One can’t exactly leave politics out of a purely political event.
Leaving politics aside, the show only had an average of 1.7 million or so viewers out of a country of over 340 million people. ABC/Disney is pretty liberal and yet apparently felt that letting the show continue was more of a liability than what it was worth. So they abandoned even their normally left leaning principles and made a business decision. Whether folks like it or not, with entities that own broadcasting licenses it's all about the bottom line. And that's nothing new
When you say something that has amply been proven wrong on national television as the premise for an opinion or comment, there is no exemption for lying.
Your comment fits nicely in the radical opinions that the killing of opposing voices is somehow permissible. Several national surveys have shown a significant number of Americans who find that incidents like the murder of the United Health Care CEO is justifiable as a "sentence" for his "crimes" in putting conditions on insurance payments.
The accused murderer of Kirk seems to have texted his partner saying that his action was justified and had to be done. The text is on nearly every news site in the world.

How much will they have to refund advertisers who purchased for the season?
Leaving politics aside, the show only had an average of 1.7 million or so viewers out of a country of over 340 million people. ABC/Disney is pretty liberal and yet apparently felt that letting the show continue was more of a liability than what it was worth. So they abandoned even their normally left leaning principles and made a business decision. Whether folks like it or not, with entities that own broadcasting licenses it's all about the bottom line. And that's nothing new
How much will they have to refund advertisers who purchased for the season?
Who here said that the killing of opposing voices is justifiable? I am not seeing it.When you say something that has amply been proven wrong on national television as the premise for an opinion or comment, there is no exemption for lying.
Your comment fits nicely in the radical opinions that the killing of opposing voices is somehow permissible. Several national surveys have shown a significant number of Americans who find that incidents like the murder of the United Health Care CEO is justifiable as a "sentence" for his "crimes" in putting conditions on insurance payments.
The accused murderer of Kirk seems to have texted his partner saying that his action was justified and had to be done. The text is on nearly every news site in the world.
I know that when I was consultant to the VOA's Radio Martí program, that service had a policy of censure and dismissal for knowingly distorting or changing news items to further an agenda.
I've done more than two dozen all news and news-talk stations, half in the US and half in countries like Argentina, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. Anyone doing a talk show that lied about known facts would be immediately suspended, and then judged by a team of managers to see if dismissal was warranted. In the meantime, the station would have run an apology or clarification across at least the next 24 hours.
Yet ABC/Disney was the one that made the final decision for what they thought was best for their business.One can’t exactly leave politics out of a purely political event.
No one. At most the citation seemed to be some surveys have supposedly said there are people who find the United Healthcare incident justified. Likely true that there are such surveys, though how reliable and statistically sound they are isn’t answered when just pointing to their general existence with no actual results.Who here said that the killing of opposing voices is justifiable? I am not seeing it.
Yet ABC/Disney was the one that made the final decision for what they thought was best for their business.
I don't have the figures, and don't want to waste time looking. But news based or topic based shows have a really short shelf life.1.7 Million might be actual broadcast figures, but streaming would have taken those figures higher.
His ratings have plummeted 70-80% since a 2013 peak. This is not a surprise, as just about everyone under 50 has ditched regular TV for Netflix, Hulu, and streaming......How much will they have to refund advertisers who purchased for the season?
latenighter.com
The FCC chairman openly threatened them. I know we have the apologists here but this is akin to saying someone paying extortion money to the mob is doing it freely and independently.Yet ABC/Disney was the one that made the final decision for what they thought was best for their business.
Yet Carol Burnett clips that after over 50 years old have millions of views on YouTube.I don't have the figures, and don't want to waste time looking. But news based or topic based shows have a really short shelf life.
If someone can find that date, this would be an interesting sidebar to the discussion though.
From my TV experience in the US, it was always seen that daily shows generally had less than a 12 hour shelf life. In fact,, some research showed that those who used any kind of recording device had only the most recent episode saved; that means that the day following the one with the content in question was overwritten.
Pure news shows had a shelf life in our study of less than a few hours.
1.7 Million might be actual broadcast figures, but streaming would have taken those figures higher.
We are long past cancel culture. They want to imprison their critics.Yes, avoiding personal politics, but it feels like a whole new "cancel culture" is taking over the industry.