Even as Jimmy Kimmel returns to the airwaves, TV networks remain more vulnerable to political pressure than ever before
Jimmy Kimmel returns: Jimmy Kimmel’s brief suspension by ABC highlights the increasing political pressure on TV networks today, contrasting with past eras. Unlike Nixon’s failed attempts against “The Dick Cavett Show,” Trump’s aggressive tactics reflect a shift in media dynamics, threatening free speech and network autonomy.
Last Updated on October 3, 2025 by Daily News StaffABC briefly suspended ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ after the host made controversial remarks about the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for Turner
Even as Jimmy Kimmel returns to the airwaves, TV networks remain more vulnerable to political pressure than ever before
“Is there any way we can screw him?” asked President Richard M. Nixon.
“We’ve been trying to,” an aide replied, alluding to the White House’s efforts to remove from the airwaves an ABC talk show host whose critiques of the administration had placed that “son of a b—h” on the chief executive’s enemies list.
You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, here.
Cavett, who seemed to personify the liberalism that Nixon despised, had drawn the president’s ire by platforming anti-war activists like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, along with left-wing radicals such as Stokely Carmichael.
Nixon ultimately failed in his attempt to silence Cavett. ABC executives were committed to independent media, while the broadcasting industry as a whole had garnered the attention and trust of an enormous audience, which insulated them from political pressure.
But why has Trump been able to shake up late-night TV in ways Nixon never could?
It’s tempting to think of the network era – those decades in the 20th century when CBS, NBC and ABC dominated television – as a golden age of independent broadcasting and free expression.
However, as political historians of media, we know from our research that TV has always been a battleground of politics, business interests and broadcasting ideals.
The apparent appeasement of Trump by network executives shows just how much has changed in both the media and regulatory landscape since Nixon’s time.
Television’s decline
Direct pressure from the White House was the immediate catalyst for ABC’s decision to briefly pull the plug on Kimmel.
Brendan Carr, the chair of the FCC, threatened ABC and its affiliates while speaking on the podcast of right-wing commentator Benny Johnson.
“These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel,” he said, “or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Soon, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own dozens of ABC affiliates, announced that they would pull the show, forcing ABC to act.
That said, network television’s fading place in the American media ecosystem probably made the call a whole lot easier.
Yet even Cavett’s relatively smaller audience is more than double what Kimmel and his colleagues in late night television can count on today.
Advertisement
The rise of cable loosened the networks’ chokehold on TV news and entertainment in the late 20th century. The internet – followed by the advent of podcasts, streaming and social media – merely accelerated this trend.
By the 2010s, more viewers were watching clips of late night talk shows on their phones and computers than on television. Today, over 40% of people under 30 say they don’t watch broadcast or cable TV.
Broadcasting has always been a business where those at the top are swayed by the bottom line.
But back in Cavett’s day, top decision-makers at the networks were still dyed-in-the-wool broadcasting executives. Leonard Goldenson, the president of ABC whom Nixon’s aides hounded, had created the network from scratch and was invested in the ideals of independent media. Over at CBS, founder William S. Paley had spent decades building the network’s brand and reputation and held similar beliefs. They wanted to shield the respectability of their networks, which made them more resolute when confronted with political attacks.
Now, however, the ultimate decisions about what happens at ABC and CBS are made by executives at the megacorporations that own them.
Decades of deregulation – in particular, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which spurred a wave of media mergers and consolidation – have allowed broadcasting today to be dominated by a handful of massive conglomerates. They own not only the networks, but also studios, cable channels and internet services.
These media giants need government approval to further expand their empires. This includes the US$8 billion merger that made Paramount Skydance the owner of CBS in summer 2025 – a deal that was approved just a week after CBS announced the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Disney, which owns ABC, also has major deals pending that require the government’s go-ahead.
If the ultimate goal is ever-increasing profits for shareholders, getting rid of a late night show may seem like a small price to pay – especially if a particular program threatens the government’s sign-off on a massive deal.
Advertisement
Charging ‘liberal bias’
The decline of ratings and media consolidation has left television more vulnerable to attempts at political intimidation than ever before.
Trump is far from the first conservative to use the television networks as a political punching bag. His strategy of tarring national broadcasters with the brush of “liberal media bias” can be traced back to right-wing media activists who, as early as the 1940s, argued that the mainstream media shut out conservative ideas and voices.People protest in New York City against ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel from his late night show. Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
Nixon, convinced that the nation’s television industry was against him, brought those tactics to the White House. In public, he relied on his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to slam the networks as part of an irresponsibly hostile liberal “unelected elite” with “vast power.” In private, Nixon abused the office of the presidency to harass and intimidate broadcasting reporters, directors and executives.
These tactics largely failed. But in Nixon’s wake, partisan media activists like former Fox News executive Roger Ailes and radio host Rush Limbaugh continued to popularize the idea of “liberal media bias” within the conservative movement.
Today, Trump’s charges of “liberal bias” or “fake news” galvanize his supporters – and make media executives sweat – because they’re a key part of modern right-wing identity.
But the president’s no-holds-barred approach is unprecedented. By threatening broadcasting licenses, instigating investigations and filing lawsuits – all while declaring the mainstream media “the enemy of the people” – Trump has turned the dial up to 11.
His administration’s success in temporarily getting Kimmel off the air is obviously one more chapter in an ongoing crisis for free speech. Unfortunately, given the trends in the relationship between American media and politics over the past half-century, it likely won’t be the last.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A DoorDash driver who claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery is now facing felony charges after police say her viral video showed an unconscious, partially nude customer without consent. Here’s what investigators found and why the case is sparking national debate.
DoorDash delivery driver involved in a viral video controversy after claiming sexual assault; police say no assault occurred, and the driver now faces felony charges.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A Viral Accusation Turns Into a Criminal Case
A routine food drop-off turned into a national controversy this month after a DoorDash delivery driver claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery — only to later be arrested herself following a police investigation. The incident, which quickly spread across TikTok and other platforms, has generated fierce debate over privacy, personal safety, and the power of viral video culture.
The driver, identified as Livie Rose Henderson, posted a video on social media in mid-October claiming that when she arrived at a customer’s home in Oswego, New York, she found the front door open and discovered a man “half-naked and unconscious” on his couch. She publicly described the moment as a sexual assault, saying she felt endangered and traumatized.
Her posts went viral almost immediately, drawing attention from millions of viewers and sparking outrage over the safety risks faced by gig workers — particularly women — who make deliveries to unfamiliar homes.
But the narrative took a dramatic turn.
Police: No Sexual Assault Occurred
According to the Oswego Police Department, an investigation found no evidence that Henderson was sexually assaulted. Instead, authorities say that she:
Entered the home without consent
Recorded the unconscious customer, who was partially nude
Posted the footage online, identifying him
Made claims police say were “false and misleading”
Investigators concluded the man was intoxicated and unconscious, not acting with intent or awareness. As a result, Henderson was arrested and charged with:
Second-degree unlawful surveillance (felony)
First-degree dissemination of unlawful surveillance images (felony)
Police emphasized that recording a person who is nude or partially nude inside their home — regardless of context — constitutes a violation of New York’s surveillance and privacy laws if done without permission.
DoorDash Drops the Driver
Henderson also claimed that DoorDash deactivated her account, something she described as retaliation for “exposing her assaulter.” But following her arrest, DoorDash stated that recording customers inside their homes violates company policy and local laws.
DoorDash said it cooperated with investigators but declined to comment further on personnel matters.
A Complicated Public Reaction
Social media reaction has been sharply divided:
Advertisement
Sympathy for the driver
Many viewers initially supported Henderson, arguing that gig workers often deal with unsafe conditions and should not be forced to decide between finishing a delivery or backing away from a potentially threatening situation.
Backlash over privacy violations
Others argue that Henderson crossed legal and ethical boundaries by:
Entering a private residence
Recording a vulnerable, unconscious person
Posting it publicly
Accusing the individual of a crime without evidence
These actions, critics say, show the dangerous consequences of rushing to social media before police or professional investigators evaluate the facts.
The Larger Issue: Safety vs. Responsibility
This case highlights a broader tension in the era of app-based work and viral content:
Gig workers do indeed face unpredictable and sometimes unsafe situations.
Customers have a right to privacy in their homes.
Social media, meanwhile, rewards the fastest and most dramatic version of a story — even before the truth is known.
As the criminal process continues, Henderson’s case may set a new precedent for how privacy laws interact with the realities of delivery work and the instant visibility of online platforms.
Focuses on the legal perspective, privacy violations, and the potential consequences of posting sensitive content online.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate
How China cleaned up its air pollution: Beijing’s air quality went from hazardous to good while Delhi and Lahore still struggle. Discover how China dramatically reduced pollution since 2013—and why cleaner air may have unintended consequences for global warming and climate change.
Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. As Pakistanis and Indians struggle with hazardous air quality, in Beijing – a city once notorious for its smog – the air quality is currently rated as good. Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government was so concerned about pollution that it introduced temporary restrictions on cars, shut down factories and stopped work on some construction sites. The measures worked and one study later found that levels of air pollution were down 30% during the period when the temporary Olympic restrictions were in place. It would take a few more years before the Chinese government implemented a clean air action plan in 2013. Since then, China has achieved a dramatic improvement in its air quality. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Laura Wilcox, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in the UK, to understand how China managed to clean up its air pollution. But Wilcox’s recent research uncovered some unintended consequences from this cleaner air for the global climate: the pollution was actually helping to cool the atmosphere and by taking it away, it may have accelerated global warming. Wilcox explains:
What we’re seeing is a removing of cooling that’s revealing warming that’s already there. So the air pollution isn’t the cause of the warming. It’s just letting us see stuff that we’ve already done.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
The Hong Kong high-rise fire shows how difficult it is to evacuate in an emergency
Hong Kong High-Rise Fire: The deadly Hong Kong fire exposes critical challenges in evacuating tall buildings. Learn why stair descent is slower than expected, how human behavior causes delays, and what modern safety features can save lives.
Evacuations of high-rises don’t happen every day, but occur often enough. And when they do, the consequences are almost always severe. The stakes are highest in the buildings that are full at predictable times: residential towers at night, office towers in the day. We’ve seen this in the biggest modern examples, from the World Trade Center in the United States to Grenfell Tower in the United Kingdom. The patterns repeat: once a fire takes hold, getting thousands of people safely down dozens of storeys becomes a race against time. But what actually makes evacuating a high-rise building so challenging? It isn’t just a matter of “getting people out”. It’s a collision between the physical limits of the building and the realities of human behaviour under stress.
It’s a long way down to safety
The biggest barrier is simply vertical distance. Stairwells are the only reliable escape route in most buildings. Stair descent in real evacuations is far slower than most people expect. Under controlled or drill conditions people move down at around 0.4–0.7 metres per second. But in an actual emergency, especially in high-rise fires, this can drop sharply. During 9/11, documented speeds at which survivors went down stairs were often slower than 0.3 m/s. These slow-downs accumulate dramatically over long vertical distances. Fatigue is a major factor. Prolonged walking significantly reduces the speed of descent. Surveys conducted after incidents confirm that a large majority of high-rise evacuees stop at least once. During the 2010 fire of a high-rise in Shanghai, nearly half of older survivors reported slowing down significantly. Long stairwells, landings, and the geometry of high-rise stairs all contribute to congestion, especially when flows from multiple floors merge into a single shaft. Slower movers include older adults, people with physical or mobility issues and groups evacuating together. These reduce the overall pace of descent compared with the speeds typically assumed for able-bodied individuals. This can create bottlenecks. Slow movers are especially relevant in residential buildings, where diverse occupants mean movement speeds vary widely. Visibility matters too. Experimental studies show that reduced lighting significantly slows down people going down stairs. This suggests that when smoke reduces visibility in real events, movement can slow even further as people hesitate, misjudge steps, or adjust their speed.
Human behaviour can lead to delays
Human behaviour is one of the biggest sources of delay in high-rise evacuations. People rarely act immediately when an alarm sounds. They pause, look for confirmation, check conditions, gather belongings, or coordinate with family members. These early minutes are consistently some of the costliest when evacuating from tall buildings. Studies of the World Trade Center evacuations show the more cues people saw – smoke, shaking, noise – the more they sought extra information before moving. That search for meaning adds delay. People talk to colleagues, look outside windows, phone family, or wait for an announcement. Ambiguous cues slow them even further. In residential towers, families, neighbours and friend-groups naturally try to evacuate together. Groups tend to form wider steps, or group together in shapes that reduce overall flow. But our research shows when a group moves in a “snake” formation – one behind the other – they travel faster, occupy less space, and allow others to pass more easily. These patterns matter in high-rise housing, where varied household types and mixed abilities make moving in groups the norm.
Why stairs aren’t enough
As high-rises grow taller and populations age, the old assumption that “everyone can take the stairs” simply no longer holds. A full building evacuation can take too long, and for many residents (older adults, people with mobility limitations, families evacuating together) long stair descents are sometimes impossible. This is why many countries have turned to refuge floors: fire- and smoke-protected levels built into towers as safe staging points. These can reduce bottlenecks and prevent long queues. They give people somewhere safe to rest, transfer across to a clearer stair, or wait for firefighters. Essentially, they make vertical movement more manageable in buildings where continuous descent isn’t realistic. Alongside them are evacuation elevators. These are lifts engineered to operate during a fire with pressurised shafts, protected lobbies and backup power. The most efficient evacuations use a mix of stairs and elevators, with ratios adjusted to the building height, density and demographics. The lesson is clear: high-rise evacuation cannot rely on one tool. Stairs, refuge floors and protected elevators should all be made part of ensuring vertical living is safer.Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne; Erica Kuligowski, Principal Research Fellow, School of Engineering, RMIT University, and Ruggiero Lovreglio, Professor in Digital Construction and Fire Engineering, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
