It’s like the old saying “when you owe the bank $1m, the bank owns you but when you owe the bank $1b, you own the bank.
These media companies (and all other companies that act contrary to their bottom lines) are owned by their Millennial/Gen Z employees - any one of which could be fired but as a cohort cannot be replaced and can cancel the bosses.
Combine that with the bosses own politics, the prestige of awards given to the “correct” viewpoint and seeking/needing the approval of the creative community and that’s how we’ve ended up with almost every newspaper, TV news shows (and related media like “The View” or late night programs).
What is so frustrating about the FCC’s bungling is that it gives credence to what I’d call late night’s “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Complex.” Hosts like Colbert and Kimmel positioned themselves as righteous truth tellers speaking truth to power, when during Trump 1.0, it actually helped their ratings. The grandiosity was out of touch with the reality on the ground.
Now, Kimmel can point to the FCC’s actions as proof he is a moral voice in the wilderness.
“ positioned themselves as righteous truth tellers speaking truth to power, when during Trump 1.0, it actually helped their ratings”; and absolutely everyone was doing it. If absolutely everyone is doing it then it isn’t brave, it’s just normal.
I remember Jussie Smollett (sp?) saying his attack probably happened because he was “going hard at 45” and thinking “dude, literally everyone in Hollywood is doing the same thing, why would anyone care about you?”
I remember George Clooney going on Smartless and the hosts were fawning over him for speaking out against Trump, like this was a dangerous thing to do in Hollywood vs something that only garners praise.
I agree with you that much of Trump 2’s agenda is basically culture war aggression against Nate Silver’s “village” and that the Kimmel brouhaha is part of that. And there are reasonable gripes one might have with the village, and the attempt to lower its residents’ status and correspondingly to raise the status of its opponents is a coherent political aim.
The question I guess I have, for you, one realistic adult to another, is…how do you actually think this is going to go? Because my honest expectations here are of over-reach, embarrassment, chaos, and trampling of norms that are unlikely to be replaced by better ones. Yes - if I adopt the posture of a true believer right wing culture warrior, the strategy here might make sense. But presumably that is not your actual outlook, so my question stands: how do you think all of this is going to go?
This will be an unsatisfying response. I am not smart enough to predict how this is going to go longterm. A lot depends on how covert, rather than overt, Team Trump wishes to be about achieving goals.
If anybody tells you how this is going to shake out with any certainty, they are telling you that you should not listen to them. How many people were able to correctly predicate on say Jan 20, 2021 the current state of our politics and culture…
I hinted at my view in my original message. I think any sort of attempt to engineer from the top a right-wing cultural takeover is likely to fail but result in a few well placed sycophants of Trump getting rich. I can try to make more explicit, specific predictions along these lines. But my main intuition is that intellectual justifications like Ethan’s are mostly just putting halos on naked corruption and trying to spin elaborate justifications for it that come undone after 1-2 Trump Truth Social posts
In your articles aimed at Legacy media I have yet to hear you report let alone mention how these companies have been paying Trump off like it’s an extortion measure.
Trump hasn’t touched South Park (as Bill Simmons mentioned) and NPR and PBS being sacrificial lambs in this new 2nd Trump admin is a tragedy as these were public broadcast stations that leaned heavily on individual donors and grants
I’m (still) always surprised by your need to protect more conservative media up against liberal media especially in the face of an administration whose main qualifier in the 2024 election was that they played on people’s fears about LGBTQ going too far and criminals not being able to be IDed because they were illegals.
And not to mention that’s all down steam from life just being too expensive. Either way, It’s Trump’s economy now.
If there is anything that we learned from 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election is that anger is very palpable on both sides of the aisle.
Not that you care what my opinion of you is Ethan, but to me your heart always comes off as liberal but your head always seems to come off as more sympathetic to the anger on the right. Hence why I say I'm (still) always surprised by how your stories like these land for me.
With all due respect, did you read the article? The point is to explore why "Legacy media" is struggling, from as neutral perspective as possible. The hypothesis in the article appears to be that: Legacy media is struggling because it has gone "all in, on one side, all the time, losing viewership along the way."
Whether or not companies have been "paying off Trump" or whatever is beside the point. A lot of folks in media only know how to play one note (even if the note is accurate btw!), and they're losing viewers/readers/listeners because of it. This comment is such a pitch-perfect example of the article's main point that it makes me wonder, again, with all due respect, did you read it?
For the record, since I saw you attracted so many likes - I will begrudgingly answer you by stating I did read the article. And while you might have attempted to remain neutral in asking me the question I am of the belief that there is no such thing as being neutral.
While I admire Ethan as a writer and enjoy his reporting, I am not going to buy into neutrality especially given our current administration which has been anything but a normal one ( or was the 45th admin). I will always call out implicit or subconscious attempts to normalize this Presidency. The feedback loop you created for yourself in my humble opinion appears to be a bit biased. I for one don’t hide my biases.
Yes and this hypothesis is just completely incorrect. Fox news only plays one note. Many of the popular right wing guys amongst young ppl only play one note. Clear case of a theory searching for a conclusion
I subscribed basically from Day One after reading him regularly at ESPN and The Athletic. My latest annual subscription expires tomorrow; I'm content with my decision not to renew.
No hard feelings or anything; the man lived his experiences (he's not the only fellow I know in the Bay Area who was radicalized by their overbearing COVID response) and is entitled to his views. But as you say, it's hard not to think he'd hold different views if he lived elsewhere. Then, his lack of perspective on that -- where he predictably presents apologetics as keen insight and truth-telling -- is myopic to the point of parody, especially to those of us who live and work in environments where that perspective is dominant.
This kind of passive aggressive twenty-something breakup letter is symbolic of one of the (many ) reasons we got Trump. Yes, a handful of people prone to such things will respond by promising to change and then agreeing to renter into a toxic relationship with you. But the majority will either not respond and quickly take you off their “maybe fuck if bored enough”, or actively decide to sleep with the people they think would hurt you most just out of spite.
Your referencing Ethan like he can't read this is slightly cringe. But otherwise, your opinion is valid. If anything, your choice is ultimately your choice. I like to think it's a patriotic duty of sorts to get engaged with people you disagree with. I have been a long time *paid* subscriber of Ethan's, and I'll probably renew again.
In fact, I even recently did a paid subscription to Rob Henderson (only for a month though) just to give him my two cents on why I found his statistics of political violence on the left vs political violence on the right to be misleading and overtly partisan.
That's the beauty of America; we get to share ideas and disagree with each other in a peaceful forum. But America is more and more capitalistic as well, so often times we also have to pay for access, too.
Kimmel reminds me of 2014-2015 David Letterman. Still a talented person (he navigated moonlight vs la la land) but people forget that Letterman's show got a bit stuffy, excessively liberal and one dimensional. It was really the finale that saved the final years of that show. I kind of feel for the late night host's today as the only real unifying thing left to talk about is US politics which immediately puts people in camps. This is the monoculture you always bring up. I remember back in the early 2000s where it was more about Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. This kimmell situation represents trump's vandetta on his enemies. "I hate my enemies." Trump said in his Kirk memorial speech. Kimmell did mention Jesus in his monologue which irked me slightly. Kimmell like fallon, obrien, colbert identify as Catholic but do you really feel it in their shows. Kimmel did not mention Kirk's faith in Jesus. Seems like they would have that in common. And Colbert can stand on his own two feet against an atheist but puts on Fr James Martin - the most radical lefty Catholic out there to represent the Catholic faith instead of a Cardinal Dolan who frequents the Today Show and GMA all the time. All I'm trying to say is the in fighting is everywhere, and i don't expect it to stop since there are very real differences between the populace at this point.
“I enjoy Mike Wilbon and believe he’s a good guy. It just speaks to the likely mentality within his millieu that Pearl’s honestly held beliefs read as intentional provocations. When everyone around you has the same idea, contrary ideas aren’t mere differences of opinion: They lack legitimacy. They aren’t even real. People who hold them cannot be tolerated, let alone interfaced with.”
As usual, Ethan finds a way to take thoughts in my head that I can’t quite articulate and delivers them eloquently.
This is my least favorite thing about political discourse. More so than when I am diametrically opposed to someone’s particular view, the attitude of, “I am correct and you are immoral” is never not shocking.
It mostly manifests itself via small talk in Zoom meetings where colleagues will openly add in their sarcastic partisan jabs, with a level of arrogance that screams, “it’s not on our radar that we need to be professional, because obviously everyone on this call is a good person who votes like me and all the other good people.”
Read this last night when it published and came back again just now to re-read. Just wanted to give my praises. Awesome, thought-provoking shit I haven't found anywhere else. Thanks, Ethan.
Hard agree here. While people seem to want Ethan to take the same position as almost every other person writing on this, the reason I love Ethan's work he's digging a bit behind the scenes and he's giving the big picture look at what, for example, Carr is actually attempting.
That's interesting and challenging stuff and that's why I'm a subscriber!!!!
Totally agree. Also, I’ve struggled over the past few years to verbalize, or come up with a way to communicate effectively, the reason there’s such a disconnect between large portions of our society. This article is the clearest explainer I’ve found of that idea.
There are two issues here: First, the president and the FCC attempting to censor someone for saying something they don't like. And for a fairly benign statement at that. But more importantly is the issue of the merger that Ethan alludes to. Should one company have ownership of more than 40% of newstations? The fact that Sinclair and Nexstar are getting into a pissing match with Disney over Kimmel is wild to me. If Jimmy's show is truly failing and on it's way out, just let it take it's course. Both things are really concerning. Given that more than a few on the right are defending Jimmy, the latter is likely more concerning than the former.
Not the main thrust of the article, but since it's mentioned I feel I can comment on it: I am so happy Bruce Pearl is gone. I am not saying that because he is Jewish or apparently has rightward politics. I couldn't give two shits about anybody's religion nor any non-politician's politics. I'm happy he's because he's just a terrible human being. I am biased there because I'm an Illinois alumnus and was raised in an Illini-supporting family, but he'll always be Enemy Number One in Urbana-Champaign for the Deon Thomas affair. I wish more people knew all the details of that, because it was nauseating hearing all the adoration showered upon him by ESPN for the last several years.
Ethan, I do think that affair would make a great article for you to do, as it touches on so many well-known figures (Bob Knight, Digger Phelps, LaPhonso Ellis) and utter ridiculousness from the NCAA.
Just once I'd like Ethan to mention the GOP's continuing problem with female voters. Winning men, who historically vote less, is fine in short term, but losing the female vote by huge margins isn't a winning long-term strategy.
You said it is losing strategy long term but “Trump picked up a larger proportion of voters under 30 than any Republican presidential candidate since 2008, according to NBC News exit polling.”
Trump won every single swing state, the popular vote, even places like CA and NY voted more red in 2024, than in 2016 and 2020.
You might be right about the woman thing but it’s obvious you’re looking for copium.
The only reason Ted Cruz or Ben Shapiro “ called out their own” is cause they want to preserve the right to say whatever bigoted things they want to say in the future, without fear of retribution. GOP world doesn’t call out Trump for any of the unlawful things he does and you know it. You claim to be someone who is just calling balls and strikes, in that case, conservatives are Livan Hernandez and you sir are Eric Gregg
Truly, Pearl’s right wing politics must make him a divisive figure in…Alabama.
It’s like the old saying “when you owe the bank $1m, the bank owns you but when you owe the bank $1b, you own the bank.
These media companies (and all other companies that act contrary to their bottom lines) are owned by their Millennial/Gen Z employees - any one of which could be fired but as a cohort cannot be replaced and can cancel the bosses.
Combine that with the bosses own politics, the prestige of awards given to the “correct” viewpoint and seeking/needing the approval of the creative community and that’s how we’ve ended up with almost every newspaper, TV news shows (and related media like “The View” or late night programs).
What is so frustrating about the FCC’s bungling is that it gives credence to what I’d call late night’s “Dietrich Bonhoeffer Complex.” Hosts like Colbert and Kimmel positioned themselves as righteous truth tellers speaking truth to power, when during Trump 1.0, it actually helped their ratings. The grandiosity was out of touch with the reality on the ground.
Now, Kimmel can point to the FCC’s actions as proof he is a moral voice in the wilderness.
“ positioned themselves as righteous truth tellers speaking truth to power, when during Trump 1.0, it actually helped their ratings”; and absolutely everyone was doing it. If absolutely everyone is doing it then it isn’t brave, it’s just normal.
I remember Jussie Smollett (sp?) saying his attack probably happened because he was “going hard at 45” and thinking “dude, literally everyone in Hollywood is doing the same thing, why would anyone care about you?”
I remember George Clooney going on Smartless and the hosts were fawning over him for speaking out against Trump, like this was a dangerous thing to do in Hollywood vs something that only garners praise.
I agree with you that much of Trump 2’s agenda is basically culture war aggression against Nate Silver’s “village” and that the Kimmel brouhaha is part of that. And there are reasonable gripes one might have with the village, and the attempt to lower its residents’ status and correspondingly to raise the status of its opponents is a coherent political aim.
The question I guess I have, for you, one realistic adult to another, is…how do you actually think this is going to go? Because my honest expectations here are of over-reach, embarrassment, chaos, and trampling of norms that are unlikely to be replaced by better ones. Yes - if I adopt the posture of a true believer right wing culture warrior, the strategy here might make sense. But presumably that is not your actual outlook, so my question stands: how do you think all of this is going to go?
This will be an unsatisfying response. I am not smart enough to predict how this is going to go longterm. A lot depends on how covert, rather than overt, Team Trump wishes to be about achieving goals.
I guess make that one more thing that you and I disagree on, then. I definitely think you’re smart enough. But thank you for the reply
If anybody tells you how this is going to shake out with any certainty, they are telling you that you should not listen to them. How many people were able to correctly predicate on say Jan 20, 2021 the current state of our politics and culture…
Humility about the future is warranted. But naiveté about where all of this is headed is inexcusable
Where is it headed?
I hinted at my view in my original message. I think any sort of attempt to engineer from the top a right-wing cultural takeover is likely to fail but result in a few well placed sycophants of Trump getting rich. I can try to make more explicit, specific predictions along these lines. But my main intuition is that intellectual justifications like Ethan’s are mostly just putting halos on naked corruption and trying to spin elaborate justifications for it that come undone after 1-2 Trump Truth Social posts
What
In your articles aimed at Legacy media I have yet to hear you report let alone mention how these companies have been paying Trump off like it’s an extortion measure.
Trump hasn’t touched South Park (as Bill Simmons mentioned) and NPR and PBS being sacrificial lambs in this new 2nd Trump admin is a tragedy as these were public broadcast stations that leaned heavily on individual donors and grants
I’m (still) always surprised by your need to protect more conservative media up against liberal media especially in the face of an administration whose main qualifier in the 2024 election was that they played on people’s fears about LGBTQ going too far and criminals not being able to be IDed because they were illegals.
And not to mention that’s all down steam from life just being too expensive. Either way, It’s Trump’s economy now.
If there is anything that we learned from 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election is that anger is very palpable on both sides of the aisle.
Not that you care what my opinion of you is Ethan, but to me your heart always comes off as liberal but your head always seems to come off as more sympathetic to the anger on the right. Hence why I say I'm (still) always surprised by how your stories like these land for me.
With all due respect, did you read the article? The point is to explore why "Legacy media" is struggling, from as neutral perspective as possible. The hypothesis in the article appears to be that: Legacy media is struggling because it has gone "all in, on one side, all the time, losing viewership along the way."
Whether or not companies have been "paying off Trump" or whatever is beside the point. A lot of folks in media only know how to play one note (even if the note is accurate btw!), and they're losing viewers/readers/listeners because of it. This comment is such a pitch-perfect example of the article's main point that it makes me wonder, again, with all due respect, did you read it?
With all due respect, how neutral of a place are you (really) coming from in responding to my comment on this thread?
I'll take that as a "no."
Are you a Gas-Lighter? Whether you answer yes or no, or give me a non-answer, I already have my take on you. ... with all due respect, of course!
For the record, since I saw you attracted so many likes - I will begrudgingly answer you by stating I did read the article. And while you might have attempted to remain neutral in asking me the question I am of the belief that there is no such thing as being neutral.
While I admire Ethan as a writer and enjoy his reporting, I am not going to buy into neutrality especially given our current administration which has been anything but a normal one ( or was the 45th admin). I will always call out implicit or subconscious attempts to normalize this Presidency. The feedback loop you created for yourself in my humble opinion appears to be a bit biased. I for one don’t hide my biases.
Yes and this hypothesis is just completely incorrect. Fox news only plays one note. Many of the popular right wing guys amongst young ppl only play one note. Clear case of a theory searching for a conclusion
I think he just enjoys being against what most of his neighbors in the Bay Area think. Don't think there is much more depth to it.
Would love to see him live in say Tulsa, Oklahoma for a couple years and get back to us.
Amen, my conclusion as well.
I subscribed basically from Day One after reading him regularly at ESPN and The Athletic. My latest annual subscription expires tomorrow; I'm content with my decision not to renew.
No hard feelings or anything; the man lived his experiences (he's not the only fellow I know in the Bay Area who was radicalized by their overbearing COVID response) and is entitled to his views. But as you say, it's hard not to think he'd hold different views if he lived elsewhere. Then, his lack of perspective on that -- where he predictably presents apologetics as keen insight and truth-telling -- is myopic to the point of parody, especially to those of us who live and work in environments where that perspective is dominant.
Just my $0.02
Bless us all.
Someone considering Ethan radical seems itself to be parody.
That is funny! LOL
This kind of passive aggressive twenty-something breakup letter is symbolic of one of the (many ) reasons we got Trump. Yes, a handful of people prone to such things will respond by promising to change and then agreeing to renter into a toxic relationship with you. But the majority will either not respond and quickly take you off their “maybe fuck if bored enough”, or actively decide to sleep with the people they think would hurt you most just out of spite.
Your referencing Ethan like he can't read this is slightly cringe. But otherwise, your opinion is valid. If anything, your choice is ultimately your choice. I like to think it's a patriotic duty of sorts to get engaged with people you disagree with. I have been a long time *paid* subscriber of Ethan's, and I'll probably renew again.
In fact, I even recently did a paid subscription to Rob Henderson (only for a month though) just to give him my two cents on why I found his statistics of political violence on the left vs political violence on the right to be misleading and overtly partisan.
That's the beauty of America; we get to share ideas and disagree with each other in a peaceful forum. But America is more and more capitalistic as well, so often times we also have to pay for access, too.
South Park is on cable and doesn’t take government funding.
Kimmel reminds me of 2014-2015 David Letterman. Still a talented person (he navigated moonlight vs la la land) but people forget that Letterman's show got a bit stuffy, excessively liberal and one dimensional. It was really the finale that saved the final years of that show. I kind of feel for the late night host's today as the only real unifying thing left to talk about is US politics which immediately puts people in camps. This is the monoculture you always bring up. I remember back in the early 2000s where it was more about Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. This kimmell situation represents trump's vandetta on his enemies. "I hate my enemies." Trump said in his Kirk memorial speech. Kimmell did mention Jesus in his monologue which irked me slightly. Kimmell like fallon, obrien, colbert identify as Catholic but do you really feel it in their shows. Kimmel did not mention Kirk's faith in Jesus. Seems like they would have that in common. And Colbert can stand on his own two feet against an atheist but puts on Fr James Martin - the most radical lefty Catholic out there to represent the Catholic faith instead of a Cardinal Dolan who frequents the Today Show and GMA all the time. All I'm trying to say is the in fighting is everywhere, and i don't expect it to stop since there are very real differences between the populace at this point.
“I enjoy Mike Wilbon and believe he’s a good guy. It just speaks to the likely mentality within his millieu that Pearl’s honestly held beliefs read as intentional provocations. When everyone around you has the same idea, contrary ideas aren’t mere differences of opinion: They lack legitimacy. They aren’t even real. People who hold them cannot be tolerated, let alone interfaced with.”
As usual, Ethan finds a way to take thoughts in my head that I can’t quite articulate and delivers them eloquently.
This is my least favorite thing about political discourse. More so than when I am diametrically opposed to someone’s particular view, the attitude of, “I am correct and you are immoral” is never not shocking.
It mostly manifests itself via small talk in Zoom meetings where colleagues will openly add in their sarcastic partisan jabs, with a level of arrogance that screams, “it’s not on our radar that we need to be professional, because obviously everyone on this call is a good person who votes like me and all the other good people.”
Read this last night when it published and came back again just now to re-read. Just wanted to give my praises. Awesome, thought-provoking shit I haven't found anywhere else. Thanks, Ethan.
Hard agree here. While people seem to want Ethan to take the same position as almost every other person writing on this, the reason I love Ethan's work he's digging a bit behind the scenes and he's giving the big picture look at what, for example, Carr is actually attempting.
That's interesting and challenging stuff and that's why I'm a subscriber!!!!
Totally agree. Also, I’ve struggled over the past few years to verbalize, or come up with a way to communicate effectively, the reason there’s such a disconnect between large portions of our society. This article is the clearest explainer I’ve found of that idea.
There are two issues here: First, the president and the FCC attempting to censor someone for saying something they don't like. And for a fairly benign statement at that. But more importantly is the issue of the merger that Ethan alludes to. Should one company have ownership of more than 40% of newstations? The fact that Sinclair and Nexstar are getting into a pissing match with Disney over Kimmel is wild to me. If Jimmy's show is truly failing and on it's way out, just let it take it's course. Both things are really concerning. Given that more than a few on the right are defending Jimmy, the latter is likely more concerning than the former.
Not the main thrust of the article, but since it's mentioned I feel I can comment on it: I am so happy Bruce Pearl is gone. I am not saying that because he is Jewish or apparently has rightward politics. I couldn't give two shits about anybody's religion nor any non-politician's politics. I'm happy he's because he's just a terrible human being. I am biased there because I'm an Illinois alumnus and was raised in an Illini-supporting family, but he'll always be Enemy Number One in Urbana-Champaign for the Deon Thomas affair. I wish more people knew all the details of that, because it was nauseating hearing all the adoration showered upon him by ESPN for the last several years.
Ethan, I do think that affair would make a great article for you to do, as it touches on so many well-known figures (Bob Knight, Digger Phelps, LaPhonso Ellis) and utter ridiculousness from the NCAA.
https://archive.is/8gY2L
Just once I'd like Ethan to mention the GOP's continuing problem with female voters. Winning men, who historically vote less, is fine in short term, but losing the female vote by huge margins isn't a winning long-term strategy.
…Trump won married women.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna179019
So he drew even with one subset of women. How about women as a whole?
You said it is losing strategy long term but “Trump picked up a larger proportion of voters under 30 than any Republican presidential candidate since 2008, according to NBC News exit polling.”
Trump won every single swing state, the popular vote, even places like CA and NY voted more red in 2024, than in 2016 and 2020.
You might be right about the woman thing but it’s obvious you’re looking for copium.
Just take the long view. In the meantime, firm, steady pressure.
The only reason Ted Cruz or Ben Shapiro “ called out their own” is cause they want to preserve the right to say whatever bigoted things they want to say in the future, without fear of retribution. GOP world doesn’t call out Trump for any of the unlawful things he does and you know it. You claim to be someone who is just calling balls and strikes, in that case, conservatives are Livan Hernandez and you sir are Eric Gregg
I have no dog in the fight on your claims on Ethan's bias, but I will award five points for the Hernandez/Gregg line.