News
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 Staff
Even as Jimmy Kimmel returns to the airwaves, TV networks remain more vulnerable to political pressure than ever before
Sage Meredith Goodwin, Purdue University and Oscar Winberg, University of Turku
“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.
Over 50 years ago, Nixon and his team sought to use the full weight of the federal government – with calls to network executives, Federal Communications Commission complaints, IRS audits and FBI investigations – to silence “The Dick Cavett Show.”
https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/even-as-jimmy-kimmel-returns-to-the-airwaves-tv-networks-remain-more-vulnerable-to-political-pressure-than-ever-before-265653&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A
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.
It’s a sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s second term, during which he has loudly announced his desire to rid the nation’s televisions of his critics, and is making headway in doing so. In July 2025, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late night show. While the network maintained this was “purely a financial decision” based on ratings, it came in the wake of Colbert mocking both the president and the network.
“I hear Kimmel is next,” Trump crowed in the days after. Lo and behold, ABC briefly suspended Jimmy Kimmel on Sept. 17 over comments the comedian made about the response to the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The suspension was lifted five days later, after it generated widespread backlash and became a flash point for free speech debates in the U.S.
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.
When Nixon was trying to nix “The Dick Cavett Show,” the program averaged 5 million viewers a night. The rival “Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” regularly pulled in 11 million viewers.
Yet even Cavett’s relatively smaller audience is more than double what Kimmel and his colleagues in late night television can count on today.
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.
Kimmel does have over 20 million subscribers on YouTube and millions more on social media, but ABC has struggled to monetize this following.
In short, late night is no longer the TV crown jewel it once was. As a result, it’s far easier for executives to decide to cut the cord on a Kimmel or a Colbert.
Deregulation and consolidation
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.
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.
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.
Sage Meredith Goodwin, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for American Political History and Technology, Purdue University and Oscar Winberg, Postdoctoral Fellow, Turku Institute for Advanced Studies & John Morton Center for North American Studies, University of Turku
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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/
Economy
Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?
Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.
Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.
But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.
That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.
What Is a Donor State?
Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.
Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.
A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.
These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.
Only Three Donor States in 2023?
According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.
Those states were:
New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.
Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.
Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.
At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.
The reality is considerably more complicated.
COVID Changed the Numbers
Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.
The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.
Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.
Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.
That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.
California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor
California provides perhaps the best example.
In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.
But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.
Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.
In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.
Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.
New York Tells a Similar Story
New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.
Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.
Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.
As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.
Arizona Is a Net Recipient
Arizona presents a different picture.
Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.
Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.
That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.
But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”
Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.
Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.
All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.
Texas Receives More Than It Sends
Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.
Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.
Again, the number needs context.
Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.
The Surprising Leader: Virginia
If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.
Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.
Why?
Location.
Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.
Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.
The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.
A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.
Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?
Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Military bases and personnel
- Defense contracts
- Federal employee salaries
- Highway and transit funding
- Scientific and university research
- Agricultural programs
- Veterans benefits
- Disaster assistance
- Federal grants
- Infrastructure projects
- Federal agency operations
A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.
Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors
Federal income taxes are progressive.
People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.
States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.
That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.
The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.
The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.
In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.
So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?
In a broad accounting sense, yes.
Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.
But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.
Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.
A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.
Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.
The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.
The Bigger Picture
The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.
The numbers are real, but they require context.
A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.
Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:
Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.
They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.
And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.
Related External Links
- Rockefeller Institute of Government – 2025 Balance of Payments Report
- USAspending.gov – Explore Federal Government Spending
- USAspending.gov – Federal Spending Guide
- IRS – Individual Income Tax Data by State
- IRS – Federal Taxes Collected by State
🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Food Truths
The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?
What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.
For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.
But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?
What Was the Controversial Ingredient?
The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.
Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”
While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.
Why Did People Become Concerned?
The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.
When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.
Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.
Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?
The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.
In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.
These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.
Does McDonald’s Still Use It?
No.
McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.
Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.
Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?
Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.
These may include:
- Calcium propionate to prevent mold
- Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
- Enzymes that improve consistency
- Emulsifiers that help maintain softness
These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.
The Bigger Health Picture
Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.
The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:
- High sodium intake
- Excess saturated fat
- Added sugars
- Large portion sizes
- Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods
An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.
Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry
Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.
Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.
The Bottom Line
The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.
Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.
Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.
Related External Links
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives & GRAS Ingredients Information for Consumers
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives and Petitions
- FDA – Azodicarbonamide (ADA) Food Substance Database
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations – 21 CFR §172.806 (Azodicarbonamide)
- FDA – Types of Food Ingredients and Why They’re Used
- Health Canada – Permitted Flour Treatment Agents
- McDonald’s USA – Nutrition Calculator & Ingredient Information
🍴 What’s your favorite food, recipe, or dining spot? Tell us in the comments! Then subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for fresh recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and delicious stories delivered straight to your inbox. Join our growing community of food lovers today!
STM Blog
Association of Black Cardiologists to Celebrate Legacy and Leadership at 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards
The Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) is bringing its signature celebration of impact back to New York City this fall—spotlighting leaders and organizations working to make cardiovascular care more equitable, more accessible, and more effective. The 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser is set for Saturday, October 3, 2026 (6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.) at Cipriani Wall Street in Manhattan.
For ABC, the evening is more than a high-profile awards program. It’s a cornerstone fundraising event that helps power the organization’s year-round work—supporting medical student scholarships, fellowships, education, and programs designed to strengthen the pipeline of diverse clinicians and researchers while improving outcomes in communities that carry a disproportionate burden of heart disease.
A fundraising night with long-term stakes
ABC leaders say the Spirit of the Heart Awards is built around a simple idea: celebrating progress while investing in the people who will drive the next wave of change.
Event co-chair Icilma Fergus, MD—Director of the Cardiovascular Disparities Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center and Board Chair of ABC—framed the night as a forward-looking commitment.
“This gathering is about more than one evening of celebration; it is about investing in the future of cardiovascular health for years to come,” Fergus said in the announcement. She added that the support generated through the event helps expand opportunities for aspiring clinicians, researchers, and leaders whose work can transform care and improve lives nationwide.
Honorary Chairperson: Samin K. Sharma, MD
ABC announced Samin K. Sharma, MD as the event’s Honorary Chairperson. Sharma serves as Chief of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Institute, and the Anandi Lal Sharma Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
In the release, ABC highlighted Sharma’s international reputation in interventional cardiology and physician education, noting that he has trained cardiovascular specialists from around the world while advancing the field through research, mentorship, and patient care.
“I am honored to serve as Honorary Chairperson for this important event,” Sharma said. “The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program reflects the power of partnership, philanthropy, and leadership to advance cardiovascular health.”
A full weekend of impact, including policy
The awards program is part of a broader weekend of programming. On Friday, October 2, ABC will host its Annual Policy Pulse Summit at Venable LLP in New York City, convening leaders to discuss policy issues shaping the future of cardiovascular health.
What to expect at the Spirit of the Heart Awards
ABC is positioning the evening as both a celebration and a community gathering—bringing together leaders from healthcare, philanthropy, industry, and advocacy.
The event will be co-emceed by:
- Sandra Bookman, award-winning journalist and anchor of Eyewitness News on ABC7/WABC-TV New York
- Thomas Cunningham IV, President and Chief Content Officer of BrandCunningham
The program is expected to include:
- Presentation of the Spirit of the Heart Awards
- Recognition of medical student scholarship recipients
- Special guest appearances
- A live auction
- Musical entertainment
Event co-chair Barbara Hutchinson, MD, PhD, President of Chesapeake Cardiac Care, emphasized the role of sustained collaboration in moving the needle on heart health.
“The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program is a reminder that lasting progress in cardiovascular health is achieved through vision, partnership, and sustained commitment,” Hutchinson said.
How to attend, sponsor, or support
ABC is directing attendees and supporters to its event site for tickets, sponsorship opportunities, and donations:
- Event info / tickets / sponsorship / donations: https://abcardioevents.org
About the Association of Black Cardiologists
Founded on the belief that “every heart counts,” the Association of Black Cardiologists works to promote prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and to advance health equity by eliminating disparities. ABC’s membership is open to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or vocation. The organization’s work spans education, advocacy, research, patient and community outreach, and leadership development.
- Organization website: https://abcardio.org
Source and media contact
- Press release source (PRNewswire): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/association-of-black-cardiologists-to-celebrate-legacy-and-leadership-at-16th-annual-spirit-of-the-heart-awards-302206000.html
Media Contact (from the release):
- Akeia Blue, VP of Communications
- 419395@email4pr.com
- 240-321-9227
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
