ABC's cancellation of Roseanne – another example of extended CSR?

A sitcom TV show will be cancelled in the US because the star is spreading controversial and mean messages on social media:

"US television network ABC has cancelled hit sitcom Roseanne after a racist tweet which said that Valerie Jarrett, an African American aide for Barack Obama, was the child of the Muslim Brotherhood and The Planet of the Apes."

Interestingly, different media sources have their own ways of framing the same topic.

According to the Economist, the decision is of economic nature: advertisers are expected to boycott the show and make it unprofitable:

"ABC’s motivation in cancelling the show was mainly economic: advertisers would have boycotted “Roseanne”, says Clint Wilson, the author of a book on racism and the media."

Furthermore, it was also mentioned that companies are willing to take a political stand.

On the other hand, The Independent emphasizes how the existence of a sitcom with a notorious Trump-supporting star would be an impossible combination in the first place. Noisy Trump followers in publicity are merely portrayed as a product of the current time: Trump is encouraging others with his example and causing an illusion that his ways of thinking and communicating would be widely accepted or at least less problematic.

The article in The Independent does not focus on explaining or analyzing reasons behind cancelling the show. Seemingly it is nearly taken for granted that harsh Trump-supporting appearance on social media is an absolute no-go for a TV star. One could imagine a political counter-example of celebrities messaging harsh messages within the anti-Trump hegemony. How far could they go?

The economic logic in the Economist reveals assumptions and roles of organizations which are not fixed an static in time. It is not self-evident that advertisers should react to personal life of any sitcom star. For example, people like to enjoy art of very controversial personalities. For example, you can be a socialist and listen to John Lennon without ruining your experience for the fact that shortly before his death he started to favor Ronald Reagan.

There seems to be potentially yet another example of the extended corporate social responsibility (CSR). It means that the supply chain, factors of production, their origins and associations will be examined more carefully than before. In this case it means the Twitter feed of a sitcom star. These normative hegemonic perceptions are often of implicit nature. Though, they tend to materialize in explanations and considerations on "economic" issues. The trick is that there is no one and only uniform "economic logic", but as discussed here, normative assumptions behind the logic are changing.

As some people are happy about corporations taking a political stance, these views could also be moderated by asking, should people drive political division even deeper? What do people win by investigating political associations or private lives of otherwise law-abiding artists and producers?