5 ms·

I suspect they were looking for an excuse to axe and found one. It was all milquetoast, and that entire format of television is dead and the networks know they

I suspect they were looking for an excuse to axe and found one. It was all milquetoast, and that entire format of television is dead and the networks know they need to pivot somewhere.

gruez 1y ago
>It was all milquetoast, ??? It was a very obvious dig at the president. There's still not good justification for the government to step in, but claiming it's "milquetoast" is baffling.
- djohnston 1y ago
  I guess it depends on the sort of media you consume. I’ve seen Destiny saying conservatives need to be afraid of getting shot, and it seems like he’s still alive. The other people who lost jobs seemed to have said much more direct and offensive remarks than Kimmel as well.
- derefr 1y ago
  Digs directed at the President or the administration are and always have been well within the Overton window in American journalism, and previous Presidents and administrations have just seen them as a fact of life and brushed them off. Thus “milquetoast”: an implication that any reaction to this is, objectively, an overreaction. That the current President is a habitual over-reactor does not change that fact. It just means that you can paradoxically be taking a heterodox / outré stance by saying objectively milquetoast things.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  Have you ever seen a late night show? Monologue jokes about the sitting president practically define the format. Every other president going back decades would just man up and take it.
  - wvenable 1y ago
    Except Nixon.
    - macintux 1y ago
      For all his flaws, Nixon had a far thicker skin than Trump and infinitely more integrity.
      - cratermoon 1y ago
        Nixon didn't have a thicker skin, he was just more patient and calculating in his revenge. Have we already forgotten his "enemies list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list
epistasis 1y ago
The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license is a pretty good "excuse". There wasn't a public outcry, it was a government outcry along with threats along multiple lines of leverage.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  > The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Yep! And he wrote the whole chapter in Project 2025 outlining that he would do exactly this, in advance of taking the job. Who is going to stop him? The Supreme Court? Not likely.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them. Necessarily. Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways. If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)
      - billfor 1y ago
        Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after. To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena. I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.
1oooqooq 1y ago
having experience with a dictatorship first hand, all a censor does is veto milquetoast stuff.
esalman 1y ago
> networks know they need to pivot somewhere. Please don't say the pivot is podcasts.

I suspect they were looking for an excuse to axe and found one. It was all milquetoast, and that entire format of television is dead and the networks know they need to pivot somewhere.

gruez 1y ago

>It was all milquetoast, ??? It was a very obvious dig at the president. There's still not good justification for the government to step in, but claiming it's "milquetoast" is baffling.

djohnston 1y ago
I guess it depends on the sort of media you consume. I’ve seen Destiny saying conservatives need to be afraid of getting shot, and it seems like he’s still alive. The other people who lost jobs seemed to have said much more direct and offensive remarks than Kimmel as well.
derefr 1y ago
Digs directed at the President or the administration are and always have been well within the Overton window in American journalism, and previous Presidents and administrations have just seen them as a fact of life and brushed them off. Thus “milquetoast”: an implication that any reaction to this is, objectively, an overreaction. That the current President is a habitual over-reactor does not change that fact. It just means that you can paradoxically be taking a heterodox / outré stance by saying objectively milquetoast things.
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
Have you ever seen a late night show? Monologue jokes about the sitting president practically define the format. Every other president going back decades would just man up and take it.
- wvenable 1y ago
  Except Nixon.
  - macintux 1y ago
    For all his flaws, Nixon had a far thicker skin than Trump and infinitely more integrity.
    - cratermoon 1y ago
      Nixon didn't have a thicker skin, he was just more patient and calculating in his revenge. Have we already forgotten his "enemies list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list

epistasis 1y ago

The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license is a pretty good "excuse". There wasn't a public outcry, it was a government outcry along with threats along multiple lines of leverage.

OutOfHere 1y ago
> The FCC chair threatening your broadcast license That's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
- epistasis 1y ago
  Yep! And he wrote the whole chapter in Project 2025 outlining that he would do exactly this, in advance of taking the job. Who is going to stop him? The Supreme Court? Not likely.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Not necessarily. Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Broadcasters have a license from the government to use the airwaves and they are obligated to act in the public interest. So some restrictions apply to them. Necessarily. Carr threatened to revoke licenses based on the political speech of ABC. That's clearly unconstitutional. Trump followed up by saying licenses should be revoked for criticism of himself. Unitary President cuts both ways. If this is okay, the next Democrat who's President needs to shut down Fox News and their ilk or be impeached. (From the perspective of fomenting rebellion and generally posing a threat to our republic, Jimmy Kimmel isn't even on the list.)
    - billfor 1y ago
      Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does. As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after. To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena. I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.

1oooqooq 1y ago

having experience with a dictatorship first hand, all a censor does is veto milquetoast stuff.

esalman 1y ago

> networks know they need to pivot somewhere. Please don't say the pivot is podcasts.