With the announcement by Substack last week that they are going to be getting vulture capital from Andreesen Horowitz I feel it's only a matter of time until they start tweaking the algorithm to suppress the writers who offend the corporate overlords. I hope I'm wrong, but I see them going the same way as Twitter once the Space Nazi bought it.
"Donald J. Tr*mp can take a beating. But he cannot—under any circumstances—take a punch." Yes, absolutely. A variation of this comment came up in the 2020 Showtime miniseries "The Comey Rule" in which James Comey (played by Jeff Daniels) was advised, "He (Tr*mp) doesn't care if half the country hates him, but he can't handle personal disloyalty" or words to that effect. Not surprising that Comey is still a target of Tr*mp's. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-brennan-james-comey-under-criminal-investigation-doj-sources
“You don’t cancel a profitable show with high ratings” I was most alarmed yesterday with news reports justifying CBS’s cancelling Colbert … noting the show was not as profitable for it’s time slot as it should be, not as watched as it should be, etc. The media themselves were justifying CBS’s decision to prostrate themselves. He is mowing down one pillar after another, all with the blessing of those that should know to stand up to him.
Well I found those arguments to be stupid in the media. Not as profitable…. Not as watched… bullshit. Colbert was the number one late night show. And the question isn’t in TV “is it not making enough money,” it’s “compared to what else we could put there is it making enough.”
There’s unlikely to be a program they can put at 11 that will earn more than Colbert. The show was covering itself and its slot. It wasn’t unprofitable… I don’t care what anyone else says. You don’t cancel a show that’s earning its keep because its way too hard to pick a replacement that is going to do tremendously better and the shows put way too much money at risk in production and ad revenues to gamble.
It's ridiculous. All institutional actions are ultimately decided by the courts, and the regime loses every case brought. So CBS would have been just fine proceeding as intended and defying the regime to do its worst. An FCC ban? Keep broadcasting and go to court. An SEC denial? Keep merging and go to court.
With the announcement by Substack last week that they are going to be getting vulture capital from Andreesen Horowitz I feel it's only a matter of time until they start tweaking the algorithm to suppress the writers who offend the corporate overlords. I hope I'm wrong, but I see them going the same way as Twitter once the Space Nazi bought it.
The thing is, no matter how much you cede to a bully, they'll always be back for more. I don't know why more people understand it.
I expect them to come for Substack and BlueSky someday. They're the closest thing to free media we still have. They may go after the internet, too.
Unfree societies typically cancel media when it's inconvenient. I saw this happen in Hong Kong and now it's happening in the USA
Wowza, that was a sizzling deconstruction of the orange buffoon, perfect love it
"Donald J. Tr*mp can take a beating. But he cannot—under any circumstances—take a punch." Yes, absolutely. A variation of this comment came up in the 2020 Showtime miniseries "The Comey Rule" in which James Comey (played by Jeff Daniels) was advised, "He (Tr*mp) doesn't care if half the country hates him, but he can't handle personal disloyalty" or words to that effect. Not surprising that Comey is still a target of Tr*mp's. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-brennan-james-comey-under-criminal-investigation-doj-sources
“You don’t cancel a profitable show with high ratings” I was most alarmed yesterday with news reports justifying CBS’s cancelling Colbert … noting the show was not as profitable for it’s time slot as it should be, not as watched as it should be, etc. The media themselves were justifying CBS’s decision to prostrate themselves. He is mowing down one pillar after another, all with the blessing of those that should know to stand up to him.
Well I found those arguments to be stupid in the media. Not as profitable…. Not as watched… bullshit. Colbert was the number one late night show. And the question isn’t in TV “is it not making enough money,” it’s “compared to what else we could put there is it making enough.”
There’s unlikely to be a program they can put at 11 that will earn more than Colbert. The show was covering itself and its slot. It wasn’t unprofitable… I don’t care what anyone else says. You don’t cancel a show that’s earning its keep because its way too hard to pick a replacement that is going to do tremendously better and the shows put way too much money at risk in production and ad revenues to gamble.
Send this to Ruth Ben ghiat, curious how she would see it, or Anne applebaum
You can. :)
yeah but im not the author. but i will... likey to be ignored
Here is something to think about. If it’s Colbert now, in the fall will it be Saturday Night Live next?
It's ridiculous. All institutional actions are ultimately decided by the courts, and the regime loses every case brought. So CBS would have been just fine proceeding as intended and defying the regime to do its worst. An FCC ban? Keep broadcasting and go to court. An SEC denial? Keep merging and go to court.