Let's assume arguando that they are 100% completely correct. Let's assume that some people got very upset with Colbert for his political opinions and as a result his show got shut down.
And? What exactly is the problem? The last 11 years show us that Colbert's side of the aisle has absolutely no problem with that. It's been their modus operandi for over a decade.
Realistically, even if it was 100% purely political, there is already precedent for that. The United States federal government was able to log directly into Twitter to delete posts that it didn't like. At that point, you're done. Political censorship is back on the menu, and they're the ones who wrote it on there, by the opposition explicitly said "be careful, what if the shoe was on the other foot?" -- and now it is.
I don't even necessarily like it. I think it's bad. But on the other hand, if they didn't like it then they wouldn't have used it. The same as I don't particularly like the idea of going after our political enemies using the legal system, but that's going to happen because our political enemies decided that they had to take up the one ring for themselves. Once Pandora's box is opened shutting it doesn't do anything because of the contents have already escaped.
Robspierre always ends up under the blade of his own guillotine.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 1
"Imagine if the situation was reversed" and now it is and it's treated as "a heckin' fascism!". Does that mean the prior regime was communist for deploying NKDV secret police techniques? Sure, why not. Although another explanation is that Colbert is cut not for being libtard slop but rather his support of Gaza. This could explain why Keith Olberman gave an honest yet official justification of the situation rather than lying with motivated reasoning as "journalists" are known to do. My opinion is that nobody wants "Orange man bad... Drumpf!" on teevee anymore for a number of reasons. That program has been unwound and shelved.
@sj_zero I don't entirely disagree, but I do take issue with one of your assumptions. This isn't about whether the people who canceled the show like it or didn't like it. This is about them being afraid to cross the president, who is going after any member of the press who disagrees with him or points out the things he does to make himself look bad. The executives' feelings about the content have nothing to do with it. Instead, they're literally afraid of the regime. That's what's different, and it isn't good for democracy.
I agree that Biden never dealt with the amount of criticism that Trump has. Probably no president since Hoover has been criticized this much. But Biden also didn't file multiple lawsuits when the press started asking questions about his health and fitness for the job, nor did he make threats or appeal to his supporters that the press was corrupt and should be prosecuted. Trump is quite successfully using his power to intimidate the press, at least in some cases. There are people standing up to him. But they shouldn't have to. This isn't normal, and attacking the press is bad for democracy.
@jeang3nie @sj_zero They were not afraid of the regime the first time. The media has historically been quite willing to go to court over free speech, and they usually win. Even if they don't, the fight puts the story in front of the public.
Big Tech was afraid of the Obama and Biden regimes, and the rage mobs of 2020. Why else would they agree to censor?
Nobody thought he could win again. So they didn't plan for it. Just like they didn't plan for it the first time. Oops.