By: Renae Richardson
Years after ABC canceled Roseanne, Michael Fishman still believes the decision was justified. Yet even after Roseanne Barr publicly criticized him for that view, he continues to speak about her with affection, gratitude, and the complicated loyalty that comes from growing up together.
From Sitcom Son to Television Veteran
Michael Fishman spent much of his childhood playing Roseanne Barr’s son on television. Years after ABC canceled the Roseanne revival, he still believes the network made the right call. When Barr later responded to that position with personal insults, Fishman made clear that he still considers her family, according to reporting from Entertainment Weekly and Variety.
Fishman played D.J. Conner, the youngest of Roseanne and Dan’s three children, when Roseanne premiered in 1988. D.J.’s gentleness often provided moments of levity in a sitcom whose sharp humor drew much of its power from the everyday realities of working-class life. The series ran through 1997, becoming one of television’s defining family comedies before returning for a successful revival in 2018 with much of its original cast.
The End of Roseanne
Roseanne Barr. Image Source: Vera Anderson/Getty Images (Courtesy of Vanity Fair)
That revival came to an abrupt end after Barr posted a tweet about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett that was widely condemned as racist. ABC subsequently canceled the series but chose to continue the Conner family’s story through The Conners, a spin-off that moved forward without its original star, as detailed in Variety’s coverage of the controversy.
The decision immediately sparked debate about whether the show could survive without the woman whose voice and perspective had shaped it from the beginning. It also placed renewed attention on cast members who chose to remain with the franchise, including Fishman.
Standing by the Cancellation
Michael Fishman. Image Source: abc press
In August, Fishman revisited the controversy, stating that the revival “was rightfully canceled.” The comments prompted a response from Barr, who later referred to him as a “brainwashed bigot” and “a fucking little worm,” according to Variety and corroborating Entertainment Weekly reporting. When Fishman addressed those remarks, however, he declined to escalate the conflict.
“The reality is I’ve never said anything negative publicly about her. I don’t have a reason to. I’m always going to care about her.”
This was reported by Entertainment Weekly, which cited comments Fishman made during an interview with E! News.
A Family Dynamic in Public View
In comments to E! News later reported by Entertainment Weekly, Fishman compared their public disagreement to the kinds of conflicts many families experience behind closed doors, where deep affection can exist alongside profound differences in opinion. Rather than focus on the insult itself, Fishman spoke about the years they spent working together and the bond that developed during that time.
“My love for her has never wavered. I have always been clear and I’m always going to love her. I’m always going to care about her.”
His response carried the weight of shared history. While he stood firmly by his view that the cancellation was justified, he showed no interest in rewriting the significance Barr once held in his life. Instead, he spoke about her as someone who helped shape his childhood and career.
More Than a Public Disagreement
What makes Fishman’s response noteworthy is not that he disagreed with Barr. Disagreements are common, especially in an era when public figures are increasingly expected to declare unwavering allegiance to one side or another. What stands out is his refusal to flatten a complicated relationship into a simple narrative.
He did not retreat from his position. Nor did he attempt to erase the role Barr played in his personal and professional development. In a media environment that often rewards escalation, his comments pointed in another direction.
The Relationships That Defy Easy Answers
Many people encounter similar situations in private. A friend, mentor, colleague, or family member may do something that forces a reckoning. The relationship changes. Trust may be damaged. Disappointment may be unavoidable. Yet the good memories remain. The gratitude remains. The shared history remains. Fishman’s comments acknowledged that reality. He expressed an honest opinion about a consequential moment in his professional life without pretending that it erased everything that came before it.
Holding Two Truths at Once
That ability feels increasingly rare. Public discourse often rewards certainty and condemnation while leaving little room for nuance. Fishman chose a different path. He defended a decision he believed was right while recognizing that the person affected by that decision had still mattered to him. There is a particular maturity in being able to tell the truth about where you stand while still speaking with care about someone who has hurt you. Fishman managed to do both in public.
In the end, the story is not really about the cancellation of Roseanne. It is about the challenge of holding two truths at once: believing someone was wrong while still remembering what they meant to you; acknowledging hurt without allowing it to erase an entire shared history.
For Fishman, that balance appears to come naturally. For everyone else, it serves as a reminder that conviction and compassion do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Original article
Comments