"Jimmy Kimmel Returns: ABC Ends Suspension Starting Tuesday."

Variety reports.

Good! Glad to hear it. Un-martyr the man and put him back in the position that fits him, an ordinary host of a old-fashioned late-night show who might occasionally say something in slightly poor taste. 

"I would like to know exactly what the problem was, but I can’t find it in multiple news stories filled with corporate euphemisms instead of information."

A commenter over at WaPo knocks its news about news, in "Kim Godwin steps down suddenly as president of ABC News/The first Black woman to head a major network news division recently saw her role weakened, but had also signed a contract extension."

By depriving us readers of substance, WaPo encourages speculation. Stop protecting powerful people! And stop patronizing the first Black woman and all the other firsts. Spread accountability around evenly.

ABC News, which I never watch, is the home of “The View,” “Good Morning America” and “World News Tonight with David Muir.” I have no idea how archaic broadcast TV like that is manufactured or what Godwin did that bothered people.

There's some information in this NY Post article from last March, "Embattled ABC News president Kim Godwin told staffers she’s ‘still in charge’ after effective demotion: sources." We're told that Godwin had created a “culture of fear” in the company. And "Godwin’s self-promotional, hands-off approach to running the Disney-owned network has empowered her coterie to 'settle scores,' a source said." 

"Nate Silver Out at ABC News... ABC News is expected to retain the FiveThirtyEight brand, with plans to streamline the data-driven site."

 Hollywood Reporter reports.

Silver founded FiveThirtyEight in 2008, eventually bringing it to The New York Times. Silver would go on to sell the site to Disney’s ESPN; it later was moved to the ABC News division. His departure will be the first time that Silver has not been involved in the site since it launched 15 years ago....

A lot of people getting fired these days.... 

"Multiple voters characterized by ABC News as undecided—and selected to pepper President Donald Trump with questions during a network town hall—are longtime Trump critics."

"While the network claimed its Tuesday town hall 'provided uncommitted voters the opportunity to ask the president questions about issues affecting Americans,' a Washington Free Beacon review of social media posts found that two of the questioners have long denounced Trump. Kutztown University professor Ellesia Blaque—whom ABC repeatedly identified as 'uncommitted' in its coverage of the town hall—praised vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris during the Democratic primary, saying she would 'be there, volunteering' for the California senator in Pennsylvania. The English professor was not shy about her partisanship, calling Trump a 'f—ing moron,' 'pathetic,' 'pig," "swine,' 'punk ass,' and "'LOOSER' (sic) in a slew of 2019 tweets. She is a self-described 'liberal Democrat,' according to her Facebook profile, on the grounds that liberals 'are not motivated by money or power, but by humanity and the needs of the people.'... An ABC spokesperson told the Free Beacon that the voters 'all identified to [the network] as uncommitted.' The spokesperson would not say whether the network took any time to verify those claims, nor did he answer questions about the selection process."

Says the Free Beacon.

"ABC News suspended one of its veteran correspondents late Tuesday for unguarded remarks he made in a video by operatives of Project Veritas..."

"The choppy, poorly shot video, released Wednesday morning by Project Veritas, captured [David] Wright [saying]... 'I don’t think we’re terribly interested in voters'.... Also: 'Commercial imperative is incompatible with news.' At one point he says: 'We don’t hold him to account. We also don’t give him credit for what things he does do.' In subtitles, Project Veritas indicated that 'him' stood for President Trump. He refers to Trump at another point as 'the f-----g president.' But ABC probably was also alarmed at Wright’s criticism of ABC News, which is owned by the Disney Co. At another point, he raises another longstanding critique of ABC News — that it blends news with promotion of Disney-owned movies and TV programs. 'Like now you can’t watch "Good Morning America" without there being a Disney princess or a Marvel Avenger appearing,' he says. 'It’s all self-promotional.'... [A] voice asks the reporter if he considers himself 'a Democratic socialist,' and Wright seems to reply, 'more than that, I consider myself a socialist.'

From WaPo reports.

Here's that "choppy, poorly shot video":

40 seems really young, and it's easy to remember that Pete Buttigieg is younger than that — 30 whatever — so Moulton's probably second-youngest... journalism!

"ABC News flubs presidential candidates' ages," John Althouse Cohen blogs.

ABC News wrote that Seth Moulton is the "second-youngest candidate," when he's 40.

Wait, Tulsi Gabbard and Eric Swalwell are both 38-year-old members of Congress who've announced they're running for president. Have they dropped out? No, Moulton is at most the fourth-youngest candidate, not the "second-youngest"; ABC News just didn’t bother to fact-check....

"Dear ABC, when you asked me back to once again bail out your sh*t, f**kin’, low-rated network, I did so with the same vigor I’ve always rocked..."

"... and I delivered you the highest ratings you’ve had in 10 fucking years. At the first sign of controversy, you killed me off with a drug overdose. But you know what, I ain’t dead, bitches."

Said Roseanne Barr, quoted at HuffPo.

ADDED: Click the link to watch the video. It was embedded before but seemed to be hanging up my browser so I got rid of it.

The ABC executive who said "Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show" is now leaving ABC.

I'm reading "Channing Dungey, First Black Entertainment Executive at a Major Network, Is Leaving ABC" (NYT).

Ms. Dungey was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year — an unusual spot for the publicity-shy executive — when the network made the sudden decision to cancel its biggest hit, “Roseanne,” after the show’s star, Roseanne Barr, sent a racist tweet....

Terrible journalistic style to say "a racist tweet" instead of something like "a tweet that many people decried as racist." Tell the facts. Also, was Dungey "thrust into the spotlight," or did she step into the spotlight? Who "thrust" her? I regard it as anti-feminist to portray women as lacking their own agency. She was an executive! If she didn't make decisions and act upon them, she didn't belong in her job. You can't have it both ways. Either she's a shy person who got thrust or she's a capable executive.

It would be so much better to tell the facts straight. Spinning everything, a newspaper trips all aver itself.

ADDED: Why did the Times call Dungey "publicity-shy"? Further down in the article, it says: "Ms. Dungey rarely strayed from talking points in gatherings with the news media...." Think of what the NYT might have written if it felt inclined to criticize Dungey. We're told her successor, Karey Burke, "has been freer in her public appearances" and given an example of something vivid and original that Burke said.

"I go way back with Rosie and that’s not the Rosie I know. She was the most diverse and tolerant woman I’ve ever known for a long time."

"Whatever got in her head isn’t the Roseanne I know. It’s a very icy time. I’ve been a comedian for 38 years and I’ve never seen it, like Lenny Bruce said at the Purple Onion, ‘We’ve gone backwards.’ There are things you can’t say. There are things you shouldn’t say. Who makes up these rules? And as a stand-up comic, it’s a dangerous position to be in because I like pushing buttons. It’s unfortunate.... [But ABC] had to do what they had to do and it’s their decision."

Said Tim Allen, quoted at Entertainment Weekly, which referred to Roseanne as "the other conservative sitcom star."

"I will say I'm proud of the show we made. The show has always been about diversity, love and inclusion and it's sad to see it end in this way."

"I am sad for the people who lost their jobs in the process. She then added: 'However. I do stand behind the decision that ABC made."



From "Sara Gilbert fights back tears as she breaks her silence about Roseanne scandal while seeming to kill possible spin-off talks as she expresses her sorrow for hundreds who lost jobs" (Daily Mail).

ADDED: Do you think that makes it seem more likely or less likely that there may be a continuing show centering on Sara Gilbert's character? I'd say more, because she's clearly supporting and honoring the ABC decision. That makes her more appealing to them.

Popular TV shows canceled for political reasons...

...  that's what I googled as I was thinking about ABC's canceling of "Roseanne." I realize we could argue about whether reacting to an expression of racism is political, but: 1. Racism and the pressure to strictly sanction it is political, 2. "Roseanne" has been under attack all through its reboot season because Roseanne has expressed support for Trump, and 3. That's what I googled, because I wanted to know what else might belong in the same category as the canceling of "Roseanne."

I mean, you've got a very popular show. It's making money for the network. Some large segment of the American public wants to watch the show. Under the circumstances, it's a big deal to ax it. Has it even happened before.

The main thing that came up in my search was the cancelation of "Last Man Standing," one year ago. At Vox, Todd VanDerWerff wrote "5 reasons ABC might have canceled the Tim Allen comedy Last Man Standing/Only one involves Trump."

It’s not often a network cancels its second most-watched comedy in a sudden, surprising move. Usually, if a show that important to a network has to go out, it’s granted some sort of “this will be your final season” reprieve.... The cancellation has left some conservative pundits wondering if Last Man Standing was canceled because Allen himself is conservative, and his character on the series is as well....

I think there are a bunch of really good business reasons for the show to end — but I also don’t know that its increased reputation as “a sitcom for Donald Trump supporters” didn’t hurt it just a little bit...

Any time the only show of one type or another, even if it’s “the only sitcom headlined by a major Trump supporter,” leaves the air, it’s hard not to wonder.

There's also the old Bill Maher show, "Politically Incorrect":

"Hillary is going to be very busy as President the next 4-8 years. Donald Trump is going to be very bitter. And the Republicans are just going to be gone. Good riddence."

A comment written 2 months ago on an ABC News article, "2016 Race Stays at 47-43 Through Sunday (POLL)."

Rolling forward to interviews conducted Thursday through Sunday, the ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll shows the same results as its previous estimate of 47 percent for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Donald Trump, with Gary Johnson still at 4 percent and Jill Stein now at 1 percent.

I'm reading that today after this brand new article from ABC News, "Trump to Enter Office as Most Unpopular President for at Least 40 Years, Poll Finds":

Donald Trump enters office as the most unpopular of at least the last seven newly elected presidents, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds, with ratings for handling the transition that are also vastly below those of his predecessors.

While you're busy talking about who's the most unpopular President, can you spare a few moments to tell us which news organization has the least accurate polling?

With election polls, you are put to the test and capable of embarrassment in the end, and even so, you're not too reliable. In this current popularity poll, no one can ever show you up. There's no ultimate accounting when the people reveal how much they like or don't like Donald Trump. You can say whatever you want in the form of numbers that are called a poll, but we know that you want to cripple the Trump presidency before it even begins. I consider the poll fake news.

And I realize that from your perspective I am one of those terrible people who have "come unmoored from a shared set of core facts." I'm not hearing the call to adhere to the "knowable, hard, empirical truth." But I can't accept ABC News/Washington Post poll numbers as facts. It's a fact that ABC News/Washington Post got the election polls wrong. I don't want be moored to false facts. It's better to be unmoored. I don't want to believe in a truth beyond the real limits of truth.

I have heard Barack Obama say:

But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, then we’re going to keep talking past each other.

That's a tricky sentence. If you drift along with it, you might find it blandly pleasant in a can't-we-all-get-along kind of way. But it's actually radically specious! I've written about this sentence before, when I live-blogged Obama's Farewell Address:

Obama resorts to what's been a stock argument with Democrats since the election: We need a "common baseline of facts." That always sounds to me like longing for a time when liberal mainstream media filtered the facts. That's over. What are you going to do about it? The facts are open to debate now, and many voices can be heard. If you really love democracy, why aren't you thrilled?

Looking at this sentence again this morning, I am irritated by its trickiness. The middle part is fine. I like "a willingness to admit new information and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point" — let's keep learning and let's keep talking — and I agree  that "science and reason matter" — let's research and study and think. I love progress in human knowledge and understanding. But why does that fine middle section belong enclosed within the statement: "But without some common baseline of facts... we’re going to keep talking past each other." That says we can't have a real interchange with each other unless we already agree. It's a complete rejection of the idea that people with different understandings of the world can have a good-faith debate and an opportunity to persuade each other or to see the flaws and gaps in their own knowledge and the need for more research and analysis. Why must conversation begin with a common baseline of facts?

It's an ugly, false statement with a big glob of sweetener plopped into it!

ADDED: The ABC/Washington Post poll oversamples: 31% Democrats and 23% Republicans.

Judge rejects ABC's motion to dismiss, which included the contention that the world "slime" is not defamatory when referring to beef.

The product it called "pink slime" is "much like all ground beef... slimy,” ABC argued.... hilariously.

The commenters at the link (to NRO) mention "Ghostbusters"...



... and "Nickelodeon"...



But when I hear "slime," I go right to my copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness":

The For-Itself is suddenly compromised. I open my hands, I want to let go of the slimy, and it sticks to me, it draws me, it sucks at me. Its mode of being is neither the reassuring inertia of the solid nor a dynamism like that in water which is exhausted in fleeing from me. It is a soft, yielding action, a moist and feminine sucking…. Slime is the revenge of the in-itself. A sickly-sweet, feminine revenge which will be symbolized on another level by the quality “sugary.” … A sugary-sliminess is the ideal of the slimy; it symbolizes the sugary death of the For-itself (like that of the wasp which sinks into the jam and drowns in it)… But at the same time the slimy is myself, by the very fact that I outline an appropriation of the slimy substance. That sucking of the slimy which I feel on my hands outlines a kind of continuity of the slimy substance in myself. These long, soft strings of substance which fall from me to the slimy body (when, for example, I plunge my hand into it and then pull it out again) symbolize a rolling off of myself in the slime… [Slime] transcends all distinctions betwen psychic and physical, between the brute existent and the meanings of the world; it is a possible meaning of being. The first experience which the infant can have with the slimy enriches him psychologically and morally; he will not need to reach adulthood to discover the kind of sticky baseness which we figuratively name “slimy”; it is there near him in the very sliminess of honey or of glue.

He wrote that while eating a cheeseburger.

"ABC Denver misnames Petraeus book, 'All up in my snatch.'"

Oh, well... it would actually be an appropriate name for the book.

I don't think Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan were caught in a secret conversation that they didn't want overheard.

Here's the tete-a-tete, beautifully filmed, by ABC News, with excellent sound quality.

"So anyway, I told them before you got here, I said I’m glad we won this race in New York," Clinton told Ryan, when the two met backstage at a forum on the national debt held by the Pete Peterson Foundation. But he added, “I hope Democrats don't use this as an excuse to do nothing.”

Ryan told Clinton he fears that now nothing will get done in Washington.

“My guess is it’s going to sink into paralysis is what’s going to happen. And you know the math. It’s just, I mean, we knew we were putting ourselves out there. You gotta start this. You gotta get out there. You gotta get this thing moving,” Ryan said.

Clinton told Ryan that if he ever wanted to talk about it, he should “give me a call.” Ryan said he would.

Watching that clip, I felt that was staged for the camera. They're savvy enough to know where the media are. It was ABC News, backstage with them. So my question is, why did each of the 2 men decide that was what they wanted people to overhear? I'd say, first, that both men see themselves as the serious thinkers, trying to face and solve a real problem. The setting frames the message as: This is what the most serious and knowledgeable men from the 2 political parties say to each other when they are not playing politics for the camera.

Now, Bill Clinton has chosen to criticize the Democrats for falling into complacency, coasting into the next election. He's displaying himself as the real man of action, who would rise above politics and work hard to forge solutions. (Of course, this display is politics.)

Ryan makes a corresponding display: He too is a man of action, rising above politics, putting himself out there. But he's also purporting to speak for his whole party. The Republicans are acting. The Democrats are digging in and resisting. Clinton then says "give me a call."

So, is Clinton selling out the Democrats, making them look bad and giving Ryan a boost? If he is, why would he do that? Does he somehow seem to represent the Democrats, saying, for them, that they don't or shouldn't want the paralysis, lighting a fire under them to act or at least giving them some cover, making it seem as though they do care about action?

Or is Clinton out there on his own, peeling away from some or all of the Democrats, perhaps creating some kind of opening for Hillary?

ABC News is keeping it classy.

Reporting some non-celebrity's say-so about an incident that occurred in bed with her boyfriend. The only evidence that anything happened is the woman's own chatty gossip about herself. This item is tracking as ABC's "most popular" story, however — ahead of "Steven Seagal Sued for Sexual Assault." Journalism as page views. Great work, ABC. Brilliant of you to figure out that giant breasts will attract eyeballs.

I didn't watch.

Did you?

"As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision..."

"... to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform 'town hall' at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news 'will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.' This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming."

Charlie Gibson agreed to have his nuts cut out -- according to Josh Marshall.

How so? Because his interview with Sarah Palin will be multiple interviews. Marshall says:

Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be....

It will be unwatchable.

Previously, Marshall had been dogging Palin for not submitting to an interview:

[McCain campaign manager Rick Davis... says Palin won't give any interviews until she feels "comfortable" giving one. And this morning he added that she wouldn't give any "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

Sarah Palin could be the President of the United States in four and a half months. We tend to think of this as an abstraction; but it's true. And yet today she's so unprepared and knows so little about the challenges and tasks facing the country that she can't even give a softball interview.

So, okay, maybe she's found her softball -- or no balls -- interview in Gibson.

We'll see how soft it is. It's unlikely to be complete fluff. So let's watch it -- not just pronounce it "unwatchable" -- and stand ready to rip Gibson apart -- if there's anything left to rip after he's gelded himself. And then we can go on to insist that Palin step it up and submit to something tougher.

Man, Marshall is really freaking out over Palin. He slashes Gibson for falling short of journalistic standards, but what are his standards? Look at this gush of testosterone:

As is so often the case, Palin is the incarnation of the Republican slurs. The darling of the hard-right; she gives stem-winding speeches. She pushes all their buttons. But she's such a lightweight, they can't risk letting her answer a few questions.

Continuing to browse through Marshall's posting, I run across this:

New Poll
09.08.08 -- 12:56AM By Josh Marshall

USAToday/Gallup: McCain 54%, Obama 44% among likely voters.

That must cut like a knife.