How come networks don't put up a fight for their shows?

Well in order for the people to turn things around with cancel culture, basically the networks are cancelling shows because they are worried about being labelled racist. But let's say people go on twitter and what not, and tell the networks to stop cancelling, or we will give them a label. What label could we threaten to give them in which they would fear, hopefully fear more than being called racist?

Funny you should mention that Rules - I've studied the French Revolution (sometimes through non-fiction novels I've read - one was called "The Black Count" about the African-Franco father of Alexander Dumas - author of The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask and The Count of Monte Cristo) and it's exactly as you say.

I have a hard time even following it because it makes no sense.

Their revolution starts off like ours (revolting against royal rule) - in fact, it was directly inspired by ours, but then it just goes crazy with each new revolting regime trying to kill everybody from each former revolting regime.

And we may have had a bloody war with England, but summary executions (either of British enemy combatants or Americans over political issues) were extremely rare.

It's like if after our revolution had wrapped up and independence was achieved, some group felt George Washington had too much control - so they cut his head off and all the other revolutionaries heads off for following Washington. Then Adams takes his place, but a different party thinks he's too short and pudgy, so they cut his head off and everyone's in his family & administration, etc., etc.

It wasn't called the Reign of Terror for nothing.

Very good analogy, btw, of what's happening now - not to those extremes (yet) but very similar principles.

Well the thing, is that there is always going to be a group of people offended by something, so if the network cancels law and order for being racist, then wouldn't other people who are fans of the show, complain about the next work being sexist for cancelling a show with a progressive female character? So if they are not going to be called racist, aren't they worried about being called sexist?

The movement is clearly taken more seriously now, for many reasons. There are a thousand variables in each situation. None of them are identical.

These kinds of questions may sound reasonable, but they're actually more like "why did these people break up? Here are two different people who stayed together." There's no reason to expect the same result from different situations based on one factor they share in common.

Like, seriously, think about the questions you're asking: you're asking how network executives try to measure public anger and opinion. How would you? It'd be really, really hard, right? Especially if you had money on the line. It'd be very difficult to tell which controversies would blow over and which would blow up. It'd be hard to tell how much it was worth pleasing a small number of die-hard fans versus a small number of angry activists.

So why don't executives do one thing rather than another? Because it's incredibly hard to measure the size and intensity of these groups--both fans and activists. It's hard.

That's the answer to 90% of these questions: people don't have perfect information. This is the same answer you've received to incredibly similar questions. It's the same answer you'll get if you try to ask again with a few nouns replaced.

Oh okay, I just thought that if the networks cancel, they loose money on the shows. Sure keeping them means you might be labeled racist, but I thought making money of the shows fans was important, compared to what others thought of you.

I specifically responded to that already:

I'm losing patience with question threads where answers aren't read or internalized. I'm closing this one and I'm going to have a quick hook with any future thread that follows this pattern, given the many warnings of what's now been literally years, with no apparent change.