Jimmie Kimmel Show gone !

#1,126
#1,126
BowlBrother85 said:
There is no "narrative." That is such an overused word.

We have facts. Not narratives. You can't get around FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr's not-so-veiled threat.

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC to do." - Brendan Carr, FCC Chairman

^^^^ How is that comment from Trump's hand-picked FCC Chairman anything other than a coercive threat to either fire an employee, who was exercising his right to free speech, or face repercussions from the federal government? Kimmel's comments may have been in poor taste, but they were not illegal. He didn't even use profanity. You have the right to say things that are in poor taste. This is government infringement on free speech. It's overreach. There was a time when government overreach bothered Republicans. Trump has really changed some core Republican Party principles.
Click to expand...
@Orange_Crush

I don't think there is any mistaking that for a threat against ABC to fire Kimmel .... you will probably defend it though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,128
#1,128
BowlBrother85 said:
@Orange_Crush

I don't think there is any mistaking that for a threat against ABC to fire Kimmel .... you will probably defend it though.
Click to expand...
But you just said:
BowlBrother85 said:
All we can do is speculate about that .... but even if that's what you choose to believe, Brendan Carr's threats were still very inappropriate considering his position as the FCC Chairman.

The federal government has no business making demands of individual networks, concerning their hiring/firing decisions.

Now, the FCC can levy sanctions against individual networks for the actions of their employees, but the FCC should stay out of it when it comes to assessing if the employee in question should be fired.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you view threats based on individual employee actions as a valid part of the FCC's activities.

BowlBrother85 said:
KImmel didn't violate any FCC policies. Disney/ABC should have stood up to Carr.
Click to expand...

I do believe the specifics of the threat was a potential investigation into Kimmel. That seems an appropriate thing for the FCC to do under your above post logic. I've been firmly on the "Shut up, Carr, that was a stupid comment" boat, but you may be convincing me otherwise as you post.
 
#1,130
#1,130
Orange_Crush said:
I do believe the specifics of the threat was a potential investigation into Kimmel. That seems an appropriate thing for the FCC to do under your above post logic.
Click to expand...
were you and I discussing that last week? I did with someone but I'm not sure if it was you.

Anyway, with the way JK's jokes sounded, I think it is reasonable for the FCC to be cautious. Also think an apology between everyone now that there is clarity is the best move for all.
 
#1,131
#1,131
BowlBrother85 said:
They never should have been worried about the FCC to begin with .... but they were. I think they allowed themselves to be intimidated. This is not a conspiracy theory either. It's a timeline of facts.
Click to expand...
OK, so it was a matter of "intimidation" and now they're no longer intimidated. So no laws were broken either. Fine, let's move on. It'll be interesting to see if a deal is struck
 
#1,132
#1,132
Orange_Crush said:
It sounds like you view threats based on individual employee actions as a valid part of the FCC's activities.
Click to expand...
Carr placed his threats in the form of an ultimatum. Of course, the FCC can levy sanctions against networks for the actions of individual employees ... but they can't make threats of "Take action against this guy or else we will take action against you."

The federal government has no business demanding that a network take disciplinary action against their own employee. That decision should be left up to that network. The FCC can take action themselves against the network, but they can't force the network to take action against their employee.

What Carr did was make a coercive threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#1,133
#1,133
Orange_Crush said:
But you just said:


It sounds like you view threats based on individual employee actions as a valid part of the FCC's activities.



I do believe the specifics of the threat was a potential investigation into Kimmel. That seems an appropriate thing for the FCC to do under your above post logic. I've been firmly on the "Shut up, Carr, that was a stupid comment" boat, but you may be convincing me otherwise as you post.
Click to expand...
There were no specifics. Just a threat of something to come.
 
#1,134
#1,134
McDad said:
were you and I discussing that last week? I did with someone but I'm not sure if it was you.

Anyway, with the way JK's jokes sounded, I think it is reasonable for the FCC to be cautious. Also think an apology between everyone now that there is clarity is the best move for all.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If you agreed with me, you are obviously correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#1,136
#1,136
BowlBrother85 said:
Carr placed his threats in the form of an ultimatum. Of course, the FCC can levy sanctions against networks for the actions of individual employees ... but they can't make threats of "Take action against this guy or else we will take action against you."

The federal government has no business demanding that a network take disciplinary action against their own employee. That decision should be left up to that network. The FCC can take action themselves against the network, but they can't force the network to take action against their employee.

What Carr did was make a coercive threat.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. You said:

Now, the FCC can levy sanctions against individual networks for the actions of their employees, but the FCC should stay out of it when it comes to assessing if the employee in question should be fired.
Click to expand...


I'm not exactly sure that's what he was saying, by the way. That they would take action against the network unless they did so. What he said was that an investigation may be coming. There is a subtle difference.

But if he said, "We'll take action against you for the actions of Kimmel", how is that much different than you saying that they have a right to take action against the network based on the actions of an employee?

Help me understand, please.
 
#1,139
#1,139
Orange_Crush said:
What he said was that an investigation may be coming. There is a subtle difference.
Click to expand...
Carr never mentioned the word "investigation." Why do you keep saying that? Carr never used that word.

Orange_Crush said:
But if he said, "We'll take action against you for the actions of Kimmel", how is that much different than you saying that they have a right to take action against the network based on the actions of an employee?
Click to expand...
Carr didn't say that. Carr gave an ultimatum which demanded that the network take action against Kimmel .... or else the FCC would take action against them. That is a coercive threat. Carr was trying to force ABC to punish Kimmel. That is not the role of the federal government.

Orange_Crush said:
Help me understand, please.
Click to expand...
I think you are probably being obstinate. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand. The FCC can't force a network to take disciplinary action against an employee, and that is what Brendan Carr was trying to do. If you can't understand that? Fine ... but I'm done with you.
 
#1,142
#1,142
BowlBrother85 said:
No .... Carr never mentioned that word. Why in the hell do you keep saying "investigation?"
Click to expand...
That's my recollection of one of Carr's comments--that they were contemplating a federal investigation of Kimmel. Perhaps I was wrong.

Then what was the specific threat by Carr and the FCC?

Edited:

Here you go.

Federal Communications Commission boss Brendan Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday he was considering an investigation into Kimmel and his network ABC over remarks the host made about suspected shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, in the wake of Kirk's murder.

www.thisismoney.co.uk

Jimmy Kimmel faces FED probe over claim Charlie Kirk suspect was MAGA

News of a probe will likely spook Kimmel's bosses at ABC.
www.thisismoney.co.uk www.thisismoney.co.uk
Click to expand...


So, now you'll agree that the FCC was in the scope you provided as appropriate for them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#1,143
#1,143
Orange_Crush said:
That's my recollection of one of Carr's comments--that they were contemplating a federal investigation of Kimmel. Perhaps I was wrong.

Then what was the specific threat by Carr and the FCC?
Click to expand...
If you search Carr podcast statement about kimmel, you'll get the quote. It's been posted here several times. FTR, i do not recall the word investigation being used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and BowlBrother85
#1,145
#1,145
Orange_Crush said:
That's my recollection of one of Carr's comments--that they were contemplating a federal investigation of Kimmel. Perhaps I was wrong.

Then what was the specific threat by Carr and the FCC?
Click to expand...
I have posted what Carr said.

He gave an ultimatum to ABC to either take action against Kimmel, or the FCC would take action against them. It appears that Nexstar also interpreted that comment as a threat against them as well. The federal government has no business trying to force networks to punish their employees. The decision of whether or not to do that, should be left up to the network.

..... and it is again worth noting that Jimmy Kimmel did not violate any FCC policies. He simply said something that Republicans didn't like.
 
#1,149
#1,149
BowlBrother85 said:
I have posted what Carr said.

He gave an ultimatum to ABC to either take action against Kimmel, or the FCC would take action against them. It appears that Nexstar also interpreted that comment as a threat against them as well. The federal government has no business trying to force networks to punish their employees. The decision of whether or not to do that, should be left up to the network.

..... and it is again worth noting that Jimmy Kimmel did not violate any FCC policies. He simply said something that Republicans didn't like.
Click to expand...
He seems to have clarified himself, as I edited above.

If his plan was an investigation, you'll agree that it is appropriate scope as you defined?

If not, what EXACTLY was his threat/plan? And, if you don't know, how can you know whether it would have been appropriate under the scope you defined above?
 
#1,150
#1,150
BowlBrother85 said:
I have posted what Carr said.

He gave an ultimatum to ABC to either take action against Kimmel, or the FCC would take action against them. It appears that Nexstar also interpreted that comment as a threat against them as well. The federal government has no business trying to force networks to punish their employees. The decision of whether or not to do that, should be left up to the network.

..... and it is again worth noting that Jimmy Kimmel did not violate any FCC policies. He simply said something that Republicans didn't like.
Click to expand...
Not Republicans, but Trump and his loyalists.

Has anyone mentioned the section in Project 25 as to how the FCC should operate. Guess who authored that section
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top