But it wasn't until Wednesday afternoon, after FCC chair Brendan Carr went onto a conservative podcast and threatened to pull ABC affiliate broadcast licenses, that the matter really escalated. Then Nexstar the station group which airs "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" in approximately two dozen markets announced they would not air the show.
Carr publicly stating that Disney was at risk to lose its local broadcast licenses was a "real, serious threat" for all of ABC, a source familiar with the situation told CNN.
"This isn't just about 'Jimmy Kimmel Live.' It's about all of ABC and all of the shows and all employees," another source privy to ongoing conversations at the company said.
A veteran television news producer who is not employed by ABC told CNN, "There is no more terrifying circumstance for a broadcast entity than the threat of an FCC fine, or worse, that the agency could move to revoke the stations' broadcast licenses."
…. with serious FCC threats, the company had to make a business decision.
So it seems that you were wrong and I was right.
Dear Wife:
While we were sleeping This little gem came up from your fat **** of a president who wishes to tell you, again, that I was right and you were wrong.
Don't listen to me. Don't listen to news reporting. Listen to the criminal himself as to how Kimmel's canceling came straight from the WH as a considered, plotted, orchestrated conspiratorial attack on freedom of speech.
You're a lawyer, right?
But I guess he got elected by the likes of me for pointing out such crimes.
PS: how are your tax breaks coming along?
Oh wait… I guess he didn't technically admit to it. You got me there!
How soon do you think Cruz gets a full salvo for not completely toing the party line? that is what makes the John Stewart bit from last night just so funny (and sad).
The Ultimate Reason Not to Censor If the Trump Administration follows through on its F.C.C. threats, we'll all be robbed of the joy of legacy media failure. https://t.co/givTn421Ya
Jimmy Kimmel, exiting stage left. From the New York Times:
Quote:
Now [Trump] is taking his campaign against free speech to a new level by using the assassination of Charlie Kirk as a justification to promise the repression of groups that he describes as liberal… The intimidation campaign is already having an effect. Federal officials have urged companies to fire workers who have criticized Mr. Kirk, and some have done so. In a direct exercise of government influence, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the F.C.C., threatened Disney for remarks that Jimmy Kimmel made on his late-night ABC show. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Mr. Carr said. He also urged television stations to stop broadcasting the show. Two major station owners quickly did so, and ABC has suspended the show indefinitely.
Don't do it, President Trump.
If you and F.C.C. Chair Brendan Carr follow through on threats to turn the federal government into broadcast media police, millions of Americans will not be able to enjoy the spectacle of people like Jimmy Kimmel suffering. It would be the greatest Schadenfreude robbery in history. As you like to say, "Nobody's ever seen anything like it before."
If the F.C.C. were mothballed for winter, most of the "Fake News Media" would be dead by Spring anyway. Half the network anchors are already sending out applications to work chair lifts at winter ski resorts. If however Trump drops the F.C.C. on the broadcast sector, it will be like every George Romero movie ever rolled into one, with already-dispatched figures like Kimmel and Stephen Colbert reanimated and turned into martyrs. Let the dead sleep, instead of waking them and forcing citizens like me to defend them. The move by Carr to inject himself in the middle of Kimmel's firing by telling Disney and ABC, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" was and is a very serious one. This was no offhand unforced error by someone like Pam Bondi, who ran into a buzz-saw (mostly from the right) when she said the Constitution doesn't protect hate speech. It's not a trolling misdemeanor like the yanking of AP's White House privileges. Now it's clear why there was correspondence in the Twitter Files suggesting the U.S. could catch up to European censors by using F.C.C. authority. Why is the vision Carr has for the F.C.C. dangerous? Because it's possible:
Carr has already tried to flex this muscle and has been talking for some time about wanting to "reinvigorate" the F.C.C. public interest standard, giving an interview to PBS News Hour in July in which he made his feelings clear:
Quote:
When we license you or license a CBS station, we're necessarily denying another outlet the ability to use those airwaves. As a condition of that, broadcasters are unique. They have a public interest obligation. I think, for years, the F.C.C. has walked away from enforcing that public interest mandate. And I don't think we're better off for it… if you just step back and look at trust in mainstream outlets, like Gallup survey shows that it's at an all-time low, increasingly below even the levels of trust that people have in Congress. So I do think it's an important role for Congress as a sign to the F.C.C. to make sure that broadcasters meet their public interest obligations. And that's what we're trying to do.
The public airwaves are the one piece of informational terrain over which the U.S. government can legitimately assert some authority. Pre-Internet, public broadcast licenses were the gold standard for subsidies, instantly enriching lessees and granting enormous political power. The awesome value of the licenses is why the government felt it could demand as a return condition that stations create programming in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." Traditionally, news stations understood that to mean they had to create content like news and interview shows, and not ***** themselves for cash 100% of the time.
I've been around broadcast media since I was a toddler and never understood "public interest" to mean the F.C.C. had authority to enforce factuality, or punish what they call "collateral inaccuracy." The American news system seemed distinguished by the absence of an OfCom or CRTC-style regulator, and while the F.C.C. obviously existed, it felt like more of an afterthought, one that never touched big three broadcasters and instead spent its time harassing pirate radio stations and listening for George Carlin's infamous seven dirty words.
However, the F.C.C. does have authority it can invoke to act like a European-style regulator, via its "news distortion" standard, which has already come into play with Carr's interest in 60 Minutes. A September 2021 FCC circular contained a long section about "news distortion," saying:
Quote:
The Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. 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…
The quote in the passage above comes from a 1998 Appeals Court case, Alexander J Serafyn v F.C.C. The petitioner, Serafyn, argued CBS should be denied a new station license because it had "intentionally distorted the situation in Ukraine by claiming that most Ukrainians are anti-Semitic." Serafyn lost, but there is a long history of "news distortion" cases and it's not difficult to imagine how the Trump administration might use this tool more, even though most "news distortion" complaints have failed.
In 1968, for instance, famed CBS broadcaster Charles Kuralt ran an influential spot called Hunger in America. A congressman named Henry Gonzalez claimed the show had been exaggerated. The F.C.C. struck the complaint down, saying it is "not a national arbiter of the truth" and was staying out of the case because it would "involve the Commission deeply and improperly in the journalistic functions of broadcasters."
However, the Commission also noted "the licensee must have a policy of requiring honesty of its news staff and must take reasonable precautions to see that news is fairly handled." The Commission over the years has repeatedly held that it does have purview over such cases, but only if there's "extrinsic evidence," like "written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery" showing intent to deceive or distort. It also has to involve a "significant event" and not a "minor or incidental aspect" of the news report, but it seems like the main thing is, if they have a witness who'll speak to intent, they can use this authority.
This is the problem. There are stories out there of former producers for networks (more often, cable stations) admitting to bias, sloppiness, and worse. People like Kimmel have said they're "biased" on the air, and not even really in a joking way. The sheer quantity of uncorrected wrong stories would also impress Trump's F.C.C. But we've been down this road before. Once a government official starts talking about correcting "misinformation," as Carr has already done, it means they already have a vision for using the state as a truth-deciding mechanism, which even if it leaves the First Amendment alone outside the public airwaves, hurts it implicitly by creating official truth.
There's one last reason for Trump to avoid pulling this fateful trigger. In doing so he would allow a generation of censorship advocates to wipe their slates clean, as the Times did in the story above, not mentioning years of other "intimidation campaigns" over speech by everyone from the White House to the FBI to the CDC. It will be forgotten that the same people raging now about firings of Kirk critics were just a few years ago insisting cancel culture didn't exist and "we need more shaming and shunning, not less." More than anything, though, it's not necessary. The market is doing its job, in a big, funny way. Why put a stop to that?
The Ultimate Reason Not to Censor If the Trump Administration follows through on its F.C.C. threats, we'll all be robbed of the joy of legacy media failure. https://t.co/givTn421Ya
Jimmy Kimmel, exiting stage left. From the New York Times:
Quote:
Now [Trump] is taking his campaign against free speech to a new level by using the assassination of Charlie Kirk as a justification to promise the repression of groups that he describes as liberal… The intimidation campaign is already having an effect. Federal officials have urged companies to fire workers who have criticized Mr. Kirk, and some have done so. In a direct exercise of government influence, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the F.C.C., threatened Disney for remarks that Jimmy Kimmel made on his late-night ABC show. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Mr. Carr said. He also urged television stations to stop broadcasting the show. Two major station owners quickly did so, and ABC has suspended the show indefinitely.
Don't do it, President Trump.
If you and F.C.C. Chair Brendan Carr follow through on threats to turn the federal government into broadcast media police, millions of Americans will not be able to enjoy the spectacle of people like Jimmy Kimmel suffering. It would be the greatest Schadenfreude robbery in history. As you like to say, "Nobody's ever seen anything like it before."
If the F.C.C. were mothballed for winter, most of the "Fake News Media" would be dead by Spring anyway. Half the network anchors are already sending out applications to work chair lifts at winter ski resorts. If however Trump drops the F.C.C. on the broadcast sector, it will be like every George Romero movie ever rolled into one, with already-dispatched figures like Kimmel and Stephen Colbert reanimated and turned into martyrs. Let the dead sleep, instead of waking them and forcing citizens like me to defend them. The move by Carr to inject himself in the middle of Kimmel's firing by telling Disney and ABC, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" was and is a very serious one. This was no offhand unforced error by someone like Pam Bondi, who ran into a buzz-saw (mostly from the right) when she said the Constitution doesn't protect hate speech. It's not a trolling misdemeanor like the yanking of AP's White House privileges. Now it's clear why there was correspondence in the Twitter Files suggesting the U.S. could catch up to European censors by using F.C.C. authority. Why is the vision Carr has for the F.C.C. dangerous? Because it's possible:
Carr has already tried to flex this muscle and has been talking for some time about wanting to "reinvigorate" the F.C.C. public interest standard, giving an interview to PBS News Hour in July in which he made his feelings clear:
Quote:
When we license you or license a CBS station, we're necessarily denying another outlet the ability to use those airwaves. As a condition of that, broadcasters are unique. They have a public interest obligation. I think, for years, the F.C.C. has walked away from enforcing that public interest mandate. And I don't think we're better off for it… if you just step back and look at trust in mainstream outlets, like Gallup survey shows that it's at an all-time low, increasingly below even the levels of trust that people have in Congress. So I do think it's an important role for Congress as a sign to the F.C.C. to make sure that broadcasters meet their public interest obligations. And that's what we're trying to do.
The public airwaves are the one piece of informational terrain over which the U.S. government can legitimately assert some authority. Pre-Internet, public broadcast licenses were the gold standard for subsidies, instantly enriching lessees and granting enormous political power. The awesome value of the licenses is why the government felt it could demand as a return condition that stations create programming in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." Traditionally, news stations understood that to mean they had to create content like news and interview shows, and not ***** themselves for cash 100% of the time.
I've been around broadcast media since I was a toddler and never understood "public interest" to mean the F.C.C. had authority to enforce factuality, or punish what they call "collateral inaccuracy." The American news system seemed distinguished by the absence of an OfCom or CRTC-style regulator, and while the F.C.C. obviously existed, it felt like more of an afterthought, one that never touched big three broadcasters and instead spent its time harassing pirate radio stations and listening for George Carlin's infamous seven dirty words.
However, the F.C.C. does have authority it can invoke to act like a European-style regulator, via its "news distortion" standard, which has already come into play with Carr's interest in 60 Minutes. A September 2021 FCC circular contained a long section about "news distortion," saying:
Quote:
The Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. 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…
The quote in the passage above comes from a 1998 Appeals Court case, Alexander J Serafyn v F.C.C. The petitioner, Serafyn, argued CBS should be denied a new station license because it had "intentionally distorted the situation in Ukraine by claiming that most Ukrainians are anti-Semitic." Serafyn lost, but there is a long history of "news distortion" cases and it's not difficult to imagine how the Trump administration might use this tool more, even though most "news distortion" complaints have failed.
In 1968, for instance, famed CBS broadcaster Charles Kuralt ran an influential spot called Hunger in America. A congressman named Henry Gonzalez claimed the show had been exaggerated. The F.C.C. struck the complaint down, saying it is "not a national arbiter of the truth" and was staying out of the case because it would "involve the Commission deeply and improperly in the journalistic functions of broadcasters."
However, the Commission also noted "the licensee must have a policy of requiring honesty of its news staff and must take reasonable precautions to see that news is fairly handled." The Commission over the years has repeatedly held that it does have purview over such cases, but only if there's "extrinsic evidence," like "written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery" showing intent to deceive or distort. It also has to involve a "significant event" and not a "minor or incidental aspect" of the news report, but it seems like the main thing is, if they have a witness who'll speak to intent, they can use this authority.
This is the problem. There are stories out there of former producers for networks (more often, cable stations) admitting to bias, sloppiness, and worse. People like Kimmel have said they're "biased" on the air, and not even really in a joking way. The sheer quantity of uncorrected wrong stories would also impress Trump's F.C.C. But we've been down this road before. Once a government official starts talking about correcting "misinformation," as Carr has already done, it means they already have a vision for using the state as a truth-deciding mechanism, which even if it leaves the First Amendment alone outside the public airwaves, hurts it implicitly by creating official truth.
There's one last reason for Trump to avoid pulling this fateful trigger. In doing so he would allow a generation of censorship advocates to wipe their slates clean, as the Times did in the story above, not mentioning years of other "intimidation campaigns" over speech by everyone from the White House to the FBI to the CDC. It will be forgotten that the same people raging now about firings of Kirk critics were just a few years ago insisting cancel culture didn't exist and "we need more shaming and shunning, not less." More than anything, though, it's not necessary. The market is doing its job, in a big, funny way. Why put a stop to that?
George Floyd was a criminal high on drugs resisting arrest who died because of poor policing. Charlie Kirk was a political figure who was assassinated by a rifleman on a rooftop while giving a speech. You just gave a terrible analogy. SAD
George Floyd was a criminal high on drugs resisting arrest who died because of poor policing. Charlie Kirk was a political figure who was assassinated by a rifleman on a rooftop while giving a speech. You just gave a terrible analogy. SAD
Charlie Kirk had a ****ty security team. Not a single person up on a roof and the perimeter wasn't even secure at a wide open event with no entry checkpoint.
If we're not careful, all of our conservative and right wing friends are going to lose their late night shows, their network news anchor positions, professorships, and roles as Hollywood directors. Their films might not get reviewed by the New York Times. Peril, indeed!
It's just so WEIRD how not a single one of the Trump/Kirk supporters mention how CRAPPY the security team was for Charlie Kirk.
If he actually had real "operators" with military backgrounds instead of a bunch of Rent-A-Cops, he'd still be alive today.
Trump has an assassination attempt on his life from a rooftop and these clowns were standing in front of a tent with their sunglasses on and arms folded.
It's just so WEIRD how not a single one of the Trump/Kirk supporters mention how CRAPPY the security team was for Charlie Kirk.
If he actually had real "operators" with military backgrounds instead of a bunch of Rent-A-Cops, he'd still be alive today.
Trump has an assassination attempt on his life from a rooftop and these clowns were standing in front of a tent with their sunglasses on and arms folded.
Canceling Jimmy Kimmel is a sign of impending dictatorship. Soon unthinkable things will be happening, like kicking ordinary people off social media for dissent, arresting folks for humorous memes, maybe even government collaboration with tech companies to silence the opposition.
First they came for the Palestinians and the universities. I cheered so loudly my neighbours filed a complaint with the police; clapped like a seal so convincingly I was almost devoured by orcas; proclaimed it was proof positive Joe Biden remained in full control of his…
If I were president, I'd stop the misinformation "entertainment" programs from masquerading as "News" presentations.
There needs to be a delineation, say a banner, indicating the difference between FACT and OPINION.
It would be difficult to manage but I'm sick of the brainwashing - something needs to be done.
I put in a lengthy list elsewhere, not related to censorship.
People in certain professions used to take oaths. Media needs to present more honestly to viewers, and let the audience know: Is this speech designed to inform, report, or sway, convince?
Quote:
many professions have long-standing oaths, pledges, or codes of ethics similar in spirit to the Hippocratic Oath. These vary by field and era, but here's a list of notable ones across professions:
Medicine & Health Hippocratic Oath Ancient Greek, still recited in modern adaptations by physicians. Declaration of Geneva (World Medical Association, 1948, updated) A modernized medical oath emphasizing human rights, patient dignity, and confidentiality. Florence Nightingale Pledge (1893) An ethical pledge for nurses, akin to the Hippocratic Oath. Pharmacist's Oath Adopted by pharmacy schools and associations, pledging to uphold patient safety and ethical distribution of medicines. Dentist's Oath Variants used by dental schools, modeled on Hippocratic principles.
Law & Justice Lawyer's Oath Attorneys, upon bar admission, swear to uphold the constitution, laws, and ethical practice. Judicial Oath Judges take an oath of impartiality and fairness in many countries. Police Officer's Oath Law enforcement officers swear to serve and protect while upholding laws and civil rights.
Science & Engineering Obligation of the Engineer (Canada/US) Associated with the "Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer" (Canada) or the Engineer's Ring Ceremony in the US. It stresses responsibility to the public, safety, and ethical practice. Pugwash Conferences' Scientist's Pledge Some scientists pledge not to misuse science for warfare. Biomedical Researcher's Oath Certain universities/associations require pledges on research integrity and human subject protection.
Public Service & Government Military Oaths Soldiers swear allegiance to their nation/constitution and to obey lawful orders. Oath of Office (Civil Servants & Politicians) From presidents and prime ministers to local officials, most must swear to uphold constitutions and serve faithfully. UN Oath of Office UN staff pledge neutrality and dedication to the principles of the UN Charter.
Education & Academia Teacher's Oaths (varies by country) For example, some nations require teachers to pledge dedication to student welfare and integrity in teaching. Academic Integrity Pledges Universities increasingly use honor codes/oaths pledging honesty in scholarship and research.
Business & Finance MBA Oath A voluntary modern oath by business school graduates, pledging ethical leadership and responsibility to society. Bankers' Oath (Netherlands, 2015) Financial professionals swear to act ethically and put clients' interests first.
Canceling Jimmy Kimmel is a sign of impending dictatorship. Soon unthinkable things will be happening, like kicking ordinary people off social media for dissent, arresting folks for humorous memes, maybe even government collaboration with tech companies to silence the opposition.
First they came for the Palestinians and the universities. I cheered so loudly my neighbours filed a complaint with the police; clapped like a seal so convincingly I was almost devoured by orcas; proclaimed it was proof positive Joe Biden remained in full control of his…
For a real laugh go read the judges comments whilst rejecting Trumps defamation lawsuit against the Times. Hilarious beat down.
"As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective not a protected platform to rage against an adversary," the judge continued. "A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner."
Canceling Jimmy Kimmel is a sign of impending dictatorship. Soon unthinkable things will be happening, like kicking ordinary people off social media for dissent, arresting folks for humorous memes, maybe even government collaboration with tech companies to silence the opposition.
First they came for the Palestinians and the universities. I cheered so loudly my neighbours filed a complaint with the police; clapped like a seal so convincingly I was almost devoured by orcas; proclaimed it was proof positive Joe Biden remained in full control of his…
You can tell Yogi knows the libs are right about this one, because his only move is to claim some vague "hypocrisy" for not calling out stuff that happened in the past that were not actually the same thing.
And there it is. Officially another act of left-wing violence.
Anibal Hernandez-Santana, 64, was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after opening fire on an ABC affiliate building in Sacramento in protest to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.
And there it is. Officially another act of left-wing violence.
Anibal Hernandez-Santana, 64, was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after opening fire on an ABC affiliate building in Sacramento in protest to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.
You didn't read the twitter files, let's establish that fact right now.
Okay, show me where in the files it demonstrates that the government actively threatened a media company for publishing certain content.
The "actually threatening standard" is a strawman. When the president of the USA (or his top aids) demand that certain viewpoints be censored, do you think the media companies don't understand that the failure to obey will have consequences?
Pages 1-5 of the linked report quotes directly from relevant emails and show that social media companies were pressured by Biden and were absolutely concerned about regulatory reprisals.
I presently the following to support my following assertion: Sometimes a minority of people ruin everything for everyone. Like, it happens that way!
Here are some of the key election-results (vote-share %) of Hitler's Nazi Party (NSDAP) in Germany (Weimar & early Nazi Germany), especially in the elections leading up to and after he came to power:
Election % of Vote by NSDAP
May 1924 Reichstag election ~ 6.5 %
December 1924 Reichstag election ~ 3.0 %
May 1928 Reichstag election ~ 2.6 %
September 1930 Reichstag election ~ 18.3 %
July 1932 Reichstag election ~ 37.3 %
November 1932 Reichstag election ~ 33.1 %
March 1933 Reichstag election ~ 43.9 %
November 1933 "election" (with no real competition) ~ 92.1 % (but by this point opposition was banned and the vote was manipulated)
And there it is. Officially another act of left-wing violence.
Anibal Hernandez-Santana, 64, was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after opening fire on an ABC affiliate building in Sacramento in protest to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.
First the left shot at the CDC building. Now this.
This is only the left.
Those who commit political acts do not always do so based on a clear cut idealogy or affiliation. People are complicated.
"A lot of political phenomena cant be boiled down to left or right," says Joseph Uscinski, a professor at Univ. of Michigan who studies Conspiracy Theories.
"A lot of political acts are not left or right. And that is unsatisfying to a lot of people."
First the left shot at the CDC building. Now this.
This is only the left.
Those who commit political acts do not always do so based on a clear cut idealogy or affiliation. People are complicated.
"A lot of political phenomena cant be boiled down to left or right," says Joseph Uscinski, a professor at Univ. of Michigan who studies Conspiracy Theories.
"A lot of political acts are not left or right. And that is unsatisfying to a lot of people."
You can consider me Left, however I consider myself middle because there is plenty of conservatism in me if you bothered to read my many posts.
I consider you and your ilk to be radically brainwashed by partisan forces which precludes you from much reason.
I own no guns. Never have. Never will. How about you?
Well, my post was clearly sarcasm, or so I thought when I posted it, but go on…
Okay, sorry. I must have misunderstood you. I saw something about gun violence and an apparent blaming of the left and responded.
I don't suppose terms such as left right liberal conservative mean very much these days other that terms people use to distinguish between Us and Them.
What was once One thing has now become the other, in terms of policy. Just like what has happened with policy choices by the parties.
The republican party was the party of Lincoln, of abolitionists. However, today they are the party heightening racial divisions as they bury Charlie Kirk, a man who regularly ripped on blacks as being less capable. …But I digress.
