9 ms·
Disney reinstates Jimmy Kimmel after backlash over capitulation to FCC
- throwaway48476 1y agoThe FCC was created in order to prevent the airing of opinions the government disfavored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
- tomrod 1y agoNever heard of him before. Thanks for sharing.
- 63 1y ago[flagged]
- throwaway48476 1y agoHe advocated for peace. Maybe you read that as fascism.
- tomrod 1y ago> In the late 1930s, he supported some of the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture".[5] His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, using the slogan "Social Justice". Sounds like you're confused, or disingenuous? I prefer to give benefit of the doubt though. Which part of the Nazi policies and anti-semitism that he advocated do you consider peaceful?
- throwaway48476 1y agoYou didn't quote anything he said. Likely because the wiki page hardly quotes him and that's the extent of your knowledge.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoIf you didn't think it was a worthwhile source, why did you link it? Seems to be a bit of a double standard if you're using it to bolster your claim (without actually using the page, mind you) and object to others doing the same.
- throwaway48476 1y agoWikipedia is useful as a source for incontrovertible biographical details. Less so for political opinions which bias towards the editors.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoThe statement "The FCC was created in order to prevent the airing of opinions the government disfavored" does not seem to be "incontrovertible". Important to note, the source for this section is an article from slate, which also includes paragraphs such as: > During the blowback, Coughlin could still count on support from one corner. Nazi Germany characterized the efforts to rein in Coughlin as “a typical case of Jewish terrorism of American public opinion.” Coughlin agreed, portraying himself as a victim of Jewish-owned media. > It got worse. On Dec. 5, 1938, in Coughlin’s house organ Social Justice, under his own byline, he plagiarized a speech by Nazi Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, originally delivered in 1935 at the Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg. By then, quipsters were referring to Coughlin’s church as “the Shrine of the Little Führer.”[1] But I supposed this is spurious as well. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/father-coughlin-deplatforming-radio-social-media.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/father-coughlin-deplatf...
- tomrod 1y agoCorrect, and that's more information and citation than you shared.
- 63 1y agoFrom the page linked: > After making attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program Golden Hour to broadcast antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture".[5]
- mullingitover 1y agoAbsolute howler. He was a full-throated Nazi. He literally cheered for Kristallnacht[1]. > During his radio broadcast on November 20, 1938, while reports of the Kristallnacht pogrom in Germany were still on the front pages of many American newspapers, Coughlin defended the Nazi attacks as justified. Claiming to merely be a “student of history,” he traced “the causes of the effect known as Naziism” [sic] for his listeners, concluding that Nazism had “evolved to act as a defense mechanism against the incursions of Communism.” [1] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/personal-story/charles-coughlin https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/pe...
- delecti 1y agoCoughlin was an anti-communist antisemite who was sympathetic to Hitler and Mussolini and advocated for government control over industry in the 1930s. I would also read that as fascism, yes.
- janice1999 1y agoBy comparison, Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyle) was executed for treason (the last person to in the UK to receive such a punishment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce
- dingnuts 1y ago[flagged]
- mullingitover 1y agoGovernment licensing of radio spectrum preceded the FCC and was in response to the RF chaos that hampered the rescue operation after the sinking of the Titanic[1]. [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/radio-act-of-1912/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/radio-act-of-1912/
- throwaway48476 1y agoThat's why I wrote "the FCC" of which is the thread subject.
- coderintherye 1y agoYou are spreading misinformation. The FCC existed before Coughlin. Furthermore, the FCC declined to take action on Coughlin despite all the pressure it got from the public. Instead, it was the National Association of Broadcasters that forced him off the air.
- throwaway48476 1y agoCoughlin started broadcasting in 1926. The FCC was created in 1934. How exactly did the FCC exist before him?
- legitster 1y agoThis is incredibly hyperbolic and misleading. The Communications Act of 1934 was passed for a variety of very necessary reasons at the time, the most important being making sure broadcasters didn't hijack each other's signals. Coughlin's show coincided with the creation of the FCC and they never really tangled. His show was pulled off the network a full 5 years after the FCC was established. FCC regulation may have had a part in that, but there is no reason to believe he in particular was targeted and certainly not that the law was passed to target him.
- ajross 1y agoIn an amusingly bald bit of Wikipedia editorializing, while the Coughlin page links to the Communications Act page in the context of (as the upthread throwaway account[1] says) half-implying that it was created to censor opinions... ...the actual page linked doesn't mention Coughlin at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 [1] The habit of throwing discussion bombs like this from throwaway accounts is another sign of HN's decay.
- ajross 1y agoFor anyone interested, I went digging. In fact the citation for that (FCC Chair) McNinch quote that is (not quite correctly) excerpted in the Coughlin article is a 1938 Times article talking about how he'd "recently" said it in a speech (I can't find a cite for the speech itself). The FCC was created in 1934, four years earlier. So arguing from this basis that it was created to censor is clearly just plain wrong. The wikipedia narrative on the Coughlin page is basically a lie.
- mateus1 1y agoI think the word "censorship" applies here.
- Jensson 1y agoHe wouldn't be reinstated if it was censorship. The government didn't back down, just Disney did. This just shows Disney wasn't forced to remove him as some thought, they cancelled his show willingly so could take it back.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThe gov openly pressured Disney to drop him -- that's what censorship is. The fact that Disney reversed course (based on whatever internal calculations we don't know) doesn't mean it wasn't censorship to begin with.
- stanfordkid 1y agoThe reasoning for why they canned him is a total facade. Nothing he said was really that inflammatory. They canned him because they were afraid the FCC would screw them, then they saw their viewers were angry so they re-negged. Run of the mill spineless bean counters. They kind of won it both ways though, because they were able to feign loyalty and show gov't they only re-instated "because they had to for the money", which Trump will empathize with.
- lokar 1y ago[flagged]
- wilg 1y agoHe did not say the shooter was a MAGA conservative.
- lokar 1y agoTrue, but I guess I could see how people hearing it might read it that way. The general debate was between the shooter being a left winger or a right winger. He said they were wrong about him not being a right winger.
- wilg 1y agoHe didn't say that either technically. He said the right was trying very hard to make it look like the guy was not MAGA, which was true. Before any information was known, the right was claiming he was trans, a Democrat, whatever, and saying they had to go to war with the left, etc.
- AgentME 1y agoHe didn't even necessarily say they were wrong about it. He just emphasized that their top priority was making sure they could score points from it: > We hit some new lows over the weekend with 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. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.
- self_awareness 1y ago[flagged]
- fennecbutt 1y agoNah.
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoHis employer was pressured by the government to fire him because he made a joke about the president and his followers. That's a huge deal for anyone who cares about free speech.
- lokar 1y agoIt’s a very effective technique to gain unchecked political power. Ask Orban or Putin.
- guywithahat 1y ago[flagged]
- sumeno 1y agoRight wing violence vastly outnumbers left wing violence
- tcrenshaw 1y agoI would love to see some citations here around serious violence problems on the left. I understand HN can be a bubble chamber, so I'm genuinely looking for a first party source the can corroborate that kind of statement
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoShooter is most likely a Nick Fuentes fanboy
- guywithahat 1y ago
- draw_down 1y ago[dead]
- guywithahat 1y ago[flagged]
- fennecbutt 1y agoOnly after a backlash. I'm sure Jimmy will still take it because what other choice does he have really. But if he were solid he'd do a Johnny Depp and be like "never working with you fuckers again". Granted, he has a lot more support staff whose jobs he needs to worry about, too.
- jordand 1y agoHe's still under contract with ABC too so he's not got an easy way out
- apsurd 1y agoGood last line. Yep, I immediately thought of all the behind the camera people it takes to run a show like that. Conan O'brien also notably ensured his entire team was account for during the whole Tonight Show debacle, and onward.
- tobyjsullivan 1y agoI think that last line is getting to the point more than most of the discussion I see. The host of the show doesn’t really decide what he’s going to say. He reads the script the writers deliver (with his approval, I’m sure). He’s the talking head of a production team. Jimmy Kimmel the person didn’t get taken off the air. Jimmy Kimmel the show did. That makes it relatively easy to go back on the air, if they simply give new direction (constraints) to the writing team that satisfy the network. If I were to guess, I doubt Jimmy Kimmel the person cares what the team is or is not allowed to write in the script.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45338613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45338613
- throwaway48476 1y agoDupe is flagged.
- tomrod 1y agoWeird, this isnt a controversial story at all. FCC dramatically overstepped on free speech, cooler and saner heads prevailed.
- 1970-01-01 1y agoYou should not find it weird to see any comment in this thread immediately flagged due to an opposing view disagreeing with it. It's a hot political story in nature, therefore it's controversial. It's really this simple. Censorship. It works.
- tomrod 1y agoApparently it is weaker than boycotting
- alkonaut 1y agoI hope it cost them a few percent revenue at least. I’m not resubscribing any time soon.
- nostromo 1y agoThe political right in this country would love for Disney to be boycotted - just saying.
- hypeatei 1y ago[flagged]
- nostromo 1y agoNobody has any principles here my friend. There is a long list of people canceled for making content that displeased the Democrats, and now a few murders too. But yes, apparently everyone hates Disney and wants them to go bankrupt. So finally the left and right agree on one thing. Unfortunately for Kimmel, late night TV is irrelevant dinosaur so he better extract as much money as he can before he inevitably ends up like Colbert.
- hypeatei 1y ago> long list of people canceled This FCC action was censorship, not cancel culture.
- nostromo 1y agoReuter's reported that Disney did this to protect the company’s interest and was not due to the FCC. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-says-jimmy-kimmel-will-return-air-tuesday-2025-09-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-says-j...
- shadowgovt 1y ago
- 1970-01-01 1y agoHad the FCC not been so blatant about axing the shows due to speech, and had the backlash been softer, this would have succeeded.
- jayknight 1y agoIf the president didn't say or tweet every thought that came into his head, he would probably be more successful at implementing even more of his authoritarian goals.
- wilg 1y agoDisney was really in a pickle here, because the "right" already hates them for having a few gay characters and characters of disfavored races, so capitulating to Trump's illegal and immoral censorship would leave them with no political allies.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> Disney was really in a pickle here Disney made a preschool-level bad choice. Grade schoolers have figured out that capitulating to a bully is how you signal you want more bulling. Disney also had examples of law firms and universities that bent the knee to the whitehouse - and how that turned out for them. The reward for tanking their reputations was more whitehouse demands.
- throwacct 1y agoI mean, businesses need to be impartial and take no sides. Their goal is to serve both sides of the aisle. If you have a business or you're the CEO, CTO, etc., you can share your political views privately.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> I mean, businesses need to be impartial and take no sides. Their goal is to serve both sides of the aisle. Selling in itself tends to be impartial. The experience can be something else. The place I buy tires from proudly advertises their fandom for the WH occupant. They also treat me better than the neutral-appearing, sanitized tire shops. If my county harassed them for their advertised orientation, the bad actor in that equation would be my county.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- netsharc 1y ago[flagged]
- jimbob45 1y agoFor anyone not informed, Jones’ exorbitant fines were that way because of his consistently excessive behavior in court and lack of willingness to cooperate. The judge gave him multiple chances. You shouldn’t expect that to happen to anyone else because normal people obey their lawyer when their lawyer tells them to quiet down.
- tptacek 1y agoHe managed to literally default a billion dollar defamation case, which is really something.
- cogman10 1y agoThis isn't true. Jones was defaulted before trial in both cases because he wasn't complying with discovery. The defense asked for documents and testimony which his company refused to provide. Documents like the finances for the company (totally normal). You are correct that he was given multiple chances to fix the problem. He'd literally fire his lawyers between almost every deposition so that they couldn't provide the requested documents. But the actual fines came from the jury from the trial. civil cases have 2 parts, are you guilty and if so for how much. Jones lost the "are you guilty" by default and the how much was determined by a jury of his peers after a trial (and accepted by the judge). I think with Jones it's important to get everything straight as he likes to claim that he was silenced and steamrolled. He was neither. He lost that much money because his actions were horrendous.
- strictnein 1y ago> And no, there's no need for politeness, because the assassination victim was an asshole I mean, did you see what he was wearing? He definitely had it coming. I wasn't a fan of his, but if your source about what Charlie Kirk was out there doing and saying is The Nation of all places, you're not exactly informed on the topic. I collect propaganda videos on Instagram. Here's a couple examples that were floating around recently: Seeing a lot of hate for a trans person here? https://www.instagram.com/p/DOfU33FDEwp/ https://www.instagram.com/p/DOfU33FDEwp/ Also, weird for the supposed "Christian Nationalist" to be arguing against... Christian Nationalism, no? https://www.instagram.com/p/DOlpE-rEWFZ/ https://www.instagram.com/p/DOlpE-rEWFZ/
- ugh123 1y ago[flagged]
- duxup 1y agoIt’s amazing the disconnect from Kimmel’s statement and the response. At first I thought the clips showing what he said might be the wrong clip…. Nope.
- shadowgovt 1y agoI'm trying not to read too much into it, but if anything, that's the kind of strident response that I would expect from a group that is questioning their own responsibility in this. If your reaction to someone saying untrue things is to immediately apply political pressure to hush them up, you've either lost confidence that the truth can win out in public light or you have something to hide.
- throwaway091025 1y ago[dead]
- tptacek 1y agoWell, for sure it wasn't hate speech, and even if it was, the federal government should have no say in whether it's aired, but it pretty easily crosses the threshold "our" side (I'm being presumptive about your politics) set over the last 5 years for misinformation. I don't want to take the other side of this "it's bad he was censored" argument, but I don't think we should be valorizing what Kimmel said, either.
- sanktanglia 1y agoThe idea he is pushing misinformation is ridiculous,he didn't speak on the motives of the shooter only on magas insistence he wasn't maga. He didn't say he was maga, merely focused on the performative finger pointing of Republicans
- 1y ago
- scoopdewoop 1y agoBusiness consolidation is a civil rights issue. Now every industry is led by giant monopolies that owe the administration favors. The appeasement of autocrats by capitalists for more market control is so inextricable from capitalism itself that any "capitalism" without it is a pure fantasy.
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoIronically the FCC will be approving the Nexstar waiver after finding that the merger will not impact the national conversation by having one group own too many stations/have too much power.
- gooseus 1y ago> Disney reinstating Kimmel doesn't necessarily mean his show will immediately appear on all ABC-affiliated networks. Conservative broadcaster Sinclair said last week that "regardless of ABC's plans for the future of the program, Sinclair intends not to return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to our air until we are confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform." > Station owner Nexstar helped pressure Disney into suspending Kimmel's show last week when it announced its ABC-affiliated stations would not air the show "for the foreseeable future." This is Disney doing damage control for their streaming platforms and other properties while Kimmel is still censored from a large % of audience he used to reach. I hope he comes back with a show that burns Trump and Carr to the ground and dares them to try something like that again.
- axiolite 1y agoSinclair blocking Kimmel's show was the first thought on my mind when I saw this headline. If Disney had any sense at all, they would have realized back when Sinclair was first forcing all their affiliates to air right-wing propaganda,* that their association with Sinclair is an existential threat. Back then, they should have started dropping their affiliation with Sinclar one tower at a time, as they secure alternative broadcast arrangements in each area. Starting to do it now is better late than never, but I bet Disney execs are too clueless and spineless to stand up to Sinclair is any real way at all, in part because it will cost them a few $$$. * https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/sinclair.kerry/ https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/sinclair.kerry/
- cmxch 1y agoUnfortunately trying to drop Sinclair stations piecemeal (or otherwise) would break enough markets to attract regulatory attention. One just does not drop ABC from a market and expect nobody to notice.
- axiolite 1y agoI clearly said: "as they secure alternative broadcast arrangements in each area" TV broadcast tower agreements are not ossified. Every year some station switches from one to another. Comcast buying NBC led to quite a spate of that in several markets. It can be slightly disruptive on the fringes (like Comcast/NBC*) or it can go unnoticed or even improve reception. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbVXUaDAcBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbVXUaDAcBg
- SimianSci 1y agoBrendan Carr is overwhelmingly partisan and suprisingly unqualified for the role he occupies as the Chair of the FCC. Anyone paying attention to his actions over his time in office is not surprised by this outcome. Carr has been regularly going on podcasts and threatening that the FCC will be "going after" anyone unfavorable to the Trump administration, this is just the first time a company flinched in response. Im happy to hear Disney is rethinking their reflexive reaction. Its deeply troubling to see the priorities of the FCC shift from expanding things like access to broadband to instead prioritize podcast appearances and fascistic threats. Expect more of this, as Carr seems to only be emboldened by the outcome.
- nerpderp82 1y agoCarr needs to leave. It isn't his job to police the political airwaves.
- tomrod 1y agoWeird that this got more than 100 votes in less than an hour then got pushed to page 2. I don't understand the HN algorithm I guess.
- yodon 1y agoOne of the highest priorities for the HN algorithm is to promote good interactions and discourage bad interactions. The logic is if you have a lot of people bickering with each other, regardless of the topic, it normalizes bad behavior. HN is trying to sustain itself as a forum with great discussions, so it very intentionally downranks anything that looks to the algorithm like it has people bickering with each other (eg. Up vote/down vote wars as a proxy for disagreement). Yes, this means many important topics move off the homepage because there is lots of disagreement within them. Encouraging good discussions is consciously viewed as more important than any individual topic.
- mizzao 1y agoJust bookmark https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active and you will see the actual, real frontpage.
- dang 1y agoThose threads wouldn't exist if the real frontpage didn't exist, because the real frontpage is what keeps this site existing at all.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- cmxch 1y agoPeople like curiosity, not vitriol.
- dang 1y agoIt set off the flamewar detector. That's pretty standard (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22flamewar%20detector%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
- throwacct 1y agoThey capitulated because they lost the right a few years ago, and they can't lose the left either.
- cbradford 1y agoSo now we know the reality. An employer, Disney, felt an employee, Kimmel, was damaging their business, let's not forget the point of an employee is to make money for their employer, and as a result took corrective action with the employee. Who was not fired. If a waiter at a restaurant was offending the customers, he would have been fired. Kimmel was treated very kindly and will continue to receive his paycheck. Looks like the wailing about free speech missed the mark
- tene80i 1y agoYou left out the part where a government official all but demanded they do what they did.
- cbradford 1y agoMust have been a VERY strong demand for Disney to completely ignore it.
- arp242 1y agoThey didn't ignore it. The show was suspended for several days. Over some really tame remarks. The warning is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.
- logicalmind 1y agoCompanies are driven by profits, but their decisions are usually based on legalities. I think their knee-jerk reaction to pull Kimmel was due to what might happen, or what the government was threatening to do. That doesn't amount to damages, legally. However, if they bring Kimmel back, and the government follows through on its initial threats, then that does amount to damages for which they can sue the government.
- tene80i 1y agoIrrelevant. You were arguing this was an ordinary part of business, and the point is that it clearly isn’t. Now you’re moving on to how much it matters that the government made such a demand. It matters very much, because it is unprecedented and outrageous. But I was only replying to your partial account, which left out the most crucial aspect of the entire affair.
- rinnith 1y agoIt's seriously embarrassing a bunch of conservatives are demanding Kimmel to be cancelled over his frankly tame comments when they were all most likely the exact same people screaming about the "cancel culture liberals" for years. Truly pathetic how they're flip flopping on this.
- lesser-shadow 1y ago[flagged]
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoHow does the FCC even matter anymore when people are increasingly getting their content via streaming? The only reason they have any leverage over Kimmel at all (and not, for example, South Park) is because ABC still broadcasts it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> How does the FCC even matter anymore when people are increasingly getting their content via streaming? "The ability of the FCC to regulate internet content and platforms depends on statutory authority. In holding the forums on captioning of online video content, the FCC could look to the language of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which included language that asked the FCC to look at the accessibility of video content used on internet platforms. In other areas, the FCC’s jurisdiction is not as clear, but calls arise regularly for the FCC to act to regulate content that, as we have written in other contexts, looks more and more like broadcast content and competes directly with that content. Calls for the FCC to regulate internet content and the companies that provide that content are certain to multiply. In another of our weekly summaries of regulatory actions of interest to broadcasters, we noted recent meetings with FCC Commissioners’ offices by representatives of the TV affiliates organizations, in which they asked that the FCC consider regulation of linear programming services delivered through internet platforms in the same way that they regulate cable and satellite multichannel video providers, including the possibility of adopting a system of must-carry and retransmission consent. This is not at all a new idea, having been raised in 2014 in an FCC proceeding that asked for public comment on the question of whether to subject online video providers to MVPD regulation – a proceeding that never resulted in any action" [1]. [1] https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2022/05/articles/does-the-fcc-regulate-internet-content-and-companies/ https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2022/05/articles/does-the-f...
- TheCleric 1y agoBecause they still have leverage over local stations and in turn those stats have leverage over ABC/Disney.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- RickJWagner 1y agoMeh. Kimmel has a history of racist and sexist comedy, to include blackface performances. For me, that’s a big turn off. I think Ted Cruz had the right attitude for this one. It’s unwise to hammer unfairly on the opposition when you’re in power, because the pendulum inevitably swings back.
- cmxch 1y agoAnd there goes the remaining customers of Disney. And hopefully their licenses.
- duxup 1y agoI suspect the vast majority of customers before and after this whole thing aren't participating in a boycott either way.
- tzs 1y agoDisney was getting some pretty funny international ridicule over canceling Kimmel. The best I've seen was this video [1] produced by a late-night show in the Netherlands of Disney announcing a new direction to better serve today's audiences. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_hQ1plKmCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_hQ1plKmCM
- croes 1y agoI took it as more of a ridicule of Trump than Disney.
- mieses 1y agoDisney needs a win badly, even if it's imagined.
- qcnguy 1y ago[flagged]
- croes 1y ago>We hit some new lows over the weekend, with 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. >In between the finger pointing there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level you can see how hard the President is taking this. Can you show methe lie Kimmel told?
- qcnguy 1y agoThat kind of denialism doesn't help, it just empowers the "eye for an eye" faction even more because they see that the left is incapable of self reflection. The killer is far left. There is plenty of evidence and it's all fully consistent on that matter, even beyond the obvious nature of the act itself. It has been consistent since the first moments. The right are upset about this! And they're even more upset about the mass celebrations on the left at the successful assassination. It comes on the heels of multiple attempts on Trump, Antifa trying to mass murder ICE agents and many other horrific events that show a sustained pattern of behavior. When Kimmel claimed the "MAGA gang" (a deliberately insulting term) had "hit new lows", he was making the insane claim that being upset about political assassination is a "low" and "point scoring". And then he went on to deceive his audience. Instead of admitting that the "MAGA gang" were correct from the start, he claims they were "desperately trying" to "characterize" the assassin as on the left. This phrasing tells the listener that the reason the right had to "desperately try" is because what they were saying was "a new low", weak or untrue, which is why it was a mere "characterization" and not a statement of fact. It is obviously dishonest. When people defend such dishonesty and claim it's not a lie it reinforces the strong impression being received by hundreds of millions of people that everyone on the left is malicious and potentially dangerous. That's by far the most risky path forward. People like Kimmel are getting this stuff from social media. It's flooded with people who are denying the truth, even trying to claim he's some sort of MAGA extremist. The author of the top politics Substack, who has over 3.2M Facebook followers and 2.5M subscribers, has told that exact lie. And she hasn't corrected herself either. Left wing pundits need to be honest with their audience. The killer did it for their beliefs, motivated by their hatreds, encouraged by their celebrations of people like Mangione and Crooks. Instead of taking the high road and being the bearer of bad news, they've doubled down on manipulating their audience. And now Disney has said that's OK, they approve of that behavior. The left certainly cannot claim to have a problem with misinformation now!
- pixxel 1y ago[dead]
- ethics13 1y agoIs it me, or is this awesome site turning into Reddit v2?