Jimmy Kimmel pulled from the air

[El Luchador]

35 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Of which fox does seem to have hotter teleprompter readers.   

Well now that Joy Reid is off the air.

[fishbane]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Is this where reporting is dubious?

if for example 10 execs.  All 10 said he did nothing wrong.  It would be reported every exec felt he did nothing wrong.  
 

if some fraction less than 10.  For argument sake let’s say 2.    It could be reported multiple execs said they felt he did nothing wrong.   
 

all the while.  Understand you’re only getting the spin they want you to get anyhow.   His contract was up shortly.   They could have been looking for any reason to terminate him and cut losses.    Easier that way than to just cancel.   Corporate America can be cruel.  

I understand that multiple means more than 1, but not necessarily all.  Whether is slanted or not really depends on the feeling of all the executives at the meeting, which I don't think has been made public.  The point I was making was more related to the fact that some portion of the executives in the meeting took it as a threat.

I don't think you cutting losses theory makes much sense.  It is not likely that ABC will save money directly by terminating his contract. His contract is up in 2026 so there isn't much to pay on it.  Also they will likely have to pay this contract regardless.  Litigation to prevent paying the contract will likely be time consuming and expensive.  Executives in that meeting will likely have to answer questions about it and the fact that multiple executives didn't think he did anything wrong won't be a fact in ABC's favour. They will likely reach a settlement paying at or near the full contract value in part to avoid that discovery.

Cancelling also creates immediate logistical issues. They have to fill that timeslot on short notice and whatever they throw in there would like bring in less revenue.  Though Kimmel's ratings were down he was still #2 in the timeslot.  To get a similar audience at that time they will have to spend some money.  It is clear that the executives were either reacting to disapproval from the public or the Trump administration.  The FCC chairs inappropriate comments at best only obfuscate that.

[wrestlingguy]

37 minutes ago, red viking said:

You think fcc will pull license for a false negative statement about a Democrat? 

If it was going to happen, I think it already would have. If they do then we can talk, but until then they are all stretching the truth.

[El Luchador]

BTW what is the difference between Roseanne and Kimmel other than Roseanne knows what a woman is?

[El Luchador]

 

 

[TylerDurden]

15 minutes ago, Caveira said:

No one was worried when the Obama’s called Bob iger and had Roseanne fired.    

Roseanne made a post on social media saying a black woman was the offspring of planet of the apes and the Muslim brotherhood. 

 

[Gene Mills Fan]

15 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

Roseanne made a post on social media saying a black woman was the offspring of planet of the apes and the Muslim brotherhood. 

 

so she got canceled for being a drunk comedienne?

[Caveira]

29 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I don't think you cutting losses theory makes much sense.

Why ?   Their audience shrunk by 50% over the heads and the affiliates just dropped like some obscene number of households.  So let’s say net he’s down 70% over the course of 6/7 years.    
 

ratings = $$.  End of the game.    So his program is making less $$$ and still costing them whatever that fixed cost is.  
 

Savings in business comes in two forms.   Literal savings i.e. your right the remainder of his contract is small (time wise).  But now it won’t be renewed for x years.   The last one was $50 million.   Let’s say he wanted a raise and a longer contract.  He may have a hundred million sitting there every are now not going to pay him.  
 

They can play re runs of the man show for $100 lol.  Or some other whatever.  Or like the old days just go to green screen.  
 

thinking these corporate knuckle heads aren’t using politics to save a buck is what I feel is weird here.   They exist to make $$ and grow their stock value.  That’s it.  
 

let’s not forget.   Disney’s stock is down about 50% over 5 years too.   Do you mot think their board is pressuring them to fix that?

 

 

[Caveira]

26 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

Roseanne made a post on social media saying a black woman was the offspring of planet of the apes and the Muslim brotherhood. 

 

You can’t measure or quantify statement a vs b and overlay your politics as to a private company deciding to fire an employee. 
 

I didn’t.  And don’t care that Roseanne got fired.   Or most of the others. ….
 

my comment is more around that the left is cool when folks they don’t like get fired.   And they jump up and down and yell about orange man when it’s someone they like.   No more no less.   The left is hypocritical about what they are outraged by.  
 

What do they say …. What’s good for me but not good for theeee.

Edited 20 hours ago by Caveira

[jross]

19 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Yes, “odds were all along” is a true statement.  But that’s not what the conservative narrative was, which was what Kimmel pointed out.  Kimmel did not say Robinson was MAGA.  He said “MAGA tried to characterize him as anything other than one of them.”  Fact check: true.  That’s not saying that he was MAGA, just that conservatives were saying (from the beginning, before any evidence came out) that he wasn’t.

Pesky English language rules...

• "this kid" is Tyler R, the murderer.
• "one of 'them'" is MAGA, as established earlier in the sentence.

The structure, syntax, and semantics implies that Kimmel is stating that Tyler is a member of the MAGA group, and the MAGA gang is denying this affiliation.  Even if Jimmy's take was meant to mock MAGA, it was worded and delivered in a way that conveys that Tyler was MAGA. 

 

Quote

"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." - Jimmy K.

The above ^^^ is equivalent to the below:

Quote

"[The United States of America] hit some new lows over the weekend with the [MAGA gang] desperately trying to characterize Tyler who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than the [MAGA gang], and [the MAGA gang] doing everything they can to score political points from it." - Jimmy K.

 

Timing wise, the public and Kimmel should have already known Tyler was leftist based on the massive attention and public reveals prior to Kimmel's show.  We all knew on Sept 12th that Tyler was left.  A couple pieces of evidence.

• 12th - https://youtu.be/WNWEwyPTh_M?t=228 (Cox - bullet casing engravings known)
• 14th - https://youtu.be/4g25ihkEfng?t=435 (Cox - clearly leftist ideology)

 

Jimmy FAFO.

[1032004]

10 minutes ago, jross said:

Pesky English language rules...

• "this kid" is Tyler R, the murderer.
• "one of 'them'" is MAGA, as established earlier in the sentence.

 

The structure, syntax, and semantics implies that Kimmel is stating that Tyler is a member of the MAGA group, and the MAGA gang is denying this affiliation.  Even if Jimmy's take was meant to mock MAGA, it was worded and delivered in a way that conveys that Tyler was MAGA. 

 

The above ^^^ is equivalent to the below:

 

Timing wise, the public and Kimmel should have already known Tyler was leftist based on the massive attention and public reveals prior to Kimmel's show.  We all knew on Sept 12th that Tyler was left.  A couple pieces of evidence.

• 12th - https://youtu.be/WNWEwyPTh_M?t=228 (Cox - bullet casing engravings known)
• 14th - https://youtu.be/4g25ihkEfng?t=435 (Cox - clearly leftist ideology)

 

Jimmy FAFO.

He said they were trying to characterize him as anything but one of them.  He wasn’t saying what he actually was.   Yes, that is probably implied, but he didn’t say it.  Kinda like a lot of Charlie Kirk’s comments.

[TylerDurden]

39 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You can’t measure or quantify statement a vs b and overlay your politics as to a private company deciding to fire an employee. 
 

I didn’t.  And don’t care Roseanne got fired.   Or most of the others.  
 

my comment is more around that the left is cool when folks they don’t like get fired.   And they jump up and down and yell about orange man when it’s someone they like.   No more no less.   The left is hypocritical about what they are outraged by.  
 

What do they say …. What’s good for me but not good for theeee.

Acting as if selective outrage is a partisan issue is laughable. 

Did you forget Bud Light, Coca-Cola, Cracker Barrel, Taylor Swift, Megyn Kelly, or anything related to a rainbow? Or do you just ignore that because it's from people you like and agree with? 

Kimmel didn't get fired for anything he said about Kirk - watch the monologue, he doesn't really say anything about him, but rather he makes fun of Trump's reaction to questions about it.

But just like you, I don't care if Kimmel got fired/suspended, whatever they're call it. 

I do have an issue with the administration using the FCC to threaten networks for a comedian making fun of the President. That is not the same as Roseanne being an overt racist on social media and a network canceling her show. 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by TylerDurden

[jross]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

He said they were trying to characterize him as anything but one of them.  He wasn’t saying what he actually was.   Yes, that is probably implied, but he didn’t say it.  Kinda like a lot of Charlie Kirk’s comments.

I believe you may have misinterpreted Charlie Kirk's comments due to a misunderstanding of English language conventions. After reviewing the relevant rules, I’m confident that your inferred meaning is incorrect in both JK and CK instances. I validated English language rules because I recognize that personal biases can subtly shape our interpretations.

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

I believe you may have misinterpreted Charlie Kirk's comments due to a misunderstanding of English language conventions. After reviewing the relevant rules, I’m confident that your inferred meaning is incorrect in both JK and CK instances. I validated English language rules because I recognize that personal biases can subtly shape our interpretations.

Wait, weren’t you the guy that doesn’t think Kirk saying “stupid Muslims” was a slight against all Muslims? GTFO with this nonsense.

Edited 19 hours ago by 1032004

[fishbane]

35 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Why ?   Their audience shrunk by 50% over the heads and the affiliates just dropped like some obscene number of households.  So let’s say net he’s down 70% over the course of 6/7 years.    
 

ratings = $$.  End of the game.    So his program is making less $$$ and still costing them whatever that fixed cost is.  

Savings in business comes in two forms.   Literal savings i.e. your right the remainder of his contract is small (time wise).  But now it won’t be renewed for x years.   The last one was $50 million.   Let’s say he wanted a raise and a longer contract.  He may have a hundred million sitting there every are now not going to pay him.  

The $50 million you quote is the total value of his contract with ABC over multiple years.  He has other responsibilities with ABC including hosting Who Wants to be a Millionaire and various awards shows.  I don't know what if anything in your figure includes payment for those other things, for which ABC has not announced he has been removed from, but assuming it is 100% tied to his late night responsibilities there isn't much left to save.  It ends in May there is likely less than $10M left to save.   ABC likely cannot get out of paying that money to him regardless and if they should try the costs of litigation will reduce any savings.  Practically speaking there will  be a settlement because ABC will not want their decision making process made public and for Kimmel to agree to a settlement it will have to be close to what he is owed.

Trying to count the value of a future contract as savings from tied to this decision is a little deceptive.  There was a financial reckoning for late night hosts on the horizon before this.  When that contract with Kimmel was signed the format was profitable.  Now there are not enough late night watchers to justify the cost.  Colbert's show costs $100M/year to produce of which $20M is his salary and is losing $40M/year.  Despite being #1 and #2 in the time slot no one was going to offer Colbert or Kimmel as favorable terms in their next contract regardless of Trump's opinion of them.

54 minutes ago, Caveira said:

They can play re runs of the man show for $100 lol.  Or some other whatever.  Or like the old days just go to green screen.  

thinking these corporate knuckle heads aren’t using politics to save a buck is what I feel is weird here.   They exist to make $$ and grow their stock value.  That’s it.  

Colbert's show losing $40M also means it brings in $60M in revenue.  That $60M in revenue comes from advertisers wanting their ads on the #1 program in that time slot.  Kimmel is #2 so less likely less revenue, but advertisers are paying to reach that audience they will not pay the same rate if they are airing reruns of the Man Show and a green screen will bring in $0 in revenue.  Kimmel's salary and much of the productions costs have already been spent and cannot be recovered by this move.  Cancelling him after the season if he was not willing to take a pay cut or operate on a reduced budget makes sense, but cancelling now only really adds up if you factor in possible FCC enforcement and/or the merger.

[jross]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Wait, weren’t you the guy that doesn’t think Kirk saying “stupid Muslims” was a slight against all Muslims? GTFO with this nonsense.

Correct because I understand the English rules and context.

Edited 19 hours ago by jross

[1032004]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

Correct because I understand the English rules and context.

LOL.

[Caveira]

27 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

Acting as if selective outrage is a partisan issue is laughable. 

Did you forget Bud Light, Coca-Cola, Cracker Barrel, Taylor Swift, Megyn Kelly, or anything related to a rainbow? Or do you just ignore that because it's from people you like and agree with? 

Kimmel didn't get fired for anything he said about Kirk - watch the monologue, he doesn't really say anything about him, but rather he makes fun of Trump's reaction to questions about it.

But just like you, I don't care if Kimmel got fired/suspended, whatever they're call it. 

I do have an issue with the administration using the FCC to threaten networks for a comedian making fun of the President. That is not the same as Roseanne being an overt racist on social media and a network canceling her show. 

 

I believe it’s @jross who has an eloquent argument to why you’re wrong.   Read that.   Enjoy the weekend.  
 

show proof of real fcc threats.  They fine people all the time.  I don’t recall them doing anything formal.  Did abc or Disney get fined.  
 

If Disney knee jerk reacts punitively 30 business seconds after some dude on a news show says we might look into something they may need to seek better corporate council.  

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, fishbane said:

That $60M in revenue comes from advertisers wanting their ads on the #1 program in that time slot.  Kimmel is #2 so less likely less revenue

This argument shouldn’t be made on a sports messaging board.  I don’t mean your I mean having to make mine.  
 

There is absolutely no appetite for a network to be #2 in any time slot.  It’s #1 or people get fired.   Same for sales.   I’m in sales.  If revenue isn’t growing in a space or sector.  People get fired.   This is how business works.   

[Caveira]

17 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Colbert's show losing $40M also means it brings in $60M in revenue.

A net loss is a net loss boss.   No one cares if your being in 11 trillion if your losing $$$

Edited 19 hours ago by Caveira

[fishbane]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

A net loss is a net loss boss.   No one cares if your being in 11 trillion of your losing $$$

Of course Ross, but where you aren't picking up what I am putting down is the cost of his current contract is sunk.  If the show costs $100M and that cost has been incurred regardless, either because it is money that has already been paid out or they are contractually obligated to pay, whether the show airs or not they will not be able to save money by not airing the show. On the other hand airing the show (#1 in the time slot) will leave them $60M better off than an off air screen.  The overall $40M loss can only be avoided in the future contract or budget reduction either for his program or whatever replaces it.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Of course Ross, but where you aren't picking up what I am putting down is the cost of his current contract is sunk.  If the show costs $100M and that cost has been incurred regardless, either because it is money that has already been paid out or they are contractually obligated to pay, whether the show airs or not they will not be able to save money by not airing the show. On the other hand airing the show (#1 in the time slot) will leave them $60M better off than an off air screen.  The overall $40M loss can only be avoided in the future contract or budget reduction either for his program or whatever replaces it.

Pick this up.   They are now not resigning them.    They will try to find something better in that time slot that makes more $ than he was for the company.  It could be a late night talk show.  It could be a purple dragon.  
 

No business exec tolerates shrinking revenue or net losses over time.   People simply get fired for that.  Either the mgmt or the talent.  Or both.   
 

there is a reason this is true in sales.   Sales quotas only go up.  Not down.   

[fishbane]

33 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Pick this up.   They are now not resigning them.    They will try to find something better in that time slot that makes more $ than he was for the company.  It could be a late night talk show.  It could be a purple dragon.  

Of course, but not resigning them shouldn't be counted in the savings you cite.  Something was going to change in their contract and compensation package regardless.

33 minutes ago, Caveira said:

No business exec tolerates shrinking revenue or net losses over time.   People simply get fired for that.  Either the mgmt or the talent.  Or both.   
 

there is a reason this is true in sales.   Sales quotas only go up.  Not down.   

These shows are still #1 and #2 in the time slot.  Taking them off midseason is going to reduce revenue that won't be made up for by savings.  Things are changing and consumers have been moving away from live television for some time.  Getting people to watch something live in a sub-optimal time slot isn't an easy sell in 2025.  They will needs to find a something less expensive or need to find a way to monetize it some other way maybe through streaming.

The only thing obvious to be gained by making the change now are political points.

Edited 18 hours ago by fishbane

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Of course, but not resigning them shouldn't be counted in the savings you cite.  Something was going to change in their contract and compensation package regardless.

These shows are still #1 and #2 in the time slot.  Taking them off midseason is going to reduce revenue that won't be made up for by savings.  Things are changing and consumers have been moving away from live television for some time.  Getting people to watch something live in a sub-optimal time slot isn't an easy sell in 2025.  They will needs to find a something less expensive or need to find a way to monetize it some other way maybe through streaming.

The only thing obvious to be gained by making the change now are political points.

See my comment 100 comments above then again. 
 

The fcc didn’t physically do anything.  They weren’t fined. No motions were filed.   If Disney caves and fires people in 30 business seconds after some guy goes on tv and says we should look at this…. They need better corporate council.   

[red viking]

16 minutes ago, Caveira said:

See my comment 100 comments above then again. 
 

The fcc didn’t physically do anything.  They weren’t fined. No motions were filed.   If Disney caves and fires people in 30 business seconds after some guy goes on tv and says we should look at this…. They need better corporate council.   

Unreal that some are dumb enough to think that the cancelation only a few hours after threats from the FCC when the owners are also trying to get a merger approved is pure coincidence and that the cancelation is only due to financial reasons. Unreal.