It wasn't controversial, but this is literally the textbook Manufacturing Consent model. The small number of people in positions of power at the network are either overtly aligned with the president that he just talked bad about, or want to stay or get on the president's good side. He doesn't even need to pick up the phone or post anything on social media, they know what they need to do.
To be fair to the executives. The main regulator that could essentially issue the corporate death penalty, the FCC chairman that can revoke their license to operate, literally said “we can do this the easy way or the hard way”. That’s a Dirty Harry or goodfellas quote. So much for “government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the economy”.
Alternatively, perhaps it is the duty of the executives to defend their company, its viewers and employees, when confronted with unlawful and unreasonable government demands.
I totally agree with this but look at that statement. A company needs to fight the full force of the federal government, with an executive that has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law. That is insane. Every one needs to fight back but the federal government can stay wrong longer than you can stay solvent.
You really don't have to be fair to the executives. The FCC absolutely can't do shit about Jimmy Kimmel, and would lose the procedure if it ever came to it. Instead, they immediately bent the knee and decided that loyalty to the nascent fascist regime was more important that standing up against the most clear cut and unjustifiable attack to free speech in a long time.
Remember when the FCC botted their own comment page in order to make it look like the public was split and ultimately against a policy change that the public is clearly in favor of?
Funny how they only did that under President Trump, but Biden's FCC never did that.
'We find it's fine to waive the rule that limits large media company mergers in order to protect speech because this Nexstar merger will in no way impact speech in the US'. -The FCC in the coming months
Also because some people don't seem to know this, the government can't murder a man even if he was already dying of cancer.
I totally agreed with you. But mafia tactics work because they are terrifying. My point was this is unprecedented in American history and people are scared.
It's more that ABC/Disney is beholden to two right-leaning broadcasters who are colluding with threats to assist in their prohibited merger that will be approved now because they just gave the felon a successful hand job. There is no indication that the ABC execs are anything more than spineless, unprincipled cowards who cave in a light breeze.
I think most commenters are missing that a local broadcaster monopoly used their own freedom of association to drop the show
The FCC and Trump merely dogpiled on this
For Disney, they need to court the broadcaster monopoly as a key stakeholder to their revenue, this is all private sector and not a constitutional issue
But when Disney is getting kicked and then an expensive fight with the government looms while their revenue is already threatened and would be expensive to resolve with the government , they buckled
Thats the calculus here
but because they buckled, now their customers are using their own freedom of association to disassociate, hampering Disney’s revenue more from that angle
Unless everyone at the top has been fired, ABC and Disney are not remotely aligned with the president. A short while ago, they were boycotted by the right for their slanted debate hosting and woke children’s programming.
Those two could be entirely compatible if it turns out they never gave a hoot about the actual politics, and only did all that stuff because they thought it would get them more favor with viewers, and thereby more money.
I would personally not raise an eyebrow to learn this was the case.
I suspect they were looking for an excuse to axe and found one. It was all milquetoast, and that entire format of television is dead and the networks know they need to pivot somewhere.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
What hoax or false info? Also, Kimmel isn't a journalist or news reporter and his show isn't broadcast journalism. As far as obscenity rules, the rules don't necessarily apply between 10pm and 6am; "obscene" material is not allowed at any time of day, but "indecent" material is allowed on late-night television. These are terms that have specific meaning in the context of the law, and what Kimmel said would in no way rise to the level of obscene.
So why did the network fold so quickly? It's a simple enough explanation "we not journalists, these are all made up jokes and parodies, we send our condolences to the family ... etc".
They folded because they knew how the statement was perceived. Here is half the country flying flags half staff and ABC owners are defending Kimmel. They are worried about views and profits and when that is threatened everything goes out of the window.
Paradoxically, I think Kimmel is all of the sudden on top again, just due to the controversy. The younger crowd who don't sit and watch ABC, might have just learned about this Kimmel guy the first time. May be another network will pick him up, it could be a win for him overall.
No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them. That fact is the only thing that should matter in this discussion. This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful).
> No, they folded because the United States Federal government threatened them.
Yes because they control the FCC and FCC has rules in regards to the content of broadcasts. Kimmel is free to say anything he wants on his own website or platform and such, but as soon as it's on the "air" rules apply.
> This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment by the government against protected speech (no matter how many people find that protected speech distasteful).
If it's that clear the would have fought it. It wasn't clear at all. Moreover it was just a bad PR look instead of saying something like "condolences for the family blah blah" they would be defending Kimmel's phrasing. That's why they dropped like him a hot potato.
> Perception has nothing to do with it, the mafia-threats did
Mafia threats work precisely because of perception. The perception of the power is the power. If everyone caves, and can't fight back, the mafia gets stronger.
>Mafia threats work precisely because of perception. The perception of the power is the power. If everyone caves, and can't fight back, the mafia gets stronger.
The US government is constrained by the Constitution. It is legally barred from acting like a mafia.
Don't try to normalize that. While you may think you're safe, Mr. Niemoller would like a word.
> 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.)
Fox News is technically cable, as the other poster under you has noted, which is a favored defense for this sort of discussion.
What they ignore is that local Fox affiliate stations who are also licensed by the FCC have a history of aligning with Fox News misinformation campaigns relating to covid, election integrity, Russia and Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
So no, the FCC licensed world is not left leaning, and these local affiliate stations should absolutely be held to the same standard.
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
The US government threatened a private company in an attempt to suppress speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment from government interference. This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop.
> This is a violation of the US Constitution. Full stop
I needs a comma, or semicolon at least.
> The US government threatened a private company
Threatened with what, imprisonment, death? They threatened to pull the FCC license. It turns out broadcast content is controlled by the government. It always has been. Kimmel can and should continue saying what he was saying on his own website or platform or whatever.
> This is a violation of the US Constitution.
Ok, let's say it's a clear cut violation, with a full stop, an open and shut case. ABC can file a lawsuit, it's an easy win isn't then? And, plus they get to show how they fought and won over fascism. Why did they fold so quickly then?
Yes threatening to pull the FCC license and canceling Kimmel's show is exactly like torturing, killing and imprisoning people in labor and death camps. We should all fell very sorry for poor Jimmy, we don't know how he'll even manage.
And what makes you think we will continue to have elections? This Project 25 is clearly a plan to destroy our Republic and subject us all to minority Christo-Fascist rule. We need to wake up and recognize what we are up against, or it is guaranteed to happen here.
Yeah that is definitely on the table, we'll see what happens.
Here, interestingly, just a threat was enough. I wonder why the owners didn't want to fight it at all? The speed with with they folded was very telling. As others mentioned, I suspect if they decided they just didn't want to keep paying Kimmel for the show. He was making somewhere around $15m/year or something they saw a chance to say "goodbye".
IANAL but this doesn’t get them out of their contract though. They could “say ‘goodbye’” anytime they wanted and continue paying the rest of the contract.
They are submitting to what they view as either an existential threat, or the opportunity to make millions in the merger they want the FCC chair to approve.
It depends on what the contract says. Each side has various clauses to protect their interests, like say if Kimmel starting showing porn on his show, now the station risks FCC license they can drop him. I imagine there was something.
Technically I think they could have fought, could have argued he was just describing the behavior of maga people or that his shows is all made up parody and everyone should know it, etc. However it would have been a losing PR battle even if the FCC lost eventually in court.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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."
> 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.
>Not when it comes to broadcasting and FCC. They control the frequencies/channels allocated so they have some control about the speech there.
Where did you get your law degree? Email your ConLaw professor and ask them about it.
Because there's hundreds of years of precedent protecting political speech, whether true or not, regardless of the platform (including broadcast media). This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you."
They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech. Why are you being an apologist for these folks? Or do you support having a lawless government?
> This is a blatant attempt to silence political speech the current regime doesn't like -- it was literally "cancel this guy or we'll make things hard on you."
If they thought it was so easy to defend and so obvious why did they buckle so quickly?
> They didn't even try to couch it in the terms you're using to defend this entirely authoritarian attempt to chill free speech
> ABC didn't have to cancel Jimmy and could have called FCC's bluff and tried to file a lawsuit based on 1st Amendment.
I feel like the executives have a civic duty to have resisted, at least for a few days. Caving so quickly weakened the de facto press freedoms. Maybe Kimmel would be willing to soften it or at least not dig in. New evidence was coming out daily, changing the narrative, and he could use that as an excuse. I think the PR hit of caving is worse than you give it credit. I can believe they want very valuable near-term favors from the FCC or their MAGA-aligned affiliates, more than I can believe they thought there was no better PR way out.
> Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. It's specific corner case of FCC licensing.
I'm not saying the FCC should take action against Mike Lee and Nancy Mace. I'm saying Congress should expel or censure them, if this was really about how public figures shouldn't be "spreading misinformation related to a crime" to the public, if it was about using all available legal weight to hold them accountable if they do. (If anyone's wondering, shortly after MN Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, Mike Lee tweeted an implication that the killer was "Marxist" and a pun about the governor of the state. Of course he had no evidence, and now, we know it's unlikely given that suspect is a Trump supporter. Nancy Mace made anti-trans allegations about Kirk's killer when virtually nothing was known.)
Congress won't, both because of partisan hypocrisy, and like you noted, sadly, hardly anyone cares about a state-level elected official compared to a famous podcaster.
(Admittedly their comments are very tame compared to the acts that have previously resulted in congressional expulsion. And so were Kimmel’s. But if “protecting the public” angle is all they have on Kimmel, I’m pointing out the other logical conclusions of their argument.)
It's nice to see a few, such as Ted Cruz, calling out the FCC acting like Trump's mafia.
> I feel like the executives have a civic duty to have resisted, at least for a few days. Caving so quickly weakened the de facto press freedoms.
Exactly, at least some kind of public rebuff or just saying Kimmel's show is not news and journalism, he is just reflecting the social media trends as parodies and jokes. Now it just looks like FCC can come shut down anyone they want.
> If anyone's wondering, shortly after MN Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, Mike Lee tweeted an implication that the killer was "Marxist" and a pun about the governor of the state. Of course he had no evidence, and now, we know it's unlikely given that suspect is a Trump supporter.
Yeah, it's rules for some but not others.
> It's nice to see a few, such as Ted Cruz, calling out the FCC acting like Trump's mafia.
Yeah, I mean, this is supposed to be a classic conservative talking point so it's nice to see some dissent, even from Cruz.
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)
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.”
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.
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.
This is illegal: "Nice business you've got here," the police officer says. "Shame that crime is on the rise. And we don't have as many officers to patrol. But give a donation and we'll take care of you. Don't and we'll stop answering your 911 calls."
Now replace with "We heard what you said about the mayor. Apologize or we'll stop answering your 911 calls."
You seem to be saying that what happened is fine because it never actually got to a truly unconstitutional or get-in-the-streets worthy level of censorship. You seem to be saying if they actually revoked the license, that would be the red line. But because they never did, no harm, no foul.
What we are saying is that just by making the threat, the censorship has full and complete effect. They don't need to revoke the license to use the power of the government to influence constitutionalally protected speech. They just need to threaten.
Based on everything that has gone one that seems to me at least very naive. There was practically a textbook length document outlining what the administrstion planned to do if they got in power and they are going step by step through it.
The president said there are 4 comedians (who make fun of him) that he wants to get off the air. After this event he posted something along the lines of "2 down, 2 to go." Followed by "Why don't you just force the other two out now?".
There was nothing wrong about what was said - they just already have a plan and pick any small item to claim is the cause.
For example they want to defund left leaning non profits and think tanks. They don't have a reason to. But now they are trying to claim they motivated the Kirk killing - not because they think it did, but because it's what is already their plan.
People still thinking they are being objectives or that there are "norms" left, in my opinion haven't been paying attention.
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.
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.
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.
It was a very obvious dig at the president. There's still not good justification for the government to step in, but claiming it's "milquetoast" is baffling.
Digs directed at the President or the administration are and always have been well within the Overton window in American journalism, and previous Presidents and administrations have just seen them as a fact of life and brushed them off.
Thus “milquetoast”: an implication that any reaction to this is, objectively, an overreaction.
That the current President is a habitual over-reactor does not change that fact. It just means that you can paradoxically be taking a heterodox / outré stance by saying objectively milquetoast things.
Have you ever seen a late night show? Monologue jokes about the sitting president practically define the format. Every other president going back decades would just man up and take it.
I guess it depends on the sort of media you consume. I’ve seen Destiny saying conservatives need to be afraid of getting shot, and it seems like he’s still alive.
The other people who lost jobs seemed to have said much more direct and offensive remarks than Kimmel as well.
The owner of the Sinclair Broadcasting group (the company that owns the ABC stations that started this) is a far-right ideologue that has been trying to drag ABC into News Nation territory for the past decade or so.
Nothing Kimmel said was controversial. It was just being used as a false flag to justify other things.
Honestly, I thought it was way more tame than I'd expect for comedy these days, but it's also been a long time since I watched a late night talk show and traditionally the ones on the old networks tended to have much more mild and lighthearted comedy compared to the more biting/edgy stuff you'd get on cable.
Honestly I think most of the actually angry people only heard "about it". It was a very mild commentary.
The commentary about what Kimmel said was disconnected from what he said, hell the demand he give money seemed more like a criminal shakedown.
I think Trump's statement about going after anyone who has anything negative to say about them, that's the real goal / point. Doesn't even have anything to do with Kirk.
> What Kimmel Said, and the affiliates broadcasted, was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
This is the actual 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,"
Note that he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I swear, media literacy in the united states is in the fucking toilet.
Really, literacy in generally is tanking in the US. In 2024 over half the adults in the country couldn't even read at a sixth grade level! 21% are outright illiterate.
That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
>That isn't the same and you know it. Kimmel made no direct comment about what the shooter was aligned with, only about what the right wing sphere was attempting to frame them as being. Anyone with a moderate grasp of English should be able to tell the difference.
You're falling into the "trap." Which is that even though you're correct, the way it's being framed is having you defend Kimmel WRT what he did say rather than his right to say all kinds of stuff -- including the stuff they claim he said, but didn't.
Even if Kimmel had said that Robinson was absolutely a MAGAt with ties to literal neo-nazis (the groypers), that's still protected speech.
He didn't go that far (and it may or may not be true), but his right to free expression is what needs to be protected.
While you don't see it that way, the folks with whom you're arguing can come back later and say, "well, scheeseman486 agreed that if Kimmel had called Robinson a MAGA and/or a Nazi, that was a bridge too far. So now that Fallon/whoever said something similar, off to prison for him, because even those baby molesting/eating librul freaks agree!"
Don't fall into that trap. The Federal (and through the 14th Amendment, state and local) government is forbidden from taking action against legal speech, full stop.
Fight against that -- don't let yourself be hemmed in to a corner by those who don't want or care about freedom of expression unless it's theirs.
I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
>I was focused on that one specific argument. I agree that he shouldn't have been taken off the air by the FCC regardless of what he said (unless he explicitly encourages violent action against an individual or group of people be taken, ie illegal speech).
I get that. I wasn't attacking you even a little. Yours was a reasonable and cogent argument.
I'm just pointing out that care should be taken with those who aren't operating in good faith. Because such folks will throw your words back in your face without regard for context or nuance.
Because they care nothing for the truth, just for their own feeling of rightness and will to power whether that be political power or just "pwning the libs."
> he doesn't say that the shooter was MAGA, only that those within the right wing influencer sphere were desperately trying to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them. This is unambiguously and factually true.
I'll put it in the technically true but ambiguously misinformation category. (Which is on every metric better than what goes on at Fox.)
which has been the backbone of satirical and scathing social and political commentary in the western world for 50 years at least.
The Daily Show, The -s30e102- 2025-09-18 Maria Ressa episode with Jon Stewart's monologue and interview went another way, "rolling over" completely into total Trump submission followed by drawing direct comparisons to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte popularist seizing of control of government.
The number of people defending this makes me seriously wonder if we need a two-speed democracy. One class that is given safety. The other who is exposed to dangerous elements like Jimmy Kimmel…
> There’s a relatively narrow rule which prohibits fcc licensed stations from knowing broadcasting false information if it has the possibility of creating civil unrest.
Oh wow, I didn't realize Fox News wasn't FCC-licensed.
Well, the subset of stations that pulled the show were the ones owned by a (right-wing) company, Nexstar, that has proposed a merger that is up for FCC review. It wasn’t fear of being punished for allowing a “falsehood” on the air, it was pursuit of favorable treatment from a political appointee.
Sinclair (38 stations) also pulled it and they own more than Nexstar (28 stations).
FWIW The Hollywood Reporter also is reporting that advertisers started threatening to pull their support as well[0] as several smaller stations.
> Meanwhile, the advertiser calls began to roll in and then the big affiliate conglomerates, Nexstar and Sinclair, threatened to preempt the show. The second source says that the blowback was snowballing enough that had ABC not acted, Kimmel’s show would have been dark in a large swath of the country, even beyond the Sinclair and Nexstar territories (including in the Washington, D.C., metro area).
> was a claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “maga” supporter.
I just watched the video.
What he said was that MAGA supporters were too quick to blame anyone but the right, before there was any evidence about the shooter’s identity or political stance.
It's 100% true that MAGA people were being very vocal all over social media trying to characterize him as not being a trump supporter. What part of that do you think was a lie?
How is it false? It isn't making the claim that the shooter was MAGA, but commenting on the right wing influencer sphere's recurring habit of accusing mass shooters of being associated with any group other than themselves.
> "anything other than one of them" can very easily be interpreted in two ways, one of them leading a person to believe that the adult (not a kid) was somehow "MAGA"
Anything can be interpreted in any way you want as long as you're arguing in bad faith
> at the very least, the situation as tense as it was (is?), Jimmy could have chosen to leave it alone for a bit - why say that MAGA is trying to "score political points" at this time? Why not consider that many people are genuinely grieving and upset?
lmao, no one, right wing influencers nor the government, is doing this.
> ABC fired his butt, not the FCC or anyone else. A sternly worded message from the FCC chairman doesn't make a company like DIS fire someone unless it is convenient for DIS. That's a fact.
It isn't "a fact". If a mob goon threatens action on an employer unless that employer punishes an employee, who the hell do you think is actually responsible?
He never said he was a MAGA supporter but that he was being claimed to be not “one of them”. Given that the shooter came from a conservative family in a conservative town and attended trade school and spent his time gaming, I think it’s reasonable to say that he was a product of the right wing milieu, and not a product of left wing indoctrination as the right alleges.
The fact that you believe this is the exact reasoning behind trying to prevent things like what Jimmy Kimmel did here.
It could not be more cut and dry than this. In fact it is so cut and dry that a conspiracy theory on both the left and the right is that the text messages demonstrating his political motivations aren’t genuine.
Are you asserting that he followed left wing influencers or read left wing books or attended left wing classes or somehow got his indoctrination from left wing sources?
There isn’t any evidence of that - there is only evidence that he hated the right wing (and to the contrary there is obvious evidence he came from a right wing milieu - just take a look at his parents). Simply hating a side doesn’t mean you have been indoctrinated by the other side - just look at people who left fundamentalist religious sects.
So when a talk show host vaguely on the left implies something that might not be true it is ground enough to disregard the fucking first amendment and use the power of the state to censor him. But when the entire GOP, including the president, all fabricate obvious lies about the shooter being successively trans, then antifa and then a radical leftist, it's fine. The double standards are fucking crazy.
You don't exactly need to be MAGA to think that Kimmel's remarks were incorrect. From the economist:
>After the assassination Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian on abc, suggested erroneously that Kirk had been killed by a maga fan. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasters, threatened consequences: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Within hours abc took Mr Kimmel off the air indefinitely. Mr Carr then said all broadcasters should ease up on the “progressive foie gras”.
The subject of the sentence was "the MAGA gang" - and it's true that they (and the president himself) were the ones desperately declaring right after the assassination before we had any information that shooter was a radical leftist. So for me it's a fair statement and really only disinformation if you purposely distort the sentence.
The second part of what he said is also a true statement, that they're using this tragic event to score political points and go after their political opponents.
Well, the kid did turn out to have ties to a radical leftist organization. He spent an awful lot of time on Antifa discord servers and, according to his acquaintances and friends, had frequent arguments with his conservative parents over politics. You think they were arguing about who voted Republican harder?
You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:
>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
Kimmel didn't explicitly make the accusation that the killer was MAGA, but the use of the wording "desperately trying to imply ... as anything other than one of them" definitely gives that impression. I mean, why else would they be "desperately" trying to? If an attempt was made on Bernie or AOC I wouldn't characterize leftists prematurely blaming it on the right as "desperately". It's just the most logical inference. The "killer was right wing" narrative was also being pushed in some left leaning circles, so it's not exactly outlandish either.
>You're ignoring the part of the quote where he implied the killer was MAGA or MAGA affiliated. For reference the full quote is:
He did not. But even if he did, so what?
Does either interpretation make his comment somehow illegal and deserving of government threats to retaliate against folks unless Kimmel was punished?
That's not a rhetorical question.
IMNSHO, you're focusing on the wrong thing here. What difference does it make what legal speech was used? The problem is that the government is trying to silence the critics of those currently in power. And at least in the US, the government isn't allowed to do that -- whether they're critics of the current administration or not.
If you don't decry that, it could be you and yours next. You've been warned.
Did you miss the second part of my comment? Even if Kimmel was in the wrong he shouldn't be taken off the air. I'm just pointing out why Trump might be upset. It's a reason, not necessarily a good reason.
>Let’s just say that the alleged shooter’s political philosophies are likely complex and are yet to be fully understood
By most accounts it's safe to say he's left leaning. You don't have to be a card carrying DSA member or have your ideology fully align with the Democrats platform to earn that label.
ummm First amendment? Its not the first time misinformation has been broadcasted on air, why does the FCC need to get involved in this one. Would they have gotten involved if the implication was that he was a liberal?
I don't see the FCC cancelling news shows on which Trump lies. Double standards driven by politics and why the govt orgs need career staff and not political players. Rule of Law anyone?
Not so much offensive, as utterly puzzling given the information we had on him by Monday night.
Not a fan of Trump or Jimmy, and I don’t think this is a proportional or good response. I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air. I also don’t understand why he left that little dig in his monologue.
Which information? The completely unverified stuff based on "a reconstruction" or "aggressive interview posture" from the same FBI led by the guy currently contradicting himself and telling lies in front of Congress?
This Administration was basically founded on making strident claims on TV which turned out to be lies they couldn't back up in a court of law.
> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.
Have you not been paying attention to where rhetoric in this country has gone in the past 8 months? The first amendment is dead, the great leader is publically calling for his critics to lose their broadcast licenses, and the new SOP is for the government to squeeze the shit out of anyone who doesn't toe the line. (Which is an ever-shrinking group of people.)
Be it with SLAPP suits, or by holding merger approvals, or by just threatening witch-hunts.
This is what 48% of the electorate wanted, and, well, it's what they've delivered.
---
Meanwhile, in Fox land, Brian Kilmeade was publically calling for mass-murder of the mentally ill the other day. For some strange reason, neither Trump nor the FCC, nor all the people outraged about political violence are making a peep about that.
> I’m pretty stunned that there was actually momentum enough to take him off the air.
Very little was needed. The U.S. president had already ominously threatened Kimmel and other late night hosts the day after Colbert was canceled, weeks before the shooting.
I thought Kimmel was hilarious; but as they say, there’s no accounting for taste.
The most ridiculous thing about this is that the world doesn’t cleave neatly into “radical left lunatics” and the righteous real Americans. I still can’t tell what the murderer was. Whatever that was, he acted on his own impulses - ones that are not broadly celebrated, irrespective of claims to the contrary.
There's just absolutely no doubt that Tyler Robinson is a deranged leftist. He was not apolitical. None of the evidence contradicts the fact that he is a leftist. Much of the evidence contradicts the protrayal of him as a right-winger.
Kimmels show was expensive, Kimmel has baggage ( a history of racist comedy, including blackface ). This was a convenient opportunity to chop dead wood.
He said the guy who shot Charlie Kirk was MAGA, which isn’t true, according to the information that has come out from those actually working on the case in the various press conferences, and from the evidence that’s been made public.
It wasn’t meaningful to the joke he was looking to set up, it was just misinformation for misinformation’s sake. At least it came off that way.
Add to that high emotions from people coping with a murder, and there you have it.
He did not say that the kid was MAGA, or at least not exactly. Here’s all he said about 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. 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.
He then played a clip where a reporter asked Trump how he was doing. Trump said good and immediately started talking about his new ballroom.
What about any of that is misinformation? Given how they were certain the shooter was trans because he used arrows on the bullet - which were helldiver 2 codes - it did seem like people were trying to make it seem like the kid wasn’t MAGA.
Turns out the kid is neither, or both, and was just terminally online, which none of us want to admit is the real problem because we’re all also terminally online.
> with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them
Anyone hearing this would take away that Tyler was maga, would they not? It heavily implies that he is maga, and that’s why the maga gang is trying to deflect.
A lot of conclusions were jumped to early on by everyone. Things are more clear now, but still not 100%. From what I’ve seen so far he was a Trump supporter in his early teens, but did a full 180 in recent years, due to the influence on the internet, as you mentioned, and who knows what else.
If the ultimate joke was to laugh at Trump talking about his ballroom, I don’t see what his maga comments added to that. He stepped into a hornets nest and added nothing to the joke in the process.
Why would someone have to "desperately try to characterize" someone as something that they clearly are? To me, that language is clearly indicating that it is somehow difficult to do. At that time, it was fairly apparent that he was not MAGA, at least not in any remotely common sense of the word.
> At that time, it was fairly apparent that he was not MAGA
The criticism of the "MAGA gang" was _not_ about their actions at the time of the Kimmel broadcast, it was very much about their immediate behavior as soon as the shooting hit the news .. the time when nothing was known, the time when the FBI head was making statements about suspects that were untrue, the time when the US head of state was declaring war on the left .. you know, the time when nothing was known about the political allegiance of the shooter .. or the lack thereof.
I'm an outside observer, from here it's clear that the US has fallen deep into an Us v Them K-hole and that the current administration is all too happy to turn up the heat on the divisions that render the nation asunder .. the chaos makes the heist all the easier.
I could imagine interpreting the statement that way if he had said either before or after that it turned out the shooter was not MAGA. But stating it on its own, the effect in my mind was pretty clear: to communicate that the shooter was MAGA, and that the MAGA gang was doing their best to deny it.
The current president and vice president of the United States said on multiple media channels that an entire racial demographic of people in a city were eating cats and dogs, and those same people are concerned about the minutia of a late night comedian’s informational and semantic accuracy (who they also claim no one watches, which is probably itself mostly true).
Your god-president lies every single time he opens his mouth. Huge lies. The biggest lies. He also ridicules everyone he dislikes. With hurtful language. All the time.
He has never apologized for jack shit.
> Anyone hearing this would take away that Tyler was maga, would they not? It heavily implies that he is maga, and that’s why the maga gang is trying to deflect.
No one is tuning into Jimmy Kimmell for "news", though I am quite sure that his show is more truthful on a daily basis than your Fox News & Newsmax liars.
> If the ultimate joke was to laugh at Trump talking about his ballroom, I don’t see what his maga comments added to that. He stepped into a hornets nest and added nothing to the joke in the process.
The joke is that Trump probably does not give a flying fuck about Kirk. He cares about himself. That's it. He pivoted right to bragging about his dumb fucking ballroom.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. Nowhere do I claim any party affiliation. Someone asked a question about why what Jimmy said was controversial, and I did my best to answer why a person might be upset. Other people who may have said similar things aren’t really relevant and it just gets into a game of whataboutism.
It was a political assassination done by someone who vehemently disagreed with certain viewpoints. The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on. Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
> The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
The only thing clear about the shooter's political positions, is that it'll be presented as whatever will be most convenient to the speaker. He held views that individually map across the spectrum, allowing anyone to point to something and assign him at an arbitrary location.
> Kimmel's comments were grossly inaccurate and wildly irresponsible.
Kimmel’s comments are about the behavior of the MAGA world, and they were true: the MAGA world was trying very hard to push the idea that the shooter was not one of them.
> The details about the shooter clearly indicate which end of the political spectrum he was on.
I'm sorry, which details? Why does his opinion about a handful of topics mean that we can infer his entire worldview? Why do we have to assume that his views mapped neatly onto one end of the US political spectrum or the other?
I think the problem no one on either side wants to admit is that these shooters rarely fall into either side. They’re mentally unstable people who are attracted to fringe crazy ideas, regardless of the political stripes.
Their behavior indicts all of us Americans.
But of course admitting that and doing something about it means working together, which is a much harder solution than pointing fingers at the other side and doing little else.
