There's a phrase I heard about this: Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequence.
Now, I don't agree with Kimmel being fired. BUT -- like you point out, anyone with a microphone is engaged in narrative warfare. Good or bad -- and the alignment of mouthpiece to who owns the microphone, is a vector for attack AND defense.
Again -- not a fan of cancel culture. But it's in new arsenal of narrative warfare. We're just lucky this revolution doesn't have guillotines.
Great reading question -- we know the answer is the latter. Especially given the timing of Kimmel's firing in this case.
Also, considering the lawfare against the media companies overall in the last 7 months, it would have helped to better read the room. Or realize the room is bigger than his team thought. Like you said -- polish the figure, lose the ground.
The medium is always bigger than the team, and the ground always corrects the figure. So why would we assume the message is about parties, presidents, or personalities at all, and not the medium itself? This kind of system-driven behavior has been with us far longer than the past seven months. McLuhan was talking about it in the 1960s:
I think that Colbert and Kimmel will easily reorient to the new media, as has John Stewart. The big mistake is for the networks and Trump administration to think that they scored a victory by taking them off of the networks. In fact, that may only increase their audiences as they move to more contemporary platforms. I think the dinosaur in this scenario is the Rep party - who think that it is possible to 'cancel' speech in the information age. They are playing a losing game of wack-a-mole.
There's a phrase I heard about this: Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequence.
Now, I don't agree with Kimmel being fired. BUT -- like you point out, anyone with a microphone is engaged in narrative warfare. Good or bad -- and the alignment of mouthpiece to who owns the microphone, is a vector for attack AND defense.
Again -- not a fan of cancel culture. But it's in new arsenal of narrative warfare. We're just lucky this revolution doesn't have guillotines.
When you see a “consequence,” is it crowd judgment or the plumbing (read: The System) turning a valve to make it look like one?
Great reading question -- we know the answer is the latter. Especially given the timing of Kimmel's firing in this case.
Also, considering the lawfare against the media companies overall in the last 7 months, it would have helped to better read the room. Or realize the room is bigger than his team thought. Like you said -- polish the figure, lose the ground.
You are zeroing in!
The medium is always bigger than the team, and the ground always corrects the figure. So why would we assume the message is about parties, presidents, or personalities at all, and not the medium itself? This kind of system-driven behavior has been with us far longer than the past seven months. McLuhan was talking about it in the 1960s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwVCHkL-JU
Your Materials are GOLD
I think that Colbert and Kimmel will easily reorient to the new media, as has John Stewart. The big mistake is for the networks and Trump administration to think that they scored a victory by taking them off of the networks. In fact, that may only increase their audiences as they move to more contemporary platforms. I think the dinosaur in this scenario is the Rep party - who think that it is possible to 'cancel' speech in the information age. They are playing a losing game of wack-a-mole.
Stewart proves hosts can reorient if they change form with the medium. I also don’t think he was escaping cancellation of his show.
The real dinosaur isn’t any party, it’s anyone who mistakes removing a host for victory.
If the game is wack-a-mole, what format is built to win as the mole, not as the board?