The era of TV-talk shows is already ending, so it's easy for companies to agree to censorship. These moves just quicken the end of the talk-show era. More profitable and successful shows seem to be immune for now, and South Park goes harder than ever.
potato3732842 · 18m ago
The desire to not catch a (arguably deserved in some individual cases) bullet is an incredibly unifying sentiment on both sides of the isle and between the elected officials, the permanent bureaucracy and those aspiring to be either.
It just baffles me that people think they can say things that "turn up the heat" or "endorse the furtherance of current trends" and not expect some part of system (including big companies that more or less operate at the pleasure of regulators/government) to turn right back around and attack them.
I'm not saying I expect everyone to be as jaded as me, but know where your pay comes from.
mkfs · 7m ago
> It just baffles me that people think they can say things that "turn up the heat"
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of his statements, even if what he did say was factually inaccurate.
afavour · 10m ago
Kimmel didn’t even criticise Kirk. He’s a mainstream TV comedian and nothing he said “turned up the heat”.
The reality is very simple: Nexstar wants federal approval for a merger. They know engaging in this censorship increases the likelihood of their merger being approved. So you’re exactly as jaded as you should be, just with the wrong target.
davesque · 14m ago
Call me old fashioned, but I do expect for things like this not to happen in an open, democratic society whose founding document explicitly declares free speech to be sacrosanct.
potato3732842 · 10m ago
The shooting, the endorsement of it or the firing over the endorsement of it?
All of them are bad but the ones on the left end of the sentence are more bad than the ones on the right.
Edit: The endorsement and firing broadly speaking, not regards to anything specific to Kimmel or ABC
davesque · 3m ago
How did Kimmel endorse the shooting? Make an argument. Show me where and how he endorsed the shooting.
jjfoooo4 · 7m ago
Kimmel in no way endorsed the shooting
bix6 · 16m ago
The FCC doesn’t pay Kimmel.
potato3732842 · 14m ago
ABC, who pays Kimmel, would be financially very, dis-served to have the FCC or IRS or any other big bit of government up their ass, even if it does ultimately come to nothing.
throw310822 · 9m ago
Are you saying that the government might seriously harass and damage a media company for speech they don't like? And this is normal?
bix6 · 6m ago
Maybe ABC could stand up for freedom of speech instead of caving to a wannabe dictator?
jjfoooo4 · 15m ago
I expected Kimmel to have somehow criticized Kirk, a dubious enough reason to pull the show. But this isn’t even that. Comments quoted in stories assert that the shooter was MAGA - maybe that’s somewhat controversial, but it’s ludicrous to suggest it’s offensive.
That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying.
nabla9 · 10m ago
Stop criticizing large corporations as moral entities. They have no other incentives other than money. Corporations are amoral (not good or bad). Only money matters.
South Park can go on because they make money. Talk-shows are already dying and cutting them is easy choice even under mild pressure.
The value talk they use is PR aimed at stakeholders (customers, employees, government). No company has taken a stance where they willingly accept net negative returns if they have other choice.
potato3732842 · 9m ago
Not just corporations, every institution from the church to every silo in your government to big nonprofits. The latter ones just have less measurable goals than profit, but they sociopathically seek their goals all the same. Beyond a certain scale organizations staffed by humans no longer act human.
throwmeaway222 · 13m ago
It's extremely relevant. The person grew up "conservative" and was radicalized to the left in college. The reason this is important is that it's a trend. If the trend isn't acknowledged on the left, then it will just continue.
As much as I can tell, they're mad because Kimmel pointed out a couple of instances where Trump seemed to care more about his new ballroom at the WH than about the recent murder of Kirk.
I've been reluctant to toss around the f-word, but it doesn't feel like an exaggeration to call this fascism. Kimmel said nothing that should have warranted a suspension.
Would be great if you could cite first-hand sources and make an actual argument, instead of deferring to a far-right talk show host who is broadly hated by a significant chunk of the population.
throwmeaway222 · 15m ago
So you want a far-left source that is broadly hated by a significant chunk of the population?
davesque · 7m ago
Lol, yes. I don't want one thing, therefore I must want the complete opposite. Can you imagine for a second that I just want for the things people say to actually be consistent, rational, and defensible? No, I hate far-left talking heads just as much as I hate people like Steven Crowder. I hate them because they don't advance the conversation and their entire livelihood depends on misrepresentation and attention seeking.
There is no defensible argument that Jimmy Kimmel should have his TV show suspended based on the comments he made in that monologue.
afavour · 7m ago
No, they requested a first-hand source. i.e. just the clip of Kimmel.
Might be shocking to some but it’s quite possible for a source to be neither terminally online far right nor terminally online far left. Incredible, I know.
It just baffles me that people think they can say things that "turn up the heat" or "endorse the furtherance of current trends" and not expect some part of system (including big companies that more or less operate at the pleasure of regulators/government) to turn right back around and attack them.
I'm not saying I expect everyone to be as jaded as me, but know where your pay comes from.
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of his statements, even if what he did say was factually inaccurate.
The reality is very simple: Nexstar wants federal approval for a merger. They know engaging in this censorship increases the likelihood of their merger being approved. So you’re exactly as jaded as you should be, just with the wrong target.
All of them are bad but the ones on the left end of the sentence are more bad than the ones on the right.
Edit: The endorsement and firing broadly speaking, not regards to anything specific to Kimmel or ABC
That paired with comments criticizing the Dear Leader were enough. This is a new low in corporate cowardice toward Trump bullying.
South Park can go on because they make money. Talk-shows are already dying and cutting them is easy choice even under mild pressure.
The value talk they use is PR aimed at stakeholders (customers, employees, government). No company has taken a stance where they willingly accept net negative returns if they have other choice.
As much as I can tell, they're mad because Kimmel pointed out a couple of instances where Trump seemed to care more about his new ballroom at the WH than about the recent murder of Kirk.
I've been reluctant to toss around the f-word, but it doesn't feel like an exaggeration to call this fascism. Kimmel said nothing that should have warranted a suspension.
There is no defensible argument that Jimmy Kimmel should have his TV show suspended based on the comments he made in that monologue.
Might be shocking to some but it’s quite possible for a source to be neither terminally online far right nor terminally online far left. Incredible, I know.