Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#781

Post by gsf_emergency_2 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #759
gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cancel culture" gets piled on by conservatives sometimes because it's such an obvious own goal that used to be a prerogative of the right I might be off my rocker on this, but! > prove me wrong Is such a right-wing to say. Because it signals that a conservative believes that *self-improvement is possible*. (Their actions tend to suggest otherwise-- Thiel and Wolfram are my go-to not even mala (fide) examples. Lack o…

Yeah. Klein did a good interview with Ben Shapiro in his last pod https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAqG00FUOK8 who covers a lot of ground: Shapiro seems rather strong when it comes to articulating that idea of personal responsibility but his satanization of the economic left (e.g. Bernie Sanders) seems forced and unreasonable and Klein sorta "owns" him when it comes to pointing out that many of Trump and Vance's polic…

>leftist who enjoys the culture wars

Ah, here was a great place to substitute your coinage "identarian"-- Ime I can't distinguish the identarians who enjoy the culture wars in terms of left from right (unless we equate right with white, & that's something we have to amicably agree to disagree :) one could forgiveably id the killer of Kirk as a right-identarian, eg, but that still feels less correct than simply "identarian" (normal folks would not resort to moderately planned violence).. you can see by the shell engravings TR sort of took pleasure in the planning vs Luigi..

(Yes, in other words, the economic left, or more precisely the nonpractising left, was too welcoming of identarians in precisely the same way the churchgoing center wasnt- 1970s to mid 1980s)

Now as for "leftist" in [3] I'd assume you mean "what passes for a classic leftist (like Bernie & 2000s Paul) amongst the millennials/gen z". More to say here, insurance over taxes is imho the correct Marxist valuation.. ? After all "from each according to his ability etc etc" is a succinct description of insurance

>due process is as much a problem as it is a solution

Now this is an interesting take, well, I can see Klein saying it in exasperation (in the podcast-to-be-read-- thanks!), but what is your emotional-valence here? (I can guess, but the guess would be more intricate than I can jot down from the hip :)

A mini-shot though.. if one truly enjoys hard work, problems would be as much of a joy as solutions. Centrists (like PG and "functional" Grothendieck) would be careful to tolerate schlep without seeing value in labor-in-itself.. schizos right+epsilon of center, or stoics* left+epsilon a-ways.. however..

*I would substitute "epicureans" here, but "stoics" would do fine for pedantry

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#782

Post by nobody9999 »

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #721
lojban wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between top down cancellation and bottom up cancellation. Do you think the CEO would have fired you for being conservative? Or do you think your career wouldn't have advanced because people wouldn't want to associate with someone who's always saying things they find abhorrent?

I think people wouldn't have wanted to work with me or listen to my opinions. I don't think the CEO would care, but down at my level, what the CEO thinks doesn't matter. It's all about peers and adjacent teams. And I never voice any political opinions at work because I don't want to say anything my peers would perceive as "abhorrent".

>I think people wouldn't have wanted to work with me or listen to my opinions.

If I was your co-worker, I wouldn't want to know your non-work related opinions, especially your political opinions. That assumes we're not working on someone's political campaign.

Your opinions that don't relate to your job are irrelevant -- at work. And as such, why would anyone, whether they agree with you or not, want to hear you (or anyone else) pontificate about how you "Like Ike" and that his Vice President would make a much better President than that (gasp!) Catholic, rum-runner/gangster's son from Massachusetts.

Yes, I'm deliberately using examples from 65+ years ago. Because it doesn't matter what the content of those opinions are. Unless you work for the RNCC or the DNC, etc. those opinions have no value or meaning in the workplace.

I'm not afraid to express my opinions, but I choose not to do so while I'm actively on the job. That you do it out of fear is, on the one hand, unfortunate but, on the other hand, a good thing as no one really wants to hear them anyway.

Keep up the good work!

>And I never voice any political opinions at work because I don't want to say anything my peers would perceive as "abhorrent".

Good. I'm sure that, regardless of how you think your peers would perceive your opinions, they are much less interested in those opinions than they are about the quality and quantity of your work, your opinions of the work and work environment, and how you interact on a personal level with others.

Edit: Fixed typo.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#783

Post by ProllyInfamous »

suzdude wrote: post #614

Mel Brooks had the right of it. Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery. The ideology is too outrageous to survive any such scrutiny. Why else would the administration be so afraid of a few jokes?

You have much more eloquently conveyed what I was (admittedly: not well) expressing earlier [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482#45283234

Thank you for helping me think about / express this better.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#785

Post by ProllyInfamous »

tstrimple wrote: post #567
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #173

I am largely neutral on this particular assassination, as I knew almost nothing about Mr. Kirk prior to his departure (just name recognition & basic political associations). But I do think, after decades of reflection, that comedians are correct when they point out that stereotypical humor shouldn't be off limits to any performer (of any background/color), but is... e.g. Owen Benjamin, Chappelle, Seinfeld .

> that comedians are correct when they point out that stereotypical humor shouldn't be off limits to any performer (of any background/color), but is... e.g. Owen Benjamin, Chappelle, Seinfeld. You're quoting a Chappelle joke that he made literally from a fucking netflix special. He's definitely been "cancelled" making millions off of trans jokes. Amazing evidence that comedy is illegal now. I honestly don't know how…

Another comment better-expressed what I was attempting to convey, yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45286263

>Mel Brooks had the right of it. Fascism and Authoritarianism is defeated by satire and mockery. The ideology is too outrageous to survive any such scrutiny.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#786

Post by bitshiftfaced »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #352

This feels like an overreach, maybe. The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" [1], but in practice I don't think that gets invoked very often (I'm sure morning DJs would be fired en masse if they were actually held to the standard of proven, objective truth!) I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcastin…

If I'm understanding it correctly, the FCC didn't actually do anything here. The FCC chairman made, at worst, a threat. ABC immediately pulled the show, and news article's link this to license approvals and such.

But if the FCC actually strong armed the media due to political reasons, would it stand up in the courts? Disney has more than enough money to fight it. One possibility is that they're using this as an opportunity to cut the show, which maybe they were leaning towards anyway. It effectively redirects blame to the FCC instead of the company that actually made the decision.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#787

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bitlax wrote: post #751
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the original text was, but FoxNews keeps trying to play up a tenuous trans angle, which they keep back tracking on. It is weird, creepy, and I really should stop looking at the FoxNews homepage to figure out what the other side is thinking.

What's tenuous about it?

Very indirect and circumstantial. “Hey his roommate was trans this must be why!” You can tell that even FoxNews doesn’t believe it since they keep pulling it off the page. Edit, oh they are back at it again: “ Relative reveals why roommate of Kirk's alleged assassin was kicked out of parents’ home”. At least they aren’t mentioning trans anymore but come on, but the comments are still really toxic. See https://www.foxnews.com/us/charlie-kirk-alleged-assassins-ro...

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#788

Post by justin66 »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #786
phendrenad2 wrote: post #352

This feels like an overreach, maybe. The FCC does have the strange task of regulating "false information" [1], but in practice I don't think that gets invoked very often (I'm sure morning DJs would be fired en masse if they were actually held to the standard of proven, objective truth!) I'm hoping that this is just the high watermark, and not the new standard. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcastin…

If I'm understanding it correctly, the FCC didn't actually do anything here. The FCC chairman made, at worst, a threat. ABC immediately pulled the show, and news article's link this to license approvals and such. But if the FCC actually strong armed the media due to political reasons, would it stand up in the courts? Disney has more than enough money to fight it. One possibility is that they're using this as an oppor…

This reads as if you're unaware of the upcoming merger some of the parties involved would very much like the FCC to approve.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#789

Post by jjfoooo4 »

dada78641 wrote: post #667

It really is kind of incredible. I just saw the clip and there really is absolutely nothing there. This is not even 10% as poignant of what Jon Stewart would say in his day. He doesn't even say anything about Kirk himself, or even about the murder—he just talks about the reaction to it. I already thought it was very suspicious that Sinclair's official press release just talks about how the remarks were "inappropriate…

The Sinclair statement is just bizarre. Kimmel is to pay restitution to Kirk's (millionaire) widow because of statements he made about the political reaction to his death?

The pretext is really falling away.

Re: ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from FCC chair

#790

Post by normalaccess »

allturtles wrote: post #768
normalaccess wrote: post #754

I am no fan of Jimmy's show but this seems out of line. My tinfoil hat thinks this might be a way for Sinclair to "justly" remove a show that has been loosing ratings by riding the popular wave and saving some face. According to sites like https://televisionstats.com/s/jimmy-kimmel-live he wasn't even in the top 500 TV shows Band of Brothers a show from 24 years ago still gets more viewers that Jimmy get's now.

That data appears to be nonsense based on "online audience engagement," not viewership. According to that very source, Jimmy Kimmel is the #6 tv show as of today!

Good to know, it was quick back of napkin math. Slightly less tinfoil.
Post reply on HN