5 ms·

To those that are interpreting his comments in a certain way, the implication that Robinson is maga is highly offensive and textbook "misinformation". Edit: th

by c420 1y ago

To those that are interpreting his comments in a certain way, the implication that Robinson is maga is highly offensive and textbook "misinformation". Edit: there's clearly several ways to interpret what he said. I'm not making any kind of argument here, just answering op's question.

rogerrogerr 1y ago
Not so much offensive, as utterly puzzling given the information we had on him by Monday night. Not a fan of Trump or Jimmy, and I don’t think this is a proportional or good response. I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. I also don’t understand why he left that little dig in his monologue.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Which information? The completely unverified stuff based on "a reconstruction" or "aggressive interview posture" from the same FBI led by the guy currently contradicting himself and telling lies in front of Congress? This Administration was basically founded on making strident claims on TV which turned out to be lies they couldn't back up in a court of law.
- yibg 1y ago
  Doesn't seem that outlandish given the president of the united states said it was a extreme left lunatic before this.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  Kimmels show was expensive, Kimmel has baggage ( a history of racist comedy, including blackface ). This was a convenient opportunity to chop dead wood.
  - willmarch 1y ago
    After pressure from the federal government which is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.
- vkou 1y ago
  > I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. Have you not been paying attention to where rhetoric in this country has gone in the past 8 months? The first amendment is dead, the great leader is publically calling for his critics to lose their broadcast licenses, and the new SOP is for the government to squeeze the shit out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. (Which is an ever-shrinking group of people.) Be it with SLAPP suits, or by holding merger approvals, or by just threatening witch-hunts. This is what 48% of the electorate wanted, and, well, it's what they've delivered. --- Meanwhile, in Fox land, Brian Kilmeade was publically calling for mass-murder of the mentally ill the other day. For some strange reason, neither Trump nor the FCC, nor all the people outraged about political violence are making a peep about that.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- kashunstva 1y ago
  > I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting. I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste. The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.
  - defrost 1y ago
    Of all the takes on his motivations I've seen the most on point comes from an Australian of Robinson's generation .. Death by shitpost: Why modern media is so ill-equiped to diagnose Tyler Robinson https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-charlie-kirk-shooter-groyper-extremism/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-... https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80 https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80 Watching the US media struggling to cleave this into either left OR right as if the world is binary is, as you noted, ridiculous.
    - bitlax 1y ago
      There's just absolutely no doubt that Tyler Robinson is a deranged leftist. He was not apolitical. None of the evidence contradicts the fact that he is a leftist. Much of the evidence contradicts the protrayal of him as a right-winger.
- bitlax 1y ago
  I mean, definitely offensive. Intended to offend.
  - bitlax 1y ago
    It's his shtick!
gruez 1y ago
You don't exactly need to be MAGA to think that Kimmel's remarks were incorrect. From the economist: >After the assassination Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian on abc, suggested erroneously that Kirk had been killed by a maga fan. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasters, threatened consequences: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours abc took Mr Kimmel off the air indefinitely. Mr Carr then said all broadcasters should ease up on the “progressive foie gras”. https://archive.is/ze4pD https://archive.is/ze4pD You can check the other articles in the same issue and see they're not exactly cheerleaders for the Trump administration. That said, the FTC shouldn't be in the business of strongarming critics, even if they're wrong.
- siliconc0w 1y ago
  The subject of the sentence was "the MAGA gang" - and it's true that they (and the president himself) were the ones desperately declaring right after the assassination before we had any information that shooter was a radical leftist. So for me it's a fair statement and really only disinformation if you purposely distort the sentence. The second part of what he said is also a true statement, that they're using this tragic event to score political points and go after their political opponents.
  - gruez 1y ago
    You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is: >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 didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.
tanduv 1y ago
ummm First amendment? Its not the first time misinformation has been broadcasted on air, why does the FCC need to get involved in this one. Would they have gotten involved if the implication was that he was a liberal?
- pitaj 1y ago
  They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional. The former is (for some at least) interesting. The latter is actually consequential. I'm concerned about the latter. The former, whether I agree or not, is about legal, protected political speech.
- zoom6628 1y ago
  I don't see the FCC cancelling news shows on which Trump lies. Double standards driven by politics and why the govt orgs need career staff and not political players. Rule of Law anyone?
aisengard 1y ago
As opposed to the implication that Robinson is somehow a leftwing activist, confidently claimed by every GOP politician from coast to coast? Also, even if it were, as you say, "misinformation", that is now somehow taboo on television? A sacred line none must dare cross?
thrance 1y ago
So when a talk show host vaguely on the left implies something that might not be true it is ground enough to disregard the fucking first amendment and use the power of the state to censor him. But when the entire GOP, including the president, all fabricate obvious lies about the shooter being successively trans, then antifa and then a radical leftist, it's fine. The double standards are fucking crazy.

by c420 1y ago

rogerrogerr 1y ago

Not so much offensive, as utterly puzzling given the information we had on him by Monday night. Not a fan of Trump or Jimmy, and I don’t think this is a proportional or good response. I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. I also don’t understand why he left that little dig in his monologue.

Terr_ 1y ago
Which information? The completely unverified stuff based on "a reconstruction" or "aggressive interview posture" from the same FBI led by the guy currently contradicting himself and telling lies in front of Congress? This Administration was basically founded on making strident claims on TV which turned out to be lies they couldn't back up in a court of law.
yibg 1y ago
Doesn't seem that outlandish given the president of the united states said it was a extreme left lunatic before this.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 1y ago
Kimmels show was expensive, Kimmel has baggage ( a history of racist comedy, including blackface ). This was a convenient opportunity to chop dead wood.
- willmarch 1y ago
  After pressure from the federal government which is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.
vkou 1y ago
> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. Have you not been paying attention to where rhetoric in this country has gone in the past 8 months? The first amendment is dead, the great leader is publically calling for his critics to lose their broadcast licenses, and the new SOP is for the government to squeeze the shit out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. (Which is an ever-shrinking group of people.) Be it with SLAPP suits, or by holding merger approvals, or by just threatening witch-hunts. This is what 48% of the electorate wanted, and, well, it's what they've delivered. --- Meanwhile, in Fox land, Brian Kilmeade was publically calling for mass-murder of the mentally ill the other day. For some strange reason, neither Trump nor the FCC, nor all the people outraged about political violence are making a peep about that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
kashunstva 1y ago
> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting. I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste. The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.
- defrost 1y ago
  Of all the takes on his motivations I've seen the most on point comes from an Australian of Robinson's generation .. Death by shitpost: Why modern media is so ill-equiped to diagnose Tyler Robinson https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-charlie-kirk-shooter-groyper-extremism/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/19/tyler-robinson-alleged-... https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80 https://archive.md/Lil0U#selection-941.0-941.80 Watching the US media struggling to cleave this into either left OR right as if the world is binary is, as you noted, ridiculous.
  - bitlax 1y ago
    There's just absolutely no doubt that Tyler Robinson is a deranged leftist. He was not apolitical. None of the evidence contradicts the fact that he is a leftist. Much of the evidence contradicts the protrayal of him as a right-winger.
bitlax 1y ago
I mean, definitely offensive. Intended to offend.
- bitlax 1y ago
  It's his shtick!

gruez 1y ago

You don't exactly need to be MAGA to think that Kimmel's remarks were incorrect. From the economist: >After the assassination Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian on abc, suggested erroneously that Kirk had been killed by a maga fan. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasters, threatened consequences: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours abc took Mr Kimmel off the air indefinitely. Mr Carr then said all broadcasters should ease up on the “progressive foie gras”. https://archive.is/ze4pD https://archive.is/ze4pD You can check the other articles in the same issue and see they're not exactly cheerleaders for the Trump administration. That said, the FTC shouldn't be in the business of strongarming critics, even if they're wrong.

siliconc0w 1y ago
The subject of the sentence was "the MAGA gang" - and it's true that they (and the president himself) were the ones desperately declaring right after the assassination before we had any information that shooter was a radical leftist. So for me it's a fair statement and really only disinformation if you purposely distort the sentence. The second part of what he said is also a true statement, that they're using this tragic event to score political points and go after their political opponents.
- gruez 1y ago
  You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is: >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 didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.

tanduv 1y ago

ummm First amendment? Its not the first time misinformation has been broadcasted on air, why does the FCC need to get involved in this one. Would they have gotten involved if the implication was that he was a liberal?

pitaj 1y ago
They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >They asked what was controversial about what he said, not whether the FCC's actions were constitutional. The former is (for some at least) interesting. The latter is actually consequential. I'm concerned about the latter. The former, whether I agree or not, is about legal, protected political speech.
zoom6628 1y ago
I don't see the FCC cancelling news shows on which Trump lies. Double standards driven by politics and why the govt orgs need career staff and not political players. Rule of Law anyone?

aisengard 1y ago

As opposed to the implication that Robinson is somehow a leftwing activist, confidently claimed by every GOP politician from coast to coast? Also, even if it were, as you say, "misinformation", that is now somehow taboo on television? A sacred line none must dare cross?

thrance 1y ago

So when a talk show host vaguely on the left implies something that might not be true it is ground enough to disregard the fucking first amendment and use the power of the state to censor him. But when the entire GOP, including the president, all fabricate obvious lies about the shooter being successively trans, then antifa and then a radical leftist, it's fine. The double standards are fucking crazy.