Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)

5. I'm not sure about this part

Reply to EffieBlack (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2018, 08:34 PM

May 2018

They decided that their career ambitions, or desire to return to network television, or financial interests would best be served by looking the other way.

I think ABC was willing to stoop to the deplorables' level to gain viewers. It wasn't about looking the other way; rather, they thought they could moderate the racism. They played with fire and got burned. Do they deserve applause for that?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NY Times Op-Ed: "Roseanne is gone, but the culture that gave her a show isn't" [View all] EffieBlack May 2018 OP

Those first two sentences say it all. K&R. WhiskeyGrinder May 2018 #1

Yes Crutchez_CuiBono May 2018 #2

K&R Solly Mack May 2018 #3

Wow they shelved "Blackish" for that? treestar May 2018 #4

Yup EffieBlack May 2018 #7

I'm not sure about this part ProudLib72 May 2018 #5

Her point is that they don't EffieBlack May 2018 #6

I'm just pointing out that ABC wasn't "looking the other way" (article's wording) ProudLib72 May 2018 #8

In pursuit of ratings and profits, guillaumeb May 2018 #9

has more to do with the content of the actual tv shows IMO. so roseanne is a known msongs May 2018 #10