Submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
Two possibilities here.
First, they have a lot of subscribers who want to watch Jimmy Kinmel (or who just care about free speech) and who will be more upset with oligarchical parasites than they will be with Kimmel.
Second, they don’t have a lot of subscribers who want to watch Jimmy Kinmel (or who just care about free speech) and who will be supportive of their oligarchical parasites, but weren’t going to tune in anyway.
Neither situation harms Kimmel even a little bit.
I don’t care about Kimmel. He’s a rich guy who will be fine in any case.
The problem is the vast swaths of the country who have right wing billionaires deciding they aren’t allowed to watch someone criticize the dear leader.
I agree completely, and that’s my point. They think they are hurting Kimmel, but they are highlighting for everyone what piles of human shit they are. If I were a Sinclair customer, I’d be livid that they were making those decisions for me.
reddig33@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You can write the FCC and ask them to pull your local affiliate’s license for not serving the public interest. Each broadcast TV channel has to renew their license every few years.
fcc.gov/…/broadcast-television-license-renewal