I'd worry more about defunding public broadcasting or the Washington Post editorial stance. There's a good faith argument here that the cause was market conditions:
> The genre has been struggling as the majority of the country migrates in droves to streaming entertainment and away from traditional broadcast and cable television...
> The number of late-night shows has dwindled in recent years...
> The genre has also experienced a sharp decline in advertising revenue in recent years...
do you feel it's a good faith argument for management to make at the same time as they're trying to get personal approval from Trump to sell the company[0], and shortly after they just paid him a massive personal bribe[1], and one day after the person who is having their show cancelled, said this on said show [2]?
I really did not expect that the credulity of Americans would be one of their downfalls.
Do "good faith arguments" really matter when the president is not exactly doing his best to show good faith? In this, and MANY other cases ... It's not like this administration is going to be convinced by a good faith argument, ever.
At some level, it is worse. The Indian press never sold us citizens koolaid about freedom, talking truth to power, and patted themselves on the back about winning Pulitzer Prizes for journalism.
The Indian press knows it is a bottom feeder and doesn’t try not to be which gives space for critical thought to emerge (even if it masked as extreme cynicism - “everyone is corrupt”) which results in extreme skepticism of everyone.
This is like telling someone to switch from Comcast to another ISP. The choices are limited. Oh and in this case, they're all owned by like two media conglomerates.
> The genre has been struggling as the majority of the country migrates in droves to streaming entertainment and away from traditional broadcast and cable television...
> The number of late-night shows has dwindled in recent years...
> The genre has also experienced a sharp decline in advertising revenue in recent years...