Mr. @Magiver, sometimes a lawyer will make a case to the court of an alternate explanation of the facts that make his client seem not, or less, guilty than the more obvious interpretation because their job is to be a professional advocate for their client and present the jury with an alternate interpretation more favorably for their client. They may even pretend that other interpretations which are less favorable to their client don’t have merit or don’t exist.
Let me propose to you an alternate explanation to the one you were advocating in this thread:
- We know recently that Skydance/CBS were merging and that merging required executive approval.
- We know that Trump wields the mechanisms of the executive branch in a corrupt fashion, granting favors to those who have given him favors, or even simply praise and a demonstration that they are a faithful supporter to him and an enemy of his enemies.
- It is fairly obvious that CBS/paramount did not renew the Late Night talk show because Stephen Colbert is a prominent critic of Trump. Furthermore, CBS/paramount agreed to install a conservative ombudsman to make sure the network’s programming was less critical of conservatives and Trump.
- The obvious implication would be that this is the favor they paid in order to get the merger granted.
- Jimmy Kimmel is very similar to Stephen Colbert in that they are a late night talk show host that is very critical of Trump.
- Kimmel said something that gave MAGA and more importantly conservative-oriented media networks (including ownership networks of TV stations) a pretense under which to cancel him. Obviously whether this is justified is open to argument, but IMO of course it was not. His statements are mild and people are misinterpreting them on purpose to make it seem worse than it was. But even if it was the worse statement that they claim it is, it still does not justify the reaction. The idea that this was so over the line that it required immediate suspension is laughable. It is a pretense, not a genuine reaction.
- Trump’s executive branch attempted to intimidate ABC and ABC affilitates to punish Kimmel by having the FCC Chairman threaten to investigate pulling licenses for ABC affiliates
- Very similar to the CBS/Paramount and Skydance situation, the nextstar merger needs approval from Trump’s executive branch, and they may be giving Trump the favor he requires to approve the merger in the exact same fashion that Paramount/Skydance did.
- Sinclair is a conservative media source that has a conservative agenda that is compatible with cancelling Kimmel, and they may be opportunistically hopping on board both to push their agenda and curry favor with Trump
- Emboldened by this situation, Trump has made moves to declare that criticism of him on television is illegal which is not only absolutely fucking bonkers but indicates a governmental effort to silence his critics
So let me ask you this. The interpretation of the situation you have continuously advocated for in this thread is that what Kimmel said was so over the line that dozens of stations organically reacted by demanding his cancellation, and that none of the agendas of the government nor corporations involved here are the determining factor in cancelling Kimmel.
Do you believe that the interpretation that the corporations involved trying to curry favor with Trump, who holds regulatory power over their merger ambitions, and that Trump takes extreme actions to punish his critics, and therefore they were looking for a reason to cancel Kimmel and seized on this as an opportunity, is wrong or unreasonable? Do you acknowledge it as a valid interpretation of the facts? Do you acknowledge it as credible and even likely?
Do you think it’s less likely than the interpretation you’re advocating in this thread?
Or are you simply making a lawyer’s case for your “client”, in this case, your political side, when you advocate your interpretation of events, offering us a possible interpretation that you do not sincerely believe to be the best explanation of events?