Social Jimmy Kimmel gets Canceled

[Rob Battisti]

"Now, yous guys seem like you might be in need of protection. My associates and I can provide this protection for a small fee. You're more than welcome to forego this service, but if you do so we can't be held responsible for any harm that may come to you or your family members."

Not an official action!

Essentially this.

 

[Andy Capp]

I think it's pretty obvious this is not a primarily ABC decision, and mostly an FCC pressure situation.

Like I said earlier in the thread, this makes zero business sense. What is their plan? If they were going to fire Kimmel because they planned to, they would have had a replacement lined up already. But they clearly don't. And even if his ratings are terrible, it's still cheaper to keep him until his contract expires in May 2026, rather than fire him now.

It's clear they had no business plan, which means this wasn't a business decision. It was mostly FCC pressure.

Further to this, @KAZSoliloquy Disney/ABC got squeezed by the FCC on one side, and Nextstar & Sinclair (owners of the majority of US TV affiliate stations) on the other. They were coerced.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Further to this, @KAZSoliloquy Disney/ABC got squeezed by the FCC on one side, and Nextstar & Sinclair (owners of the majority of US TV affiliate stations) on the other. They were coerced.

If it was just nexstar and Sinclair it wouldn’t be an issue. However, how much of the FCC heads statement pressured them to begin with?

 

[Alpha_T83]

If it was just nexstar and Sinclair it wouldn’t be an issue. However, how much of the FCC heads statement pressured them to begin with?

Again, if this wasn't pressure from the FCC, then Disney/ABC would have a plan.

They wouldn't suspend Kimmel (who is being paid) and keep him in limbo. ABC is losing almost a $1M a week in revenue. Are they replacing Kimmel? Are they shutting down the show for the season? Will the show be back next year with a new host?

ABC wouldn't just suspend Kimmel with no plan in place.

 

[DaleBoca]

wrong place.

 

[Roids]

You're not even making sense. The FCC isn't taking away your right to free speech if they revoke your license to use public airwaves. You don't have a right to use the public airwaves. The privilege to use public airwaves is granted to you by the FCC, and that privilege is granted on the condition that your programming serves the public interest. You know who the arbiter is on whether or not your content serves the public interest? You wanna take a guess?

You can make your little ought claims all you want, but your 'ought' will never be an 'is.'

Private bookstores don't provide television programming using public airwaves, dummy.

Answer a very basic and fundamental question, if you have the brainpower. Where does the right to use public airwaves come from, the constitution or the FCC? Think real hard about it, asswipe.

It comes from the FCC BUT you are ignoring the important part. The FCC can't then revoke a license because it does not like what someone said. The airwaves part is irrelevant in my analogy, the point is as follows.

There’s no “constitutional right” to operate a bookstore.
You need a local business license to operate
If the city revokes that license because you sell books criticizing the mayor, that’s unconstitutional

It's really simple. Not sure if you're being obtuse deliberately or what.

Jimmy Kimmel did violate FCC standards, by the way.

Explain how.

Then I'll ask again, where in the constitution is ABC guaranteed the right air television programming for free on public airwaves? Where in the constitution is Jimmy Kimmel guaranteed a right to a job as a late night talk show host?

You can't even grasp how the 1st amendment works so stop arguing. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee ABC a license — just like it doesn’t guarantee a bookstore.
But once the government hands out licenses, it can’t use them as weapons to control speech. That’s the First Amendment issue you keep dodging.”

 

[Crazy Source]

Anything that the FCC chair says in public is official you goofball.

@Rob Battisti

 

[calavera2]

I will pray to the altar of the great replacement theory.

Too far, Crazy Source, too far, may the FCC condemn you

 

[Crazy Source]

I agee it shouldn’t have happened

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, right?

 

[Roids]

ABC and the FCC would immediately be absolved by saying "this wasn't FCC pressure, we are simply exercising our own first amendment rights"

Sure but they would have to testify under oath and pray no evidence existed to contradict that statement. Do you think all the deliberations happened in private without documented evidence?

And the distributor network announced they were dropping Kimmel within the same hour, meaning they were already in the process of dropping him before the FCC made his comments of investigating Kimmel & Disney.

Hang on. You think a network reacting within 1 hour of the FCC making a threat is evidence they were not coerced? They reacted too fast? lol. I love MAGA logic

That’s incorrect.

A. The FCC never officially got involved
B. Regulating news distortion is within their right as an organization.

Whether or not this qualified is what is being argued.

So the head of the FCC was not speaking in his official capacity when he made a public threat? lol. The kimmel show not being classified as news is fact, there is nothing to argue. News Distortion is related to the 6pm news fabricating something like a terrorist attack. Nothing to do with a comedian telling a joke ffs.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Hang on. You think a network reacting within 1 hour of the FCC making a threat is evidence they were not coerced? They reacted too fast? lol. I love MAGA logic

You :

Me :
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I said is what I'm saying.

 

[UFCUCF]

He wasn’t wearing his fcc chair uniform at the time……..

I was speeding earlier today. The cop let me go when I told him I wasn’t speeding in my official capacity. That’s how it works, you have to call “official capacity” before you act, or it doesn’t count.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, right?

Again, no.

Sure but they would have to testify under oath and pray no evidence existed to contradict that statement. Do you think all the deliberations happened in private without documented evidence?



Hang on. You think a network reacting within 1 hour of the FCC making a threat is evidence they were not coerced? They reacted too fast? lol. I love MAGA logic


So the head of the FCC was not speaking in his official capacity when he made a public threat? lol. The kimmel show not being classified as news is fact, there is nothing to argue. News Distortion is related to the 6pm news fabricating something like a terrorist attack. Nothing to do with a comedian telling a joke ffs.

Also again, incorrect.

 

[Crazy Source]

Again, no.

Also again, incorrect.

Doubling down on wrong don't make it right.

 

[Roids]

Again, no.

Also again, incorrect.

you forgot the part where you prove its incorrect.

 

[Andy Capp]

What I’m saying is that they were leveraging a bully pulpit and it was inappropriate. The FCC, as an entity, didn’t do anything.

Yes, they did.

 

[Andy Capp]

If it was just nexstar and Sinclair it wouldn’t be an issue. However, how much of the FCC heads statement pressured them to begin with?

They want the FCC to do them a favour so they can make more money. The FCC blatantly indicated they had to do Carr a favour first.

 

[Rob Battisti]

you forgot the part where you prove its incorrect.

The “News Distortion” Rule

• What It Is: The FCC’s “news distortion” policy, referenced by Carr in the Kimmel case, prohibits broadcasters from deliberately falsifying or slanting news with the intent to mislead the public. It stems from the FCC’s broader public interest standard and was formalized in cases like the 1969 WLBT decision, where a station lost its license for biased reporting.

• Applicability: This rule is not limited to news programming. It applies to any content aired on broadcast stations that presents itself as factual reporting or could be reasonably interpreted as such, potentially misleading viewers about significant public events. However, the FCC has historically applied it narrowly, focusing on clear cases of intentional fabrication by newsrooms (e.g., staging events or knowingly airing false reports).

Again, the FCC has no jurisdiction here and the FCC head was absolutely wrong for saying what he said. It can be argued that Kimmel could be held to having to reasonably present factual information. My whole point was morons DO think he’s telling the truth.

From the podcast:

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney… We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead… Kimmel appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public that conservative activist Kirk’s assassin was a right-wing Trump supporter.”

And later

“We at the FCC are going to enforce the public interest obligation. If there’s broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn their license into the FCC.”

Absolutely this is the wrong thing to say and it’s been ruled open that “satire” is not “news”. So they have no authority to do anything here in my opinion. However, it’s interesting because people absolutely DO think Kimmel is telling the truth. Even here you have smooth brains thinking he is right wing.

It’s not a violation of someone’s first amendment to enforce FCC guidelines. Again, all that happened was a threat — a vague threat — on a podcast.

There were no official actions taken by the FCC so no violation happened because — nothing actually happened.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yes, they did.

Tell me specially what action the federal communication commission took.

 

[Rob Battisti]

They want the FCC to do them a favour so they can make more money. The FCC blatantly indicated they had to do Carr a favour first.

They possibly sent in complaints in fear the FCC would hold it against them if they didn’t. Impossible to confirm but likely.