by Written by: Seven Jamison
I’m not sure about you, but recently I’ve been feeling strange. It seems as though a ghostly hand is constantly grabbing the remote control as we are all seated on the couch, attempting to watch our favorite shows. The sharpest, funniest man on late-night is canceled first.
Then, the TV and public radio cut down the sound significantly. Just looking over your shoulder and wondering, “Hey, who’s in charge here?” is enough. Is this the new normal for free expression, or is it simply a bad day?
Now let’s discuss Stephen Colbert. CBS officially stated that it was a business choice when the New York Post revealed the information.
To be fair, network TV’s finances are complex, as sites like TVLine frequently note. But hurry up. Many shows are financially unsuccessful. That is merely a component of the TV game. You design a varied schedule, you take chances, and you carry shows for the prestige.
It just doesn’t smell right to single out the top-rated late-night show, especially given how quickly the public reacted. More than 200,000 people signed petitions calling for the return of the show, according to Latenighter.com.
You know, it all seems a bit too easy. This is the person who criticized his own superiors without mercy. And he’s the one who has to clear his desk immediately following a significant corporate merger? David Letterman’s response, which reminded everyone that you can’t spell CBS without BS, was captured by USA Today. The New Republic reported that President Trump instantly celebrated on social media. It’s difficult not to think that the official explanation is only the part they want us to hear.
And don’t believe that this is merely drama for TV hosts in big cities. At about the same time, public broadcasting was hit with a budget decrease of over $1 billion, as originally reported by The New York Times and verified by PBS NewsHour. Deadline’s study indicates that this is more than just a line item in a D.C. budget. This action has the potential to destroy smaller, rural stations.
Imagine someone driving through West Texas late at night with nothing to distract them but that one NPR station. They are the ones who are suffering even though they are not engaged in a political conflict with the White House.
But notice that I’m not blaming just one person for this. It would be too simple. In actuality, the tendency to silence others is an equal-opportunity issue. My conservative friends have been banned from social media for saying anything that upset a moderator or triggered an algorithm.
On college campuses, I’ve witnessed lecturers being shouted down because students believed their opinions were too dangerous to be heard at all. Regardless of your stance, it appears like someone wants to cover your lips with tape if they disagree with what you have to say.
And that’s what irritates me the most. What became of simply disagreeing? What happened to the notion that a good idea, rather than a kill switch, is the greatest method to combat a bad one? When you combine everything—from the social media prohibitions to the defunded stations and the canceled host—a quite unsettling image begins to take shape.
Even though our president ran on a platform of defending free expression, the atmosphere seems more constrictive than before.
What exactly does free speech imply now, I wonder? Is it only for those who share our views? Is it exclusive to profitable shows that don’t upset anyone? I hope not. Because at the moment, it seems like we’re all just watching static, staring at a flickering screen, and wondering if anyone is actually transmitting anymore.
Through UNT’s Scripps Howard Fund Emerging Journalist Program, Seven Jamison is an intern with Texas Metro News. He likes to write on culture and politics.
