I stopped watching late night television when David Letterman retired. Two reasons for that. First, I loved Letterman. And second, I got old. I struggle to stay up past 9:30.
So, I literally never saw Jimmy Kimmel’s show. For that matter, I never saw Stephen Colbert’s show either. Both have been essentially fired because they criticized Donald Trump in some fashion. It’s not quite that simple. Colbert’s program was losing money hand over fist while Kimmel offended some with comments about Charlie Kirk’s killing. And Kimmel hasn’t quite been fired yet. I suppose that’ll come next week. But, let’s face it, a big part of the reason for the demise of each is that they were essentially liberals who took on Trump.
And Trump now says he’ll use the FCC to go after the broadcast licenses of any network that criticizes him. This is just the latest page Trump has pulled out of the authoritarian handbook.
But here’s the thing. A half century ago this would have been a much bigger deal than it is now. In 1975 there were only the three networks. They were powerful and they knit the country together. They provided the agreed upon facts, the news standards and the narrative of American life that, didn’t just reflect, but to some extent imposed a national consensus and identity.
Back then there was a lot of criticism of that, coming mostly from intellectuals, but it wasn’t off the mark. If you had ideas that weren’t in the mainstream — reflected and enforced by the networks — you were odd, an outcast or worse. The networks, fundamentally cautious by nature, were a brake on social change.
The internet, social media and streaming changed all that. When Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show he routinely pulled in 17 million viewers in a country with about 220 million people. Colbert attracted only 2.5 million in a country with 340 million people. Carson made it a point to pick on politicians, but equally. Nobody ever knew what his own politics were. Same went for Letterman. By contrast, Colbert and most of the current late night hosts go all in for the left. They know who their viewers are and they’re not a cross section of America.
But freedom from the networks has come at a high price. Now we choose not just our own politics, but our own facts. We can pick our news and cultural sources based on what we already think. That both deepens our views and makes us blind to the point of view of others. On balance, is the current plethora of choices better than the stultifying three big networks? It’s hard for me to argue that it is. More voices didn’t produce more freedom. It has produced an authoritarian president who is on the cusp of wiping out freedom and democracy in America.
But here’s the twist. It’s now possible that the very thing that has destroyed the national consensus may save free speech. There’s no question that Trump is trying to chill if not kill speech that is critical of him or which he just doesn’t like. And if this were 1975 what he’s done to Colbert and Kimmel would be far worse because there were so few outlets. Now there are millions. Trump might crush the much weakened legacy networks, but what’s he going to do to stamp out this blog or millions of other blogs, streaming services, social media feeds and more?
The national consensus is gone and I have no idea how to get it back. Authoritarianism is here and I’m not sure how to return to democracy. But free speech may not be so easy to kill.
With that, try to have a good weekend. Focus on something happy. Like the Badger football team.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Not sure that last comment is real or not. But I will be at the game and hope Bucky is able to win. But I’m not that confident.
Anyway, I think both Kimmel and Cobert were dealt a golden ticket. They now can provide their own platform and it won’t be censored. I was a fan of both shows but I’m sure as much as they poked fun at the President with their jokes there was guardrails in place. Now they can do what ever they want and theirs an audience that’s built in. Think South Park with out the animation. Just my opinion as we can still have one…Right?
LikeLike
The last comment was sarcastic… and the Badgers just confirmed the sarcasm.
LikeLike
I did not watch either of them, like you, I am in bed by time they would come on the TV. yes Trump dose not like people who take a different view than he has. BUT, with so many other choices there will be other places to vent their feelings.
LikeLike
Watched every episode of David Letterman his last two weeks on the air, then gave Stephen Colbert’s debut show a try. That was enough. Love parody, enjoy satire, despise condescension. Well stated in an economy of words.
LikeLike
I know thereâs a leader out there somewhere who can develop a consensus behind him or her.
LikeLike
“what’s he going to do to stamp out this blog or millions of other blogs, streaming services, social media feeds and more?”
We might find out. These platforms can be banned. They can find out who every person is who posts things they don’t like and decide they’re criminals – AI tech can automate that easily. Short of a ban, the wealthy corporate overlords who own these platforms can willingly choose to side with Trump and can selectively de-platform whoever they want to, that’s exactly what just happened with Kimmel.
Remember – the media is not liberal! The owners will jump on board with a more profitable authoritarian business environment if they have the chance. You can get way-way-way richer and more powerful if you’re in on the ground floor on the right side of an authoritarian regime than you can in the free market – our rights are far less important than oligarch wealth and power. Since the late-adopters will be put out of business by the power of the authoritarian (as as reward to the early-adopters and true-believers), the rich have an incentive to join up quickly. This is why this sort of thing happens fast.
Note what happened in Nepal. They overthrew the government in about two days following a social media ban. And, to those that believe the 2nd Amendment is necessary to keep all our other rights from being taken, note that firearms are highly regulated in Nepal. Remarkably few people were killed considering the scale and speed of the revolution. I think Americans would not successfully revolt in a similar situation, because I think the number of gun owners we have would be too many on the side of the authoritarian, falsely thinking it will only be bad for “them.”
LikeLike
All good points. YSDA’s best protection is our discerning (and thus very small) readership.
LikeLike
I know that was supposed to be a joke, but this isn’t theory right now, this is a real issue. Much of the speech banned in world history was only communicated among relatively few people. It is the thought that counts, not the (current) audience. Authoritarians want to keep a fire from starting in the first place by extinguishing the ember.
Sure, Kimmel is back on air (but still not on Sinclair stations). This was a test run. Now they have a feel for who will react in which way, they can set up the plan for dealing with those that resist.
Many supported Trump because of what they viewed as speech suppression under Biden. They may have thought that a change of party in control would help. It didn’t, the threat is accelerated. Where are these voices now? The threat has always been rooted more in corporate power than government power, and this administration is an advocate of a corporate-state-authoritarian paradigm.
LikeLike
It strikes me as if the government 25 years ago had used its authority over pay phones to disallow pay phone calls to a politicians’ political enemies. The spirit of this would be horrible, but it wouldn’t be an effective way to stifle critics. It’s just a way to slightly hasten the end of an old communications technology.
LikeLike