obama administration

ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel has echoes, contrasts of Roseanne firing

The hugely popular star of ABC’s lineup was known as an outspoken critic of the president of the United States. But when one comment sparked an outrage, the network moved swiftly to yank the entertainer off the air.

It was May 2018, and the star was Roseanne Barr.

Hollywood reacted in shock when ABC abruptly pulled the plug on “Roseanne,” the top-rated reboot of the sitcom about the Conner family and their struggles with harsh economic difficulties. Barr’s reunion with her television family was an instant hit, becoming the most successful TV series on the network in years.

The cancellation came just hours after Barr posted a response to a tweet about a WikiLeaks report claiming that the CIA spied on French presidential candidates during the Obama administration. The comedian made a reference to Valerie Jarrett, a former aide of former President Obama, as the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood and the “Planet of the Apes” film franchise.

Although Barr, a vocal supporter of Donald Trump in his first presidential term, had long been a fiery presence on social media, the racism of the barb was undeniable. Executives at the Walt Disney Co.-owned broadcaster said that the post crossed a line, rejecting Barr’s apology and pleas for forgiveness.

“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” announced then-ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey. Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger later tweeted about the cancellation, “There was only one thing to do here, and that was the right thing.”

The incident had echoes of Wednesday’s announcement that ABC was pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely in the wake of sharp backlash over Kimmel’s comments about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The late-night host said during the monologue on his show Monday that Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused in the shooting death of Kirk, might have been a pro-Trump Republican.

The network’s decision to suspend the show came after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr suggested on a right-wing podcast Wednesday that the FCC could take action against ABC for Kimmel’s comments. Within hours of Carr’s comments, Nexstar Media Group said it would pull the show from its ABC affiliate stations, and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, followed suit, saying it was pulling Kimmel from the network.

Barr on Thursday jumped into the fray over the pulling of Kimmel’s show, firing off a response to Obama’s post on X, formerly Twitter, saying that the Trump administration was taking “cancel culture” to “a new and dangerous level.”

“Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?” Barr wrote in a repost of his message.

There were no reports or indications that the Obamas had any involvement with the cancellation of “Roseanne.”

Less than six months later, “The Conners,” a spinoff of “Roseanne,” premiered to high ratings. The series picked up the story of the working class family, who were grieving over the death of matriarch Roseanne Conner, who had overdosed on opioids. The comedy became a staple of ABC’s primetime, concluding its seven-season run in April.

In a 2023 Times interview promoting her stand-up special on Fox Nation, Barr called the cancellation “a witch-burning,” lashing out at the network and her former co-stars.

“I felt like the devil himself was coming against me to try to tear me apart, to punish me for believing in God,” she said. “And they denied me the right to apologize. Oh my God, they just hated me so badly. I had never known that they hated me like that. They hate me because I have talent, because I have an opinion. Even though ‘Roseanne’ became their No. 1 show, they’d rather not have a No. 1 show.”

She added, “It didn’t faze them to murder my character, either. They s— on my contribution to television and the show itself. But I forgive everybody. I started thinking that God took me out of there to save me. And once I started thinking that way, I was, like, a lot better off.”

Source link

Contributor: Trump wasn’t the first to politicize law enforcement

In recent days, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided at least nine restaurants in the nation’s capital, requesting proof that the establishments are not employing people illegally. Washington, D.C., long presented itself as a “sanctuary city,” so the mere fact ICE agents targeted a few businesses there is hardly surprising.

What is perhaps more newsworthy is the boldface names associated with those restaurants: Geoff Tracy, the husband of CBS News anchor and former vice presidential debate co-moderator Norah O’Donnell; former Biden White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients; and the activist restaurateur José Andrés.

Following the raids, a predictable debate has unfolded: Did the Trump administration politicize law enforcement by siccing ICE agents on the White House’s critics and foes?

Maybe; maybe not. Regardless, and with all due respect: I simply do not care. And I highly suspect tens of millions of other Americans don’t care either. After years of politicized law enforcement, many of us are now sufficiently jaded so as to be well past the point of shock at new examples.

Did the people who are aghast at these ICE raids express similar dismay when, in 2013, Obama-era IRS director Lois Lerner admitted to targeting conservative groups in an attempt to improperly strip them of their tax-exempt status? Did they care when the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor sued the Obama administration over contraception coverage?

Did the pearl-clutchers care when the Biden administration sued antiabortion activists for praying outside abortion clinics? Did they care when the same administration threw the book at too many Jan. 6 defendants — whether an organizer or a tourist? Did they care when that administration imprisoned Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for rejecting subpoenas of the made-for-TV Jan. 6 House committee? Above all, did they care when that administration crossed the ultimate Rubicon by prosecuting its preeminent political opponent, the then-former president and leading presidential hopeful?

The answer to all these rhetorical questions is simple: No. Of course they didn’t care. So, you’ll have to spare me for not viewing it as a particularly big deal that a few Washington restaurants had the feds show up to request immigration papers.

In fact, it would be a good thing if the Trump administration sent a message by targeting political enemies.

Not because two wrongs make a right, but because unilateral disarmament in the face of an insatiable foe is a proven strategic failure. People on the right had their turn being targeted under Presidents Biden and Obama, and it would be folly for conservatives to take a high road now that they are in power.

True, a prior generation of Republicans would have been content to morally preen, to rest on their laurels in “principled loserdom.” But those days are over.

Indeed, those days must be over — not merely for the good of the right, but for the good of the country. American law enforcement has become much more politicized in recent decades. That trend began with the Obama administration, and it accelerated under Biden.

Patriotic Americans who care about the rule of law and our constitutional order ought to lament this sordid state of affairs — not just the latest twist in the long-running saga, but the whole sad story. The key question, then, is how to undo the damage and restore left-right prosecutorial and law enforcement relations to the pre-Obama status quo ante.

The only way out is through. Both sides of America’s political divide must come to accept a Cold War-era paradigm of mutually assured destruction. This mindset saved the planet from nuclear holocaust once, and now it can help us return our domestic politics to something resembling normalcy.

But for the left to accept that the current approach ensures mutually assured destruction, they’re going to have to first see the other side bare its fangs a bit. Some noses must be (proverbially) bloodied. And frankly, given the unprecedented magnitude of the past few years’ lawfare campaign against President Trump, sending ICE agents into a few restaurants barely even registers.

I want an end to the “politicized law enforcement” wars. So should you. It is ironic that we need a short-term escalation in order to have a chance of reaching a long-term stasis. But it’s the cold, hard truth.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article argues that politicized law enforcement began under the Obama administration, accelerated during Biden’s tenure, and has normalized targeting political opponents, citing IRS scrutiny of conservative groups under Obama and prosecutions of Trump allies like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro as examples.
  • It rejects the idea of Republican “unilateral disarmament,” asserting that conservatives must escalate tactics—such as ICE raids on politically connected D.C. restaurants—to force a return to pre-Obama norms through a Cold War-like “mutually assured destruction” strategy.
  • The author dismisses outrage over recent ICE actions as hypocritical, pointing to Democratic silence during past Democratic administrations’ enforcement actions, including prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants and the Little Sisters of the Poor lawsuit.

Different views on the topic

  • Critics argue the Trump administration’s recent ICE raids and appointments of loyalists like acting FBI chief Kash Patel reflect an “unprecedented politicization” of law enforcement, with Attorney General Pam Bondi accused of eroding Justice Department norms through aggressive tactics[2].
  • Some defend Trump’s policies, such as conditioning federal funding for universities on civil rights compliance, as lawful pushes to recalibrate “discombobulated” federal-university relationships rather than overt politicization[1].
  • Opponents highlight broader concerns about executive overreach, including efforts to dismantle agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and proposals to expand ideological loyalty tests for federal roles[2].

Source link