Jimmy Kimmel pulled from the air

[fishbane]

12 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.   

The FCC never physically does anything.  The FCC chair went on a podcast and threatened to do something non specific then the companies involved did exactly what he wanted them to do. That isn't how its supposed to work.  That isn't how you would want a different administration acting. His comments were inappropriate and are chilling to free speech.  The first a company hears of an enforcement action should be through written communication from the FCC.  Not through threats from the president or FCC chair on social media or a podcast. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

The FCC never physically does anything.  The FCC chair went on a podcast and threatened to do something non specific then the companies involved did exactly what he wanted them to do. That isn't how its supposed to work.  That isn't how you would want a different administration acting. His comments were inappropriate and are chilling to free speech.  The first a company hears of an enforcement action should be through written communication from the FCC.  Not through threats from the president or FCC chair on social media or a podcast. 

So they need better corporate council?

[fishbane]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

So they need better corporate council?

And/or better leadership at the FCC.

[mspart]

The FCC guy essentially said that their license can be pulled if they are not broadcasting in the public interest as per the law.   Spreading lies to an audience when the truth is known is definitely not in the public interest.   ABC went to Kimmel who planned a major rebuttal to the FCC guy and MAGA in general and was going full on into the fracas.   ABC asked him not to and he said NO.   So ABC said no to him.   

When it has been amply explained that the shooter was influenced by leftist ideology to say that MAGA is doing everything they can to not have him be one of them.   That is saying the shooter is MAGA in the face of the facts.   The way he said it makes it so, he cannot back peddle that at all.   It is out there for all to see.  

My personal opinion is that this kind of FCC scrutiny needs to be applied everywhere.   You say something is fact, you better have the facts to prove it.   Simple.   Opinion is a different thing.   But it needs to be known it is opinion, not fact.   If we want our news to be all opinion so be it.   But then how would we ever know what is true or not.   That is essentially how we are living right now.   We have to search many places to decide what is true and what is not.   The broadcasters have an obligation to say what is true and back it up.   And the back up has to have all the context, not snippets or sound bites taken out of context.   

Charlie Kirks statement about guns is classic.   Everyone is all upset because he said a few deaths is worth it to maintain the 2nd amendment.   But he stated before that that we don't criminalize cars even though there are 60k deaths a year.   The general public has determined the risk is worth it for the convenience, automony, etc.   Same with guns.   But that isn't mentioned.   So non of that kind of crap should be on broadcast news without full context.   

No more cheap shots.   Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.  

mspart

[headshuck]

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

And/or better leadership at the FCC.

Yes, reports indicate that Disney and ABC executives warned Jimmy Kimmel before suspending his show indefinitely on September 17, 2025

. The network reportedly hoped to "de-escalate" the situation following his comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death, but Kimmel refused to apologize and instead planned another heated monologue, leading to his suspension. 

Key details from the events leading to the suspension:

• Warning to "de-escalate": Disney Entertainment co-chair Dana Walden reportedly told Kimmel that executives were concerned his planned remarks would further inflame tensions.
• Refusal to apologize: Insiders told media outlets that Kimmel was unwilling to apologize for his earlier on-air comments regarding Kirk's death.
• Unapproved monologue: When executives reviewed Kimmel's planned monologue for the September 17 show, they became concerned that he would "double down" on his previous remarks and attack supporters of former President Trump. This was perceived as a step too far for the network.
• The suspension call: Ultimately, Disney CEO Bob Iger and Dana Walden made the final call to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live!.

yes I got from ai

[TylerDurden]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

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.  

I'm wrong about selective outrage? I'm sure Ross has a nice AI list he can post that shows all the grievances conservatives have about whatever they're supposed to be upset about this week, but that doesn't mean selective outrage is a one-way street. To argue otherwise might be the most intellectually dishonest position anyone has ever tried to take on this board - and that's saying something. 

https://archive.ph/fsOoa - Not that I expect anything to satisfy your standard of proof, but I sidestepped the paywall for you. Even hyper-partisan Ted Cruz knows what it is. 

Maybe you prefer Fox News, who classified it as a threat: https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-against-abc-disney-after-kimmel-suggested-charlie-kirk-assassin-maga

Feel free to use the Google machine for countless other reports. 

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

I'm wrong about selective outrage? I'm sure Ross has a nice AI list he can post that shows all the grievances conservatives have about whatever they're supposed to be upset about this week, but that doesn't mean selective outrage is a one-way street. To argue otherwise might be the most intellectually dishonest position anyone has ever tried to take on this board - and that's saying something. 

https://archive.ph/fsOoa - Not that I expect anything to satisfy your standard of proof, but I sidestepped the paywall for you. Even hyper-partisan Ted Cruz knows what it is. 

Maybe you prefer Fox News, who classified it as a threat: https://www.foxnews.com/media/fcc-chair-levels-threat-against-abc-disney-after-kimmel-suggested-charlie-kirk-assassin-maga

Feel free to use the Google machine for countless other reports. 

What kind of threat is a real threat?

Until a threat materializes it’s just words and political grandstanding on tv.   
 

any of these knuckle heads abusing the first amendment?

[TylerDurden]

20 minutes ago, Caveira said:

What kind of threat is a real threat?

Until a threat materializes it’s just words and political grandstanding on tv.   
 

any of these knuckle heads abusing the first amendment?

I'll take your deflection and projection to mean that you know your position is untenable.

 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

I'll take your deflection and projection to mean that you know your position is untenable.

 

Help me understand which types of threats are credible and which ones are not?   from which politicians does a threat become more or less credible and do they force companies to do stuff on their behalf?   One threat is bad for the first amendment a similar threat is not ?

Edited 5 hours ago by Caveira

[1032004]

4 hours ago, jross said:

Correct because I understand the English rules and context.

Can you let me know what the English rules say is being implied here?  Just two completely unrelated sentences that have nothing to do with each other I’m sure…

 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Can you let me know what the English rules say is being implied here?  Just two completely unrelated sentences that have nothing to do with each other I’m sure…

 

This is so far off topic.  No one is debating is or is not Charlie Kirk awful.   There is a different thread for that.      this is you yet again with your semi close ish condoning of his murder.    
 

you left off the obligatory, I don’t really mean it, but he didn’t deserve to be killed for it line though.    Poor form.  

[mspart]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Can you let me know what the English rules say is being implied here?  Just two completely unrelated sentences that have nothing to do with each other I’m sure…

 

I would say the english rules are showing an interesting juxtaposition.   It was muslim extremists that killed all of those people in NYC just over 20 years ago.   Now there is a muslim extremist running to be NYC  mayor and ahead in the polls.   

You have to find that interesting if nothing else.  

mspart

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

This is so far off topic.  No one is debating is or is not Charlie Kirk awful.   There is a different thread for that.      this is you yet again with your semi close ish condoning of his murder.    
 

you left off the obligatory, I don’t really mean it, but he didn’t deserve to be killed for it line though.    Poor form.  

It’s relevant because the same people accusing others of twisting Kirk’s words, are twisting Kimmel’s.

[1032004]

49 minutes ago, mspart said:

I would say the english rules are showing an interesting juxtaposition.   It was muslim extremists that killed all of those people in NYC just over 20 years ago.   Now there is a muslim extremist running to be NYC  mayor and ahead in the polls.   

You have to find that interesting if nothing else.  

mspart

Extremist, lol

[mspart]

Perhaps I should have said muslim communist.   To me that is an extremist but to each his own. 

mspart

[Caveira]

36 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

It’s relevant because the same people accusing others of twisting Kirk’s words, are twisting Kimmel’s.

Kimmel wasn’t murdered.    And he’s filthy rich.  
 

just a racist comedian.  I did think he was funny before he got political.  
 

but this is you not celebrating because your careful not to sound like your celebrating right?

Edited 2 hours ago by Caveira

[El Luchador]

5 hours 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.

The advertisers were putting pressure on the network to reel him in. You can't insult 50% of the country, make devisive comments, then lose access to 36000000 homes and expect to reach potential customers with your adds. Kimmel was told to apologize and he refused so they sent his money pit show to the chopping block. 

It's sad because all he needed to do to turn it around was develop some talent, gain a likeable personality, get new writers, and become funny. 

[fishbane]

19 minutes ago, Caveira said:

.I did think he was funny before he got political.  

There are problems with the late night format beyond getting political.  Colbert leaned into political commentary more than any of them and he was leading in the ratings.  Fallon who was mostly apolitical fell behind both.

I like Kimmel more 10-15 years ago and I thought Colbert was excellent on his Report.

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

There are problems with the late night format beyond getting political.  Colbert leaned into political commentary more than any of them and he was leading in the ratings.  Fallon who was mostly apolitical fell behind both.

I like Kimmel more 10-15 years ago and I thought Colbert was excellent on his Report.

#1 is Greg Gutfeld.  I don't watch any of them but I have seen clips. 

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

#1 is Greg Gutfeld.  I don't watch any of them but I have seen clips. 

My understanding is that he is in an earlier time slot and not directly competing with the other three at 11:35.

[Caveira]

11 minutes ago, fishbane said:

There are problems with the late night format beyond getting political.  Colbert leaned into political commentary more than any of them and he was leading in the ratings.  Fallon who was mostly apolitical fell behind both.

I like Kimmel more 10-15 years ago and I thought Colbert was excellent on his Report.

For context.  The time frame of the sopranos.   The shield.   Rescue me.   That time frame.   2000 ish.   That for me Is when network tv died. It’s mostly crap.  Not political crap…. But they can’t speak like regular people speak.  The plot lines are watered down.  It’s mainly boring.  Just about any Series today on nbc abc cbs whatever are mainly trash.  I’ve been cable ish only for maybe 20+ years.      The cable channels dominate series based programming for me… if i have time to watch  

Terrestrial radio is the same.  I was an avid Howard stern fan since 1990…. When he went to satellite it changed radio forever.  I bought a lifetime Sirius xm subscription solely for his program.  I don’t listen to it anymore.   I was a big fan until around COVID when he became overly political.   Maybe it’s because he’s old who knows.  But he became what he made fun of and dominated for years.   A similar boring version of don Imus.  

[fishbane]

23 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

The advertisers were putting pressure on the network to reel him in. You can't insult 50% of the country, make devisive comments, then lose access to 36000000 homes and expect to reach potential customers with your adds. Kimmel was told to apologize and he refused so they sent his money pit show to the chopping block. 

It's sad because all he needed to do to turn it around was develop some talent, gain a likeable personality, get new writers, and become funny. 

Fox Business is saying my exact point. "ABC braces for a financial hit as Kimmel removal shuts out these advertisers... With the show sidelined, advertisers may seek cheaper rates or placement elsewhere."

If ABC were worried about losing out on advertising $$ and viewers from the right then their actions over the past decade are pretty head-scratching.   If the market forces are to blame then which option would have a bigger negative financial consequences?  1) Leave the program on and risk a boycott from viewers on the right and loss of advertising $$ that comes along with this 2) Take it off the air seemingly capitulating to the Trump administration and risk a boycott from viewers on the left whilst collecting advertising $$ at the rate commanded by re-runs of Celebrity Family Feud.

Go with option 1 you are alienating people who aren't watching Kimmel's shows anyway.  Advertisers looking to reach those individuals specifically likely don't advertise on Jimmy Kimmel Live!  Go with option 2 and you alienate viewers that actually watch content you produce and take an even bigger hit from advertisers.  

It is entirely believable that ABC's preferred solution was an apology.  This might not overly alienate viewers of any political persuasion, allow them to maximize advertising money, and thus allow ABC to recoup the largest % of the money they have spent/committed to producing Kimmel's show.  A well crafted apology might also mollify the FCC and prevent any retribution from the Trump administration.  I think that last point was the main goal with the apology.  Losing MAGA viewers, losing advertising $$, and even alienating actual viewers of the network was not as important as Nexstar's merger and staving off FCC enforcement.

[Caveira]

@1032004 your boy destiny got demonetized 

 

[1032004]

31 minutes ago, Caveira said:

@1032004 your boy destiny got demonetized 

 

Good.  Had never heard of him until 2 days ago.