Bob Iger understood Jimmy Kimmel well: that’s what Walt would have done

The Hollywood professions report that many people, from Disney companies to the affiliates of ABC across the country, begged Jimmy to apologize, because the audience and advertising fell, and he simply did not listen. We firmly believe that the CEO of Disney, Bob Iger and Disney, was concerned with real and lasting damage to the Disney brand, whatever the personal political positions of all executives.

The threats of President Trump to suspend the licenses of all the broadcasters who authorize the criticism of his administration, as well as his prosecution of several billion dollars without merit against The Wall Street Journal And The New York Times, are a disturbing cloud on freedom of expression and democracy. But Disney’s latest programming decision should not be considered a cowardly submission to the abuse of an autocrat.

Disney is under the fire of the criticisms on both sides of the aisle, the indignant left criticisms that they drew their face from the light night television of the air “indefinitely”, and the criticisms on the right are indignant that Kimmel made fun of the policy of the assassin of Charlie Kirk. Funerals are not funny and responsible broadcasters still separate the murder of cheerfulness.

In the middle of a storm of indignation on both sides, we firmly believe that IGER sails in a midwife in the middle, even if it does not get much credit. The master builder of the brand, Walt Disney himself, would have done the same in the blink of an eye.

The romanticization of television gold days is not informed. Disney himself went so far as to get film scripts and sensitive television shows examined by the famous FBI chief J. Edward Hoover. Do you think Iger checks Avengers Scripts with Kash Patel? In fact, Iger went aside against the government’s unjustified intrusion, supported by the former GOP governor, Chris Christie, as a news commentator ABC when he was viciously attacked by Trump.

The criticisms are more nostalgic for the upset and scandalous comments of humorists of social criticisms such as Dick Gregory, Death Sahl, George Carlin and Don Imus, forgetting that none of these figures has never been the host of a broadcast network television program. There were then other points of sale for them and thousands of other platforms for such freedom of expression today. The guaranteed legal rights of the first amendment to the city’s place are different from a private enterprise exercising an editorial judgment on taste, respect and morality.

Iger’s choice to withdraw Kimmel is not a loose abandonment to intimidation by Trump or any type of mavized and preventive appeasement, contrary to what the erroneous rumbles on the left claim. Unfortunately, erroneous criticisms such as Kara Swisher even launched Iger as “Quisling”, making an equivalence between the venerated CEO of Disney and one of the despicable catalysts of Hitler during the Second World War. And it is also wrong to assimilate this to the cowardly Shari Redstone concessions in Paramount.

On the contrary, this is only one more reflection on the way Iger has long sought to position Disney as a classic and friendly Americana brand with the attraction of all sides while avoiding the manifestly divided programming.

This ethics has long guided Iger’s programming and content decisions, it’s really nothing to do with Trump. In fact, more than a decade ago, when Sony was involved in a controversy on a film representing the fictitious assassination of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Iger told me that he would never have “been” to the green light “an inflammatory and offensive content, promoting murder as humor. He would never put Disney in such a position.

Just as Iger was not an apologist for Kim Jong Un, he is not an apologist for Trump now, and his choice of Kimmel bench is not a dealership to Trump but simply the reflection of his long -standing vision of the Disney brand. In fact, Iger admitted that he had admitted that he had put the branch on a potential Twitter acquisition a decade ago because he did not want Disney to be trained in a blatant political war.

This should have always been a private business call, but the current climate left it blurred by the reckless intimidation of officials of the Trump administration, to the research joyfully of political revenge against a severe critic. In fact, Congress officials call for the resignation of the President of the FCC, Brendan Carr, for having threatened to block the planned merger of $ 6.2 billion between Nextar (32 stations) and the operator of the Méga-Abc rival station. In fact, these threatening comments of the impetuous populist Carr were probably harmful to his own self -proclaimed objective of removing Kimmel. If anything, Iger would have made the decision to shoot Kimmel even more quickly without Carr wading and giving it the appearance of a political drug agreement.

As an annoyance fans of the humor and the political advantage of Jimmy Kimmel, citing examples almost every week in courses and other forums, we recognize at the same time as what he said was bad and insensitive. There is no dispute on this subject, even the strongest defenders of Kimmel.

We did not hesitate to criticize Trump for real false steps and excess, but Kimmel’s mockery of the Charlie Kirk mourning process as something other than one of them “does not lie with the facts that are known at this stage. Be that as it may, these comments are manifestly insensitive because political violence should never be tolerated or exploited as comical entertainment, it doesn’t matter who perpetrated it.

Given the Kimmel’s own self-inflicted errors, there is no doubt that at least, he must apologize and demonstrate real remorse. It would present a path for him to go back to the air, perhaps in the coming days. No one deserves to be “canceled” and with difficult lessons learned, the second chances should be in order. But if Kimmel refuses to show a contrition, then broadcast television may no longer be the right platform for him and he can become one of the 20,000 substitutes that write for each other. It is regrettable that, so far, he has refused this opportunity to restore his position and his daring brilliant voice.

Conversely, there is no doubt that if Trump persists in using Kirk’s murder to justify reprisals against political rivals, the consequences for our country are dangerous.

Iger was a fearless offender and equal to equal opportunities to defend the Disney corporate character, whether from intrusions by the left or by the right. He was criticized hardly many members of the political right when in 2018, he canceled RosanneThen ABC’s N ° 1 show, when his star imploded with a cruel racial tirade about the former best adviser to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett.

Iger saw no humor consistent with the Disney brand in this episode. The sectarian character of Barr on and off screen was far from the social satire and the self-motive of Archie Bunker of the 1960s, any more than the revolutionary drama preaching the racial tolerance of the film In the heat of the night.

Likewise, Iger was the very first CEO to support the CEO of Merck, Ken Frazier, who resigned from President Trump’s commercial advisory council when Trump failed to convicted racial violence in Charlottesville, in Virginia, who led to the murder of a young, peaceful protester.

When Ron Desantis stupidly attacked Disney and threatened to revoke his special tax status exempt from tax, actually trying to scare the artist giant in silence, Iger made parallels with the CEOs who were intimidated in silence on the abuse of human rights during the Second World War guided by a feeling of decency and respect. »»

Just as some voices on the political right yelled at the careful Navigation of Iger of the Disney brand in previous times, the political left should also respect Disney’s values. Iger is breaking the needle by protecting the Disney brand as a brand which will continue to be guided by decency and respect, regardless of the way in which overheated political rhetoric sometimes becomes – on both sides.

The opinions expressed in the Fortune.com comments are only the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.