5 ms·

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 mu

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.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > 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 Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.) One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
      - kenjackson 1y ago
        Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
        SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!
    - 1y ago
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - akerl_ 1y ago
    Which restriction applied here?
  - brendoelfrendo 1y ago
    That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... > Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if: > The station licensee knew that the information was false There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.
      - SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.
        rdtsc 1y ago
        There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him. > Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.
  - digitaltrees 1y ago
    1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations. In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rdtsc 1y ago
  As it turns out the government can dictate how the broadcast frequencies are used, including dictate things about the content. The company could have switched to online only and continued the show. Heck, they should have called uncle sam's bluff maybe and see what happened. They are not sending Jimmy to gulag or arresting him. Jimmy can still continue his show just maybe on his own youtube channel or his own online platform or something.
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_America_v._Vullo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      The executive branch controls the FCC which controls broadcasting licenses. Specifically broadcast journalism over the air is controlled https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... Note: > Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion. Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if [...] The station licensee knew that the information was false. All Jimmy had to do, it seems, was to say "this is all a made up joke" and move on, instead of presenting whatever he was saying as information or news. > If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. > However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. Again, Jimmy didn't get sent to the gulag and didn't go to jail. He can still run a show on his own platform or a youtube channel or maybe Netflix will sign him up. Heck, after this, I'd say he would easily triple his view numbers if anything.
- tim333 1y ago
  That goes: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... It doesn't say anything about the FCC not pressuring Disney. They are not congress and are not making a law. I mean I don't agree with it but it's not clear it violates the actual text of the first amendment as written in the constitution. The spirit of it perhaps.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    > law ... abridging the freedom of speech Where does the FCC's authority to do anything come from? Congressional laws. If the FCC is using the laws to abridge free speech it is clearly an unconstitutional action. It's so weird to see sooooooo many people trying to make up reasons to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior, with extremely motivated reasoning, or perhaps motivated lack of reason. You cited exactly what you are saying doesn't exist! This is baffling behavior.
    - tim333 1y ago
      I'm actually motivated the other way - I don't like Trump attacking freedom of speech, along with most others. But I'm skeptical of the legal situation. That said I know little about the laws.
bluGill 1y ago
I find it hard to take that threat seriously. There would be blood on the street - real blood - americans won't stand for it. (Some will of course but enough would not that the fcc would blink)
- epistasis 1y ago
  The threat was taken seriously. I don't believe you yet that Americans won't stand for it. There have been so many red lines crossed that most Americans don't even know what's going on.
- Cheer2171 1y ago
  FCC chair literally said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" the easy way being ABC cancelling it, the hard way being pulling the license. And if you wait for the license to be pulled as your red line, you misunderstand how this works. This is an actual threat, the kind of thing that mobsters get RICO charges for. The threat has done its work and served the purposes of the administration. The crime has already taken place. The mobster says "but he agreed to pay the protection money and nobody ever actually broke his kneecaps" "These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel,” said Carr, a Trump appointee, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-live-pulled-off-air-indefinitely-by-abc-over-charlie-kirk-shooting-comments-235240704.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-liv...
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Anyone can say anything. Follow through and abc can just ignore the order and tell everyone watching what is happening. They have the power of the pen and will get people running to their congressman. they blinked so we will never know.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      Saying that they blinked seems to be an admission that it was a threat with impact, no? What is there to blink about if it was not a threat? If I walk up to someone with a gun and wave the gun around and demand they give me their money or I'll shoot them, it does not matter if I was "serious" or not about the threat. If I tell a jury that I wouldn't have actually ever have shot the person, and that they just decided to give me their money because they didn't really need it so much, I'm not sure any jury would agree, unless I was a hell of a salesman.
fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago
He was last averaging 129K viewers per episode in the 18-49 demographic, I'd say that is a far better "excuse" than a threat from the FCC. As if DIS doesn't have a legion of attorneys. Give me a break.
- genghisjahn 1y ago
  He was last averaging 220K in 18-49 demographic. That beat out Colbert (barely) and trounced Fallon. https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q2-2025/ https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q...
  - fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago
    [dead]
- vlovich123 1y ago
  I really don’t understand this argument that he wasn’t popular as if that’s at all relevant. Aside from the cost of putting the legion of attorneys protecting a show that’s not bringing enough revenue and the fact, there’s a broader risk with the Nexstar merger that requires explicit government approval that the FCC also threatened. More importantly, his viewership didn’t suddenly change and the cancellation came about pretty clearly as a result of the FCC threat and not any business decision the company would have made otherwise. Not a lawyer but I would think that Kimmel has a 1a lawsuit he could bring against DIS and the government.
  - fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago
    [flagged]
- epistasis 1y ago
  If he was averaging suppoosedly bad numbers, why wasn't he fired before? Just a pure coincidence? I'm not sure if you think people are extremely gullible, because one would have to be in order to buy that line. If there's a threat going on, and an another excuse the threatened can blame, the threat is no less potent.
ummonk 1y ago
It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure.
- rdtsc 1y ago
  > It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure. But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder and comment on the crime even as the others are flying flags half staff. Quickly showing they caved to government's pressure was exactly the look they wanted. And let's say fought back, who would that be for? They younger viewers are not sitting at home watching TV and cheering Jimmy on. Many don't even know who Jimmy is; they just learned this week because it's on social media. So putting some kind of a defense and turning it into a battle rather than caving would have been the worse of the two choices they had.
  - danaris 1y ago
    > But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder What was Kimmel making up? The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? The fact that Kirk openly advocated for gun violence? Please do tell us exactly what was being "made up," here.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      > The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster. This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.
rdtsc 1y ago
[flagged]

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.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > 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 Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.) One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
    - kenjackson 1y ago
      Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
      - SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Except non-NewsCorp Fox assets were bought by none other than Disney! It's a gordian knot of monopolistic corruption!
  - 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- akerl_ 1y ago
  Which restriction applied here?
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  That's not what the public interest requirement means. In fact, the FCC's own website says "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views."[0] And anyway, there are specific carve outs for late-night programming. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    However the same website they describes the exceptions and limits: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... > Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if: > The station licensee knew that the information was false There quite a few other rules, obscenity and violence and such. But they probably got Jimmy on the crime that was just committed + spreading false information.
    - SauciestGNU 1y ago
      Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. It might be that he's actually a leftist, but Kimmel described Republican behavior and did not actually make any assertions of fact regarding the alleged shooter.
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        There was some initial social media reaction portraying this guy as some hard right fascist or whatever, as well. So it wasn't something just Kimmel had come up with. It could be that by the time the show started more evidence came out and he was looking more one way, and Jimmy just had stale info or his staffers were lazy and didn't update him. > Nothing he said was false though, the Republicans were trying to paint the shooter as anyone other than one of their own. Yeah, and the show owners could have fought it. There might be a warning, a lawsuit, maybe a period to comply and make changes etc. But they folded immediately. They probably figured technically they could have explained it, but the PR aspect of it was a losing battle. Here is another part of the country flying flags half staff, and what is ABC's doing? Oh right, explaining away Kimmel's news and jokes and defending him. A lot of these corporations and their leaders can smell the way the wind blows and they really hate it when the wind blows away their profits, so they just react accordingly.
- digitaltrees 1y ago
  1. You can’t take someone’s property with out due process of law. There has been no showing that they violated that obligation. 2. The constitution has supremacy, so you can’t violate someone’s first amendment rights in service of FCC regulations. In fact there is a more than credible argument that criticizing and mocking politicians is an essential public service.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 1y ago
As it turns out the government can dictate how the broadcast frequencies are used, including dictate things about the content. The company could have switched to online only and continued the show. Heck, they should have called uncle sam's bluff maybe and see what happened. They are not sending Jimmy to gulag or arresting him. Jimmy can still continue his show just maybe on his own youtube channel or his own online platform or something.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  "[g]overnment officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_America_v._Vullo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_...
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    The executive branch controls the FCC which controls broadcasting licenses. Specifically broadcast journalism over the air is controlled https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOURNALISM https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#JOUR... Note: > Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion. Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if [...] The station licensee knew that the information was false. All Jimmy had to do, it seems, was to say "this is all a made up joke" and move on, instead of presenting whatever he was saying as information or news. > If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. > However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. Again, Jimmy didn't get sent to the gulag and didn't go to jail. He can still run a show on his own platform or a youtube channel or maybe Netflix will sign him up. Heck, after this, I'd say he would easily triple his view numbers if anything.
tim333 1y ago
That goes: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... It doesn't say anything about the FCC not pressuring Disney. They are not congress and are not making a law. I mean I don't agree with it but it's not clear it violates the actual text of the first amendment as written in the constitution. The spirit of it perhaps.
- epistasis 1y ago
  > law ... abridging the freedom of speech Where does the FCC's authority to do anything come from? Congressional laws. If the FCC is using the laws to abridge free speech it is clearly an unconstitutional action. It's so weird to see sooooooo many people trying to make up reasons to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior, with extremely motivated reasoning, or perhaps motivated lack of reason. You cited exactly what you are saying doesn't exist! This is baffling behavior.
  - tim333 1y ago
    I'm actually motivated the other way - I don't like Trump attacking freedom of speech, along with most others. But I'm skeptical of the legal situation. That said I know little about the laws.

bluGill 1y ago

I find it hard to take that threat seriously. There would be blood on the street - real blood - americans won't stand for it. (Some will of course but enough would not that the fcc would blink)

epistasis 1y ago
The threat was taken seriously. I don't believe you yet that Americans won't stand for it. There have been so many red lines crossed that most Americans don't even know what's going on.
Cheer2171 1y ago
FCC chair literally said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" the easy way being ABC cancelling it, the hard way being pulling the license. And if you wait for the license to be pulled as your red line, you misunderstand how this works. This is an actual threat, the kind of thing that mobsters get RICO charges for. The threat has done its work and served the purposes of the administration. The crime has already taken place. The mobster says "but he agreed to pay the protection money and nobody ever actually broke his kneecaps" "These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel,” said Carr, a Trump appointee, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-live-pulled-off-air-indefinitely-by-abc-over-charlie-kirk-shooting-comments-235240704.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/jimmy-kimmel-liv...
- bluGill 1y ago
  Anyone can say anything. Follow through and abc can just ignore the order and tell everyone watching what is happening. They have the power of the pen and will get people running to their congressman. they blinked so we will never know.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Saying that they blinked seems to be an admission that it was a threat with impact, no? What is there to blink about if it was not a threat? If I walk up to someone with a gun and wave the gun around and demand they give me their money or I'll shoot them, it does not matter if I was "serious" or not about the threat. If I tell a jury that I wouldn't have actually ever have shot the person, and that they just decided to give me their money because they didn't really need it so much, I'm not sure any jury would agree, unless I was a hell of a salesman.

fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago

He was last averaging 129K viewers per episode in the 18-49 demographic, I'd say that is a far better "excuse" than a threat from the FCC. As if DIS doesn't have a legion of attorneys. Give me a break.

genghisjahn 1y ago
He was last averaging 220K in 18-49 demographic. That beat out Colbert (barely) and trounced Fallon. https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q2-2025/ https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q...
- fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago
  [dead]
vlovich123 1y ago
I really don’t understand this argument that he wasn’t popular as if that’s at all relevant. Aside from the cost of putting the legion of attorneys protecting a show that’s not bringing enough revenue and the fact, there’s a broader risk with the Nexstar merger that requires explicit government approval that the FCC also threatened. More importantly, his viewership didn’t suddenly change and the cancellation came about pretty clearly as a result of the FCC threat and not any business decision the company would have made otherwise. Not a lawyer but I would think that Kimmel has a 1a lawsuit he could bring against DIS and the government.
- fakeBeerDrinker 1y ago
  [flagged]
epistasis 1y ago
If he was averaging suppoosedly bad numbers, why wasn't he fired before? Just a pure coincidence? I'm not sure if you think people are extremely gullible, because one would have to be in order to buy that line. If there's a threat going on, and an another excuse the threatened can blame, the threat is no less potent.

ummonk 1y ago

It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure.

rdtsc 1y ago
> It’s actually a terrible excuse as the backlash is demonstrating. Even if they were about to axe the show all along it would have been a good idea to delay that to avoid the appearance they were caving to government pressure. But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder and comment on the crime even as the others are flying flags half staff. Quickly showing they caved to government's pressure was exactly the look they wanted. And let's say fought back, who would that be for? They younger viewers are not sitting at home watching TV and cheering Jimmy on. Many don't even know who Jimmy is; they just learned this week because it's on social media. So putting some kind of a defense and turning it into a battle rather than caving would have been the worse of the two choices they had.
- danaris 1y ago
  > But that meant having to defend making up stuff about a murder What was Kimmel making up? The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? The fact that Kirk openly advocated for gun violence? Please do tell us exactly what was being "made up," here.
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    > The fact that the shooter was conservative, from a conservative family? He implied it was trump maga head or some kind. Not just implied, he made it sound like it's a sure thing. Moreover, it applied to a crime that was just committed. When FCC threatened them ABC knew they couldn't appeal or fight. It wasn't worth it, it would have been a PR disaster. This guy is nothing like a maga whatever, he as trans girlfriend, leftist views, parents said that much (they are the ones who turned him even), wrote "Bella ciao" on bullets and "catch, fascist" and most importantly heshoots a trump-loving personality like Kirk. How did Kimmel arrive at him being some trump fan, I don't see it. That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime, good enough for FCC to threaten him and good enough for ABC to realize they'll be in a losing game defending him.

rdtsc 1y ago

[flagged]