4 ms·
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 suc
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoWhy 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 agoHow’s the state of Fox’s license look to you? Or have they never ever spread misinformation for political purposes?
- croes 1y agoHave they ever spread information for political purposes?
- nullocator 1y agoHow 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 agoYou do realize I questioned if Fox ever spread anything else than misinformation.
- intended 1y agoThe 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.