (corporate parent of ABC) in the last 6 months or so. Can they possibly believe that Trump, having already learned he can bully them, won't be back for more at some point, probably sooner rather than later? Maybe it will be something that happens on one of ABC's news programs, or maybe something on Good Morning America (Stephanopoulos' other gig, in addition to his weekend news show). The View seems a particularly likely target, since it's a gabfest involving mostly liberal women, including a couple of women of color, who talk about politics a lot.
At the same time, when Trump the bully is confronted, he almost always backs down. And the TV networks, in particular, have a LOT of leverage here. To start, the threat made against ABC because of Kimmel is plainly unconstitutional. Just last year, the Supreme Court ruled in NRA v. Vullo that governments (in that case, the state government of New York) cannot coerce private companies into censoring viewpoints the government doesn't like. That decision was unanimous, and it was the same nine justices who are sitting right now. Trump would not win a case centered on Kimmel, even with this oft-friendly Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, as a thought exercise, it's worth gaming out what would happen if Trump and Carr tried to yank, say, ABC's broadcast license. There's one nuance here that we're not expert enough to answer, but we don't think it matters too much. So, to start, note that the broadcast license is for over-the-air broadcasts; the government is allowed to regulate that because it owns the (limited quantity) broadcast spectrum. This is why, for example, it is not possible to regulate Fox "News" or MS NOW, or any other cable channel.
That means, ostensibly, that yanking ABC's license would only affect over-the-air viewers—people who get their TV broadcasts via antenna. That's less than 20% of the viewing public; most people now get their "broadcast" networks via cable. The nuance we don't know is what would happen to the cable broadcasts of ABC or CBS or NBC or any other network that had its license yanked. It is likely they would continue along as normal, as if nothing had happened. It is also possible that the networks use the broadcast spectrum to deliver content to the cable providers (say, via satellite link), and that there would be a pause for a few days while a workaround was developed.
The worst-case scenario for Trump, we think, would be if pulling the license did indeed shut down the cable relays of the "broadcast" stations, either for a few days, or for longer. We suspect that many viewers would be none-too-happy if they tuned into the football games on Sunday (CBS, Fox and NBC), only to discover they've been killed because some news anchor or late-night host said something that gave Trump the sads. On top of that, the cable providers and streaming services don't want a million phone calls from people saying "How come ABC isn't working?" So, they would do what they do when there's a carriage dispute, and would replace the network feed with a title card explaining exactly why the channel is offline. That probably wouldn't help sell Trump's position, either.
And, of course, the moment the FCC tried to yank the license, lawyers for ABC/Disney, or whichever outlet is targeted, would be in court asking for an injunction. And they would surely get it; the finding in NRA v. Vullo couldn't be clearer, and any judge would have to presume that ABC/Disney (or other plaintiff) was likely to prevail on the merits.
We recognize there are a few other ways the Trump administration could make life miserable for broadcast networks, newspapers, etc., especially if the parent company is in the midst of merger talks. But there actually aren't THAT many other ways, which is presumably why Carr jumped right to threatening ABC's broadcast license. And again, it remains the case that Trump and his acolytes will do this over and over, because it silences criticism of the Dear Leader AND it provides red meat for the base. So, if some outlet is likely going to have to throw down and hold the line at some point anyhow, why not just do it now?
Indeed, if the networks really want to play hardball, they could do something that (Z) discussed yesterday with reader J.G. in San Diego, CA, not entirely dissimilar to what some of the universities have done. Each of the major broadcasters could pledge, say, $100 million to something with a name that is both broad, and yet obvious, like the "Censorship Defense Fund." Then they could let it be known that any network targeted by any government agency would be free to tap into that fund.
If they REALLY wanted to turn the screws, they could further make clear the money is available not only for the broadcasters to use in their own defense, but also to help with "other" legal cases. This would have to be communicated through carefully chosen language, or through backchannels, but what if Trump knew that if he tries to yank ABC's license, the very next day every person who has accused him of sexual misconduct would have two shiny, new, white-collar-firm lawyers of their very own, with an unlimited budget to pursue... anything that might be worth pursuing? Do you think that might make the bully think twice? And that, again, is our point. Kowtowing to a bully doesn't work, standing up does, and surely some entity is eventually going to draw the line, right?
Meanwhile, there is already one effort underway to get the networks to do the right thing. Here are three messages from readers, among several such messages we got yesterday:
In answer to the question, people can do what these three readers (and others) have done, and withhold their money. It may not be much, but if millions of people do it (and there's a big social media campaign underway right now), it will hit the networks hard in the pocketbooks, which is the primary concern in the C-suite. (Z)