President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[frank ryan]

Curtailing constitutional rights should concern everyone, especially if it is speech you disagree with.

There has always been consequences for words but it is not the governments role police it. And it is one side of the political divide they are going after.

[BlueK]

The FCC had no business being involved. I see no basis for claiming Kimmel’s comments violated FCC regulations.

My question is: To what extent was Kimmel’s suspension driven by FCC pressure versus ABC acting independently? I have no issue with ABC disciplining Kimmel for his remarks, as he was promoting an unlikely narrative already debunked by both the FBI and the Cox. It’s the same baseless narrative some of my left-leaning friends were spreading on social media.

It wouldn’t shock me if ABC made the call on its own. One silver lining from this tragedy is that it’s forcing a reset in political discourse. People are starting to realize that their words, and how they choose to express them, carry weight and can lead to real consequences.

ABC made the move after the FCC threatened to take action on ABC. That's chilling. No American who values free speech should be ok with the FCC making threats based on political comments or with a media outlet responding to do what the government wants because of threats. Maga is hostile to First Amendment rights.

[tooblue]

The FCC had no business being involved. I see no basis for claiming Kimmel’s comments violated FCC regulations.

My question is: To what extent was Kimmel’s suspension driven by FCC pressure versus ABC acting independently? I have no issue with ABC disciplining Kimmel for his remarks, as he was promoting an unlikely narrative already debunked by both the FBI and the Cox. It’s the same baseless narrative some of my left-leaning friends were spreading on social media.

It wouldn’t shock me if ABC made the call on its own. One silver lining from this tragedy is that it’s forcing a reset in political discourse. People are starting to realize that their words, and how they choose to express them, carry weight and can lead to real consequences.

I agree, words absolutely have consequences—they can be considered an act of violence. "Hateful words are deadly weapons—Russell M. Nelson”

[Shaka]

ABC made the move after the FCC threatened to take action on ABC. That's chilling. No American who values free speech should be ok with the FCC making threats based on political comments or with a media outlet responding to do what the government wants because of threats. Maga is hostile to First Amendment rights.

I'm not disagreeing. As I research the issue the only thing on which the FCC could hang its hat is News Distortion. News Distortion is an uncodified policy that has been in existence for a long time. According to my research assistant Grok News Distortion involves: "policy targets deliberate falsification or slanting of news by broadcasters, rather than mere inaccuracies, errors, or differences of opinion."

I do not doubt that there were those on the left pushing the 'groyper' narrative in an effort to slant the news and twist the story.

[Northwestcoug]

It wouldn’t shock me if ABC made the call on its own.

Would it shock you that before yesterday was over we already knew what exactly had happened?

From the horse's mouth:

The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

And speaking on Fox Wednesday night, Carr suggested broadcasters would see more of this kind of pressure in the future.

“We at the FCC are going to force the public interest obligation. There are broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn in their license in to the FCC,” Carr said. “But that’s our job. Again, we’re making some progress now.”

[Moliere]

It would be funny if Disney makes Kimmel's return contingent on him completing a sensitivity training.

[falafel]

The FCC had no business being involved. I see no basis for claiming Kimmel’s comments violated FCC regulations.

My question is: To what extent was Kimmel’s suspension driven by FCC pressure versus ABC acting independently? I have no issue with ABC disciplining Kimmel for his remarks, as he was promoting an unlikely narrative already debunked by both the FBI and the Cox. It’s the same baseless narrative some of my left-leaning friends were spreading on social media.

It wouldn’t shock me if ABC made the call on its own. One silver lining from this tragedy is that it’s forcing a reset in political discourse. People are starting to realize that their words, and how they choose to express them, carry weight and can lead to real consequences.

If I understand you right, you have an issue with people spreading misinformation? Do you think private citizens should have consequences that include losing their employment if they spread misinformation?

ABC may have made the call, but before that Nexstar pulled Kimmel from all of its local channels (it has over 200 local channels in the U.S.). Nextstar, interestingly, has a proposed $7B merger with another media company currently pending before the FCC.

The FCC told ABC they didn't like Kimmel's speech, Nextstar immediately pulls Kimmel (you can judge whether they care more about a $7B merger or Kimmel), and ABC then pulls him indefinitely. They no longer had a market/audience for him, so what would the point be?

[Shaka]

If I understand you right, you have an issue with people spreading misinformation? Do you think private citizens should have consequences that include losing their employment if they spread misinformation?

I'm more concerned with news entities. Kimmel riffs on current events, so he loosely qualifies. Whether private citizens experience consequences is up to their employers. I suppose people like Kimmel are beholden to both the wrath of the FCC AND his employer.

News channels suck. All of them advance a political agenda. I wouldn't mind if something could be done to incentivize news organizations to move towards reporting hard news versus news/opinion tainted by political views.

[frank ryan]

Would it shock you that before yesterday was over we already knew what exactly had happened?

From the horse's mouth:

Look no further than Benny Johnson if you want to bitch about a media entity having to integrity or credibility. He was on the Kremlin's payroll and probably still is.

The fact the he, Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens, Tim Pool are power players in the media should be alarming

[beefytee]

I wouldn't mind if something could be done to incentivize news organizations to move towards reporting hard news versus news/opinion tainted by political views.

You mean like the fairness doctrine?

Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

The problem is that without the fairness doctrine, the news shows have found that sensationalism and outrage get more eyeballs than just hard news.

[falafel]

I'm more concerned with news entities. Kimmel riffs on current events, so he loosely qualifies. Whether private citizens experience consequences is up to their employers. I suppose people like Kimmel are beholden to both the wrath of the FCC AND his employer.

News channels suck. All of them advance a political agenda. I wouldn't mind if something could be done to incentivize news organizations to move towards reporting hard news versus news/opinion tainted by political views.

1. I asked if "you have an issue with people spreading misinformation?" You responded with "I'm more concerned with news entities." But I would like to know if you think private citizens (Kimmel in this case is more of a public figure, but still a private citizen) should face "consequences that include losing their employment if they spread misinformation?" Will you answer that question?

2. Is your position that if a private person (not a governmental employee) "riffs" or discusses their personal views re current events, they should then be subject to losing their job if the majority of the public does not agree with them?

You say "News channels suck. All of them advance a political agenda. I wouldn't mind if something could be done to incentivize news organizations to move towards reporting hard news versus news/opinion tainted by political views." I agree with you. I am not sure how that really applies to Kimmel (a comedian, not a journalist/reporter/new guy). In fact, it seems like a dodge. Do you support the government combing through the past comments of commentators or even comedians on national networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC (screw FOX, their news still sucks)? If they can do it contemporaneously to Kimmel, why can't they go back and find other events they thinks are "misinformation" and have the FCC threaten to revoke their broadcasting license if they don't fire the person that said it.

I am all about the marketplace of ideas, and I have zero problem with ABC firing Kimmel for ANY reason (even if they he shaved his beard and they didn't like it). That is the private sector. I DO however have an issue with the federal government (via the FCC) pressuring any news outlet because the government doesn't like the content of the news. I expect you'll say something about misinformation, but the PUBLIC should be the arbiter of that. If the federal government gets to decide what is "true" and what is "fake news", and then punish news outlets for perpetrating "fake news", that is not a society I want to live in. The government should NEVER tell its people how to think or believe.

[chrisrenrut]

According to my research assistant Grok News Distortion involves: "policy targets deliberate falsification or slanting of news by broadcasters, rather than mere inaccuracies, errors, or differences of opinion."

I mean, that is basically Fox News’ mission statement.

[Shaka]

1. I asked if "you have an issue with people spreading misinformation?" You responded with "I'm more concerned with news entities." But I would like to know if you think private citizens (Kimmel in this case is more of a public figure, but still a private citizen) should face "consequences that include losing their employment if they spread misinformation?" Will you answer that question?

It's situationally dependent. If a private person spreads misinformation that harms other people or a company then there can be civil consequences.. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if there can be criminal consequences. I've been a victim of tortious interference. If a company determines that the misinformation puts them in a bad light, then yes, they can fire the person.

2. Is your position that if a private person (not a governmental employee) "riffs" or discusses their personal views re current events, they should then be subject to losing their job if the majority of the public does not agree with them?

It depends on the nature/severity of the views and how they are presented. Ultimately, it's up the employer.

You say "News channels suck. All of them advance a political agenda. I wouldn't mind if something could be done to incentivize news organizations to move towards reporting hard news versus news/opinion tainted by political views." I agree with you. I am not sure how that really applies to Kimmel (a comedian, not a journalist/reporter/new guy). In fact, it seems like a dodge. Do you support the government combing through the past comments of commentators or even comedians on national networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC (screw FOX, their news still sucks)? If they can do it contemporaneously to Kimmel, why can't they go back and find other events they thinks are "misinformation" and have the FCC threaten to revoke their broadcasting license if they don't fire the person that said it.

I'd prefer the remedy takes into account the past problems but isn't retroactively punitive. Make rules, make sure the necessary parties are informed of the rules, and then hit the reset button. In other words, the past informs future policy.

I am all about the marketplace of ideas, and I have zero problem with ABC firing Kimmel for ANY reason (even if they he shaved his beard and they didn't like it). That is the private sector. I DO however have an issue with the federal government (via the FCC) pressuring any news outlet because the government doesn't like the content of the news. I expect you'll say something about misinformation, but the PUBLIC should be the arbiter of that. If the federal government gets to decide what is "true" and what is "fake news", and then punish news outlets for perpetrating "fake news", that is not a society I want to live in. The government should NEVER tell its people how to think or believe.

Classic 1st Amendment issue. However, the PUBLIC isn't the only arbiter. In this case Kimmel is also beholden to his employer. I've gone back and forth as to whether the mucky mucks at the top of the FCC should be allowed to voice outrage or threaten to change policy to cover misdeeds. Their job is to hold media companies accountable to current policy. However, it would have been much better for the FCC had they let ABC decide what to do about Kimmel with minimal or no FCC input. That would have kept the politics out of the situation.

[Shaka]

I mean, that is basically Fox News’ mission statement.

Also, MSNBC, CNN, and the networks. The news industry isn't good at the moment.

[Shaka]

You mean like the fairness doctrine?

Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

The problem is that without the fairness doctrine, the news shows have found that sensationalism and outrage get more eyeballs than just hard news.

It's all about money......