4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - zzrrt 1y ago
      > That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee, Nancy Mace et al also being fired for spreading misinformation about politically-motivated killings. Also waiting for Trump’s public address denouncing political violence against MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
      - rdtsc 1y ago
        Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment. But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. > Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee also being fired for spreading misinformation about a politically-motivated killing. It's going to happen once the democrats are in power and fox or whatever channel broadcast lie and it's related to a crime. I don't see it happening in congress though. > MN Rep. Melissa Hortman. Sadly I don't know if anyone there knows who Hortman is.
        danaris 1y ago
        > It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. No, it's not. It's fascism punishing those who don't bend the knee. FCC licensing is only the specific excuse they're using this time. > But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. Boo fucking hoo? It's a blatant First Amendment violation. They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
        rdtsc 1y ago
        > Boo fucking hoo? I think that's exactly the look they didn't want. > They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it." Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. They should have fought it and called their bluff, it's exactly the "boo fucking hoo" look ABC didn't want. Who would they be grandstanding for? Younger generation doesn't sit at home watching ABC, there is nobody they'd be impressing with their fight. They should have done it on principle, but their money and ratings would be going down and these companies are not ideological unless they can profit from it. So the folded faster than a broken lawn chair.

by ummonk 1y ago

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.
  - zzrrt 1y ago
    > That's the intentionally spreading misinformation related to a crime Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee, Nancy Mace et al also being fired for spreading misinformation about politically-motivated killings. Also waiting for Trump’s public address denouncing political violence against MN Rep. Melissa Hortman.
    - rdtsc 1y ago
      Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment. But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. > Looking forward to Rep. Mike Lee also being fired for spreading misinformation about a politically-motivated killing. It's going to happen once the democrats are in power and fox or whatever channel broadcast lie and it's related to a crime. I don't see it happening in congress though. > MN Rep. Melissa Hortman. Sadly I don't know if anyone there knows who Hortman is.
      - danaris 1y ago
        > It's specific corner case of FCC licensing. No, it's not. It's fascism punishing those who don't bend the knee. FCC licensing is only the specific excuse they're using this time. > But the PR look was pretty bad. Instead of saying "condolences for the family, etc" now they are defending Kimmel's phrasing. Boo fucking hoo? It's a blatant First Amendment violation. They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it."
        rdtsc 1y ago
        > Boo fucking hoo? I think that's exactly the look they didn't want. > They didn't have to "defend Kimmel's phrasing". All they had to do was say "no, it's protected political speech, and you can't do anything about it." Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there. They should have fought it and called their bluff, it's exactly the "boo fucking hoo" look ABC didn't want. Who would they be grandstanding for? Younger generation doesn't sit at home watching ABC, there is nobody they'd be impressing with their fight. They should have done it on principle, but their money and ratings would be going down and these companies are not ideological unless they can profit from it. So the folded faster than a broken lawn chair.