From your link, this is a great point which clarifies for me what some of us are bouncing around here:

How did this happen?

Simply put, for most Americans today, the culture and stereotypes Taibbi and Ames were lampooning are completely foreign and unfamiliar. For that reason, eXile does not really connect, or perhaps hold up as well as a show like “South Park,” which also delights in vulgar satire but deals in stereotypes widely understood by American audiences.

Traversing societal/cultural behavior norms at any one point in time requires understanding of certain cues that can be quite sophisticated. I'm talking about behavior that is considered bad but is not clearly defined by law or case law as a crime or a tort. That doesn't mean the audience is always a tiny niche one, a big audience can get quite sophisticated. (Hence sayings like "what, were you born in a barn?" or "didn't your mother teach you anything?" i.e. everyone not living a closeted life should be able to get this is not the way to act.)  It gets harder to do when norms are in the process of changing, but that still doesn't preclude a large popular audience understanding, and "South Park" is an excellent example.

Ok, now jump to the topic of who exactly is losing their jobs over this recent #metoo hysteria about things that have not been proved technically illegal: people whose work value depends upon popularity with a large audience: journalists, entertainers, politicians. So some of us don't have a lot of sympathy for them being treated "unfairly." If Matt Taibbi wants to work as a big star journalist rather than a radical niche market blogger, part of the deal is to be socially acceptable to a wider audience. Whether the audience is re-acting "fairly" or not is not applicable, it's just the way the bigger society is at this point in time. This is also why I have little sympathy for a Matt Lauer or a Senator Franken losing their job over not being able to 'splain things that haven't been tried in a court yet. They went for the bigger job, the bigger audience, the bigger money or power. Play by those rules, you can die by them too: your job basically is being acceptable to your audience.After all, it's not "fair" that you're being paid more or have more power than the average person, either.

P.S. to the above: part of the reason this interests me is that the whole thing also synchs with public vs. private funding of avant garde art. I.E., outrage and protest against a publicly funded exhibition with Serrano's Piss Christ in it or some Mapplethorpe homoerotica. It's always been clear to me why artists shouldn't expect public funding of radical avant-garde art that breaches norms to be smooth and easy. Lowest common denominator is going to smack you in the face when you go too far with breaching the norms. Democracy isn't about elitism. Heck, my father gets peeved when he gets the idea that part of his tax dollars might go to symphony orchestras, he feels that if you like that sort of thing, you should pay for it out of your own pocket.