Boycott ABC, ESPN & All Disney Products and Properties

[OrangeTsar]

Curious. So you believe the federal government should ban free speech if it criticizes the political party currently in power.

Not me. I like the 1st Amendment. Perhaps as much if not more than you like the 2nd Amendment.

I will continue to criticize the Orange Menace and his band of moronic thugs... because I can and because they deserve to be criticized. You... you can just fiddle with your guns and what not.

Whatever dude
I just want to express my most ardent thanks for you joining with us in our effort to dismantle the Disney empire. We appreciate help no matter where it comes from.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Decisions require discussion. The discussion was held in the AM on 9/17. Carr statements in the afternoon on 9/17. And these moments are detailed in posts with links. We also are unaware how quickly the statements made on the podcast are known by the parties involved.

You, Larry, and Curly can think whatever you want. But the last thing yall are, as long as djt sits in the oval, is objective. My theory which I shared 2 days ago is superior. In fact, one (maybe two) of the troop gave it a like after another poster shared something of their own which aligned with what I shared.

And finally, I asked yesterday when does a government official's words become policy and when are they just words. Even used an example from Obama/Putin. No one engaged. It's unfortunate because I don't know and if we could find understanding it would greatly help classify things. My hope is that classification would improve the caliber of conversation in our forum.

I welcome the trial some believe is imminent.

The fact of the matter is that the FCC is there to police broadcast licenses, content, and character:

...

The FCC may issue a license if it serves public convenience, interest, and necessity, and if the applicant meets additional requirements. These include:

• Character: An applicant must act honestly. Intentional misrepresentations greatly increase the risk of a license denial. Criminal conduct may or may not disqualify an applicant. When reviewing competing applications, though, an applicant who has no character issues is more likely to receive the license than an applicant with a legal violation on their record, even if it is minor.
  
  
  ...
  
  
  
  
• Keeping a License
  
  A licensee is not entitled to an automatic renewal of their license. A station must apply to renew their license within the statutory period to retain access to their frequency. The FCC also may revoke a license before the term expires, although the licensee must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard during this process. The agency must have a reasonable basis to revoke the license, and it must state this basis in writing. If the licensee wants to challenge this decision, they can appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Licensed broadcasters serve for the benefit of the public. If they prove to be political mouthpieces, or intentionally misrepresent facts, then the FCC has the right and responsibility to investigate and may choose to deny or revoke a license.

Most of the public broadcast agencies have been notably partisan in their coverage. If the FCC chooses to finally look into that and deal with it, it's part of what they are there for.

 

[OrangeTsar]

The guest made a funny point about the position Bob Iger is in.

He came out of retirement to rescue Disney. He has done everything he can to depoliticize Disney on his watch to appease the right. This scandal has made Jimmy the face of Disney, and the right hates Jimmy, so this threatens all his progress.

And this is my thought....Iger wants to retire again, and now this is going to be his legacy? That he immediately caved to Trump? He's ****ed. I don't think he expected the reaction he got.

Did you find Kimmel’s blackface portrayal of LeBron acceptable? Is that someone that Disney should have given a contract?
The question I have is; why is it only conservatives who “hate Jimmy”. The real question is why doesn’t the left?
I mean the guy hosted “The Man Show”. Have you ever seen clips from that?

 

[n_huffhines]

I doubt any of you read it, but this Variety article fills in some voids of what we know.

Jimmy Kimmel and Disney Working to Reach Compromise to Bring His Show Back

Jimmy Kimmel and his representatives are working with Disney and ABC leaders on a compromise to allow 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' to return to ABC.

variety.com

It covers a lot of ground. I found this nugget nifty. My only reservation is the spokesperson is unnamed.
@BowlBrother85
@MontyPython
@n_huffhines

"A Nexstar spokesman has said Carr’s comments had no bearing on its decision to pre-empt Kimmel’s show."

Oh cool, so they said something publicly that the regulators would like and would make it look like they didn't cowardly cave to regulators. Let me jot that down as key evidence.

The coercion is still present whether they say that or not.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh cool, so they said something publicly that the regulators would like. Let me jot that down as key evidence.

I get the feeling that if you did, it would be the first piece you'd have jotted. Is there room on the page with all the conjecture?

 

[n_huffhines]

Ikr.. this whole thread is funny lol ‘we’re going to boycott ABC and Disney’… oh noes

Remember when the right cared about free speech for two minutes?

 

[OrangeTsar]

Remember when the right cared about free speech for two minutes?

Remember when the left cared about blackface and misogyny for two minutes?

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[McDad]

The fact of the matter is that the FCC is there to police broadcast licenses, content, and character:



Licensed broadcasters serve for the benefit of the public. If they prove to be political mouthpieces, or intentionally misrepresent facts, then the FCC has the right and responsibility to investigate and may choose to deny or revoke a license.

Most of the public broadcast agencies have been notably partisan in their coverage. If the FCC chooses to finally look into that and deal with it, it's part of what they are there for.

In the onslaught of angles to discuss, we haven't even gotten to this one yet. And it's a good point.
We've established from BB85 what JK said was poorly worded. Mishearing it was easy. Misinterpreting is easy too, as we can see in the PF.
If Carr hears JK as saying the shooter is MAGA on public airways less than a week after a fairly prominent R is murdered, it can be reasonable to conclude Carr has the authority to quell that speech. We have all expressed concern of tempers, copycats, and vigilantes. We have all expressed the hope of cooled rhetoric. Carr's position aligns with the public of all political tribes.

Did he do that well? No. Was it necessary? Judgement call. What should be done? Carr and Kimmel / ABC have a meeting where everyone apologizes. Have a press conference where the public can witness Reconcilliation in real time. Will it happen? Not a chance in Tuscaloosa (hell).

 

[McDad]

Oh cool, so they said something publicly that the regulators would like and would make it look like they didn't cowardly cave to regulators. Let me jot that down as key evidence.

The coercion is still present whether they say that or not.

Lol.

From AI:
A **conspiracy theory** is an explanation for an event or situation that proposes a secret and often malicious plot by a powerful group or organization.

The key characteristics of a conspiracy theory typically include:

* **A Secret Plot:** The belief that a small group of people are working together in secret to achieve a hidden or nefarious goal.
* **Lack of Evidence:** They are often based on circumstantial evidence, speculation, or misinformation, and they tend to ignore or reinterpret credible, verifiable facts.
* **Resistance to Falsification:** Believers often reject any evidence that contradicts their theory, viewing it as part of the conspiracy itself.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In the onslaught of angles to discuss, we haven't even gotten to this one yet. And it's a good point.
We've established from BB85 what JK said was poorly worded. Mishearing it was easy. Misinterpreting is easy too, as we can see in the PF.
If Carr hears JK as saying the shooter is MAGA on public airways less than a week after a fairly prominent R is murdered, it can be reasonable to conclude Carr has the authority to quell that speech. We have all expressed concern of tempers, copycats, and vigilantes. We have all expressed the hope of cooled rhetoric. Carr's position aligns with the public of all political tribes.

Did he do that well? No. Was it necessary? Judgement call. What should be done? Carr and Kimmel / ABC have a meeting where everyone apologizes. Have a press conference where the public can witness Reconcilliation in real time. Will it happen? Not a chance in Tuscaloosa (hell).

And there has been a pretty clear warning shot from the agency that exists to police these things: "If you've been using these privileged airways to act as partisan shills, do so knowing that it is against the regulations you agreed to, and we're noticing."

 

[CobbVol]

And there has been a pretty clear warning shot from the agency that exists to police these things: "If you've been using these privileged airways to act as partisan shills, do so knowing that it is against the regulations you agreed to, and we're noticing."

Agreed. Carr informed ABC in this case of the of the rules they should already been aware of while also informing the other networks of their duty.

The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC’s rules if:

• The station licensee knew that the information was false;
• Broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm; and
• It was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.

“The public interest means you can’t be running a narrow, partisan circus and still be meeting your public interest obligations,” Carr said. “It means you can’t be engaging in a pattern of news distortion.” He added that he could see Kimmel being suspended, but that barring a suspension, the FCC has “remedies.”

“This also strikes me as sort of conduct that, to some extent, shows some sort of desperate irrelevance. I mean, we’re sort of exiting an era where the three main … legacy broadcast networks could control and dictate the narrative to the American people,” Carr said. “One thing that President Trump did when he ran for office is he ran directly at that legacy media establishment. He smashed the facade that they get to control what we say, what we think, the narrative around events, and we’re seeing a lot of consequences.”

 

[McDad]

And there has been a pretty clear warning shot from the agency that exists to police these things: "If you've been using these privileged airways to act as partisan shills, do so knowing that it is against the regulations you agreed to, and we're noticing."

I don't want anyone to have the power to limit political discourse, though. Whether they can or not in their scope of authority, I don't know. I certainly hope they don't.

 

[McDad]

Agreed. Carr informed ABC in this case of the of the rules they should already been aware of while also informing the other networks of their duty.

The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC’s rules if:

• The station licensee knew that the information was false;
• Broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm; and
• It was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.

“The public interest means you can’t be running a narrow, partisan circus and still be meeting your public interest obligations,” Carr said. “It means you can’t be engaging in a pattern of news distortion.” He added that he could see Kimmel being suspended, but that barring a suspension, the FCC has “remedies.”

“This also strikes me as sort of conduct that, to some extent, shows some sort of desperate irrelevance. I mean, we’re sort of exiting an era where the three main … legacy broadcast networks could control and dictate the narrative to the American people,” Carr said. “One thing that President Trump did when he ran for office is he ran directly at that legacy media establishment. He smashed the facade that they get to control what we say, what we think, the narrative around events, and we’re seeing a lot of consequences.”

Thanks for searching that out. It aligns with what I am thinking.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Remember when the right cared about free speech for two minutes?

Remember when the left cared about blackface and misogyny for two minutes?

View attachment 775048

I had it wrong. It was Karl Malone, not LeBron.
Whatever the case; THIS is the man the left is defending and outright idolizing

 

[OrangeTsar]

The left’s hero du jour

 

[Jkm0920]

Thanks for searching that out. It aligns with what I am thinking.

So instead of stating rules the right is saying "where were you when this was happening to us"?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't want anyone to have the power to limit political discourse, though. Whether they can or not in their scope of authority, I don't know. I certainly hope they don't.

Is it limiting political discourse, or forcing an expansion on publicly owned airwaves? You can't just continually editorialize every issue to hurt one side and then claim to be there for the public good. You can't create a culture where nobody knows what truth is--or where to go for it--and claim to be doing so for the good of the people.

From a free-speech perspective, I find it akin to the "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater" premise. This isn't as white/black as people are trying to make it. Every one of us will agree that there comes a time and place where free speech is limited. The discussion is merely about where the gov't has the right/responsibility to do so, and why.

 

[OrangeTsar]

But wait…..there’s more


If ANY conservative had ever filmed something like that, would they be given even one minute of a show? Much less a multiple year contract worth millions?

The left will forgive and forget ANYTHING if the culprit is anti Trump.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lol.

From AI:
A **conspiracy theory** is an explanation for an event or situation that proposes a secret and often malicious plot by a powerful group or organization.

The key characteristics of a conspiracy theory typically include:

* **A Secret Plot:** The belief that a small group of people are working together in secret to achieve a hidden or nefarious goal.
* **Lack of Evidence:** They are often based on circumstantial evidence, speculation, or misinformation, and they tend to ignore or reinterpret credible, verifiable facts.
* **Resistance to Falsification:** Believers often reject any evidence that contradicts their theory, viewing it as part of the conspiracy itself.

What "secret plot?" The FCC did the threat right in front of our faces and then the affiliates and ABC reacted.

I find most CT's completely implausible because they are vast and require too many working parts. What's happening right now is not even a small conspiracy. It's coercion followed by individual entities responding to the threat in their own best interest. No conspiracy required.

A conspiracy would be me saying the FCC got all these parties in a smoke filled room and secretly coerced them.

You're trying so hard to defend bad behavior from the govenment, and it's disappointing to me.

 

[McDad]

So instead of stating rules the right is saying "where were you when this was happening to us"?

I'm not sure if I understand. If my reply misses the mark, please let me know.

Full disclosure, I am not a good spokesman for the right. I didn't see anything in his post that discussed a frustration about where the rules were when it was happening to them (the right).

If your question is more about the tenor of the posts from our R tribe, I think it's valid. At minimum, that angle is frequently seen here. as the powers alternate, the "victims" do too.

 

[McDad]

Is it limiting political discourse, or forcing an expansion on publicly owned airwaves? You can't just continually editorialize every issue to hurt one side and then claim to be there for the public good. You can't create a culture where nobody knows what truth is--or where to go for it--and claim to be doing so for the good of the people.

From a free-speech perspective, I find it akin to the "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater" premise. This isn't as white/black as people are trying to make it. Every one of us will agree that there comes a time and place where free speech is limited. The discussion is merely about where the gov't has the right/responsibility to do so, and why.

My concern is giving the political class more discretion over what is/is not acceptable.

My wish is that ideas in the form of editorials, opinions, and even artistic expression, compete and are decided in the free market.

 

[McDad]

You're trying so hard to defend bad behavior from the govenment, and it's disappointing to me.

Your judgment and your perception of inference has taken a severe turn for the worse of late. I have discussed the topics without defense. In fact there have only been a few people who have asked me what and how I think. You are not one of them.

You're currently on a 'Trump assassination was staged", "ESPN hates us", "the election was stolen" pathway. In that walk, I am relieved I disappoint you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My concern is giving the political class more discretion over what is/is not acceptable.

I agree completely. It is definitely a thin line we need to walk. My other concern is allowing our public systems as mere propaganda outlets for a political party.

My wish is that ideas in the form of editorials, opinions, and even artistic expression, compete are decided in the free market.

They can be anything they want, and compete in any way they want, in the free market. Go ahead and pay for cable/satellite access and/or start a YouTube channel. If they use free access to public broadcast systems, they need to use them in fair and balanced ways, within the boundaries that they agree to when gaining their licenses.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Curious. So you believe the federal government should ban free speech if it criticizes the political party currently in power.

Not me. I like the 1st Amendment. Perhaps as much if not more than you like the 2nd Amendment.

I will continue to criticize the Orange Menace and his band of moronic thugs... because I can and because they deserve to be criticized. You... you can just fiddle with your guns and what not.

Without the 2nd, you won't have the 1st.