4 ms·

“Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial” It was counter to what was reported by federal investigator

“Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial” It was counter to what was reported by federal investigators the day before the show. He was deliberately spreading misinformation.

suzdude 1y ago
> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it Kimmel did not assert Mr. Robinson was anything he wasn't. Kimmel noted how some people are doing everything possible to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson.
- rattlesnakedave 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - suzdude 1y ago
    Correct, you did. You omitted the quote. If you choose to add meaning, or put words in Mr. Kimmel's mouth, that is your decision. In any case, if you think such a statement is objectionable, then you would conclude many statements made by the current president would prevent any network from putting him on air, correct?
    - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
      Yeah, when the president starts a television network, gets a broadcast license from the FCC (under which he must meet “public interest” requirements), spins up a late night program, and then begins deliberately spreading misinformation to score political points, then yes, threaten to revoke his license.
      - suzdude 1y ago
        Why are you are ignoring the question? You are creating a hypothetical to ignore it. Under your view, the networks, as they stand, should never have allowed him on the airwaves to begin with.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        How’s the state of Fox’s license look to you? Or have they never ever spread misinformation for political purposes?
        croes 1y ago
        Have they ever spread information for political purposes?
        nullocator 1y ago
        How many examples are you looking for, and for what time period? I could probably list a few dozen examples scoped to just the last 24 hours. Looking further back this is a pretty well known example https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-t...
        croes 1y ago
        You do realize I questioned if Fox ever spread anything else than misinformation.
      - intended 1y ago
        The president of the USA is a de facto “public interest” position. The burden of acting and speaking in the public interest is the whole dang job.
  - croes 1y ago
    You do realize that Kimmel‘s show is not a news show? He can suggest whatever he wants. Like the president suggests the extreme left is responsible for Kirk‘s murder. No wait, the president didn’t suggest he claimed it as a fact. Can’t wait for his cancellation.
Pxtl 1y ago
AFAIK all information anybody had at the time was that he grew up in a good gun-loving Republican family and he'd written some silly memes on the shell casings. The discord chats and his relationship with a trans woman were AFAIK not revealed yet, or at least were so new that they maybe hadn't made it to Kimmel's writers room. That kind of problem gets a demand of a retraction, not a firing. Contrast that to a Fox News host calling for mass executions of homeless people the other day (and since that day there have been multiple mass killings of homeless people). That guy got off with a thin apology.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  To be specific, Brian Kilmeade deliberately moved the Overton window on mentally ill homeless people into holocaust territory. “just kill ’em” But the FCC accuses Kimmel of “alienating the audience”.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    It's "Rules for thee but not for me," with these folks. And it's not like it's a surprise either. As Sartre observed[0] decades ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre It's quite nauseating. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

suzdude 1y ago

> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it Kimmel did not assert Mr. Robinson was anything he wasn't. Kimmel noted how some people are doing everything possible to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson.

rattlesnakedave 1y ago
[flagged]
- suzdude 1y ago
  Correct, you did. You omitted the quote. If you choose to add meaning, or put words in Mr. Kimmel's mouth, that is your decision. In any case, if you think such a statement is objectionable, then you would conclude many statements made by the current president would prevent any network from putting him on air, correct?
  - rattlesnakedave 1y ago
    Yeah, when the president starts a television network, gets a broadcast license from the FCC (under which he must meet “public interest” requirements), spins up a late night program, and then begins deliberately spreading misinformation to score political points, then yes, threaten to revoke his license.
    - suzdude 1y ago
      Why are you are ignoring the question? You are creating a hypothetical to ignore it. Under your view, the networks, as they stand, should never have allowed him on the airwaves to begin with.
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      How’s the state of Fox’s license look to you? Or have they never ever spread misinformation for political purposes?
      - croes 1y ago
        Have they ever spread information for political purposes?
        nullocator 1y ago
        How many examples are you looking for, and for what time period? I could probably list a few dozen examples scoped to just the last 24 hours. Looking further back this is a pretty well known example https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-t...
        croes 1y ago
        You do realize I questioned if Fox ever spread anything else than misinformation.
    - intended 1y ago
      The president of the USA is a de facto “public interest” position. The burden of acting and speaking in the public interest is the whole dang job.
- croes 1y ago
  You do realize that Kimmel‘s show is not a news show? He can suggest whatever he wants. Like the president suggests the extreme left is responsible for Kirk‘s murder. No wait, the president didn’t suggest he claimed it as a fact. Can’t wait for his cancellation.

Pxtl 1y ago

AFAIK all information anybody had at the time was that he grew up in a good gun-loving Republican family and he'd written some silly memes on the shell casings. The discord chats and his relationship with a trans woman were AFAIK not revealed yet, or at least were so new that they maybe hadn't made it to Kimmel's writers room. That kind of problem gets a demand of a retraction, not a firing. Contrast that to a Fox News host calling for mass executions of homeless people the other day (and since that day there have been multiple mass killings of homeless people). That guy got off with a thin apology.

sigwinch 1y ago
To be specific, Brian Kilmeade deliberately moved the Overton window on mentally ill homeless people into holocaust territory. “just kill ’em” But the FCC accuses Kimmel of “alienating the audience”.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  It's "Rules for thee but not for me," with these folks. And it's not like it's a surprise either. As Sartre observed[0] decades ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre It's quite nauseating. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...