this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
-38 points (16.1% liked)
USpolitics
975 readers
80 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
#1 is junk because that's just, like, your opinion, man. Also for reasons I'll come back to for #3.
#2, how's that working out for them? Either they're shit at business which is possible or it was a getting-leaned-on-by-the-administration decision which is a problem.
#3, decent humans have decided that it's not cool to go after a person because somebody thinks that person's race is icky. That's what Barr did. Her shit-canning wasn't about having views that were in opposition to the administration, it was about being a piece of shit.
Kirk chose to be a fountain of hateful verbal diarrhea and no reasonable person should mourn his passing. Kimmel's comments were tame and inoffensive by all but the meltiest of snowflakey GOP crybully standards. That's also how we come back to #1.
There's apparently some sort of deal in the pipeline that might've been jeopardized if they hadn't acted. Probably worth much more than what any boycott can cause.
Yes, there was (https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhomonoff/2025/08/20/nexstar-and-tegna-announce--merger-plan-what-to-look-for-next/). Now, what was the deal that was jeopardised if they hadn't fired Roseann? Which government official blatantly threatened the network over Roseann? Name, please.