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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by kiitos »

tptacek wrote: post #62
armenarmen wrote: post #12

The right, has for the past decade or so taken a moral high ground with regards to cancelation. Seems that now they've adopted a "turnaround is fair play" mentality.

This is one of those interminable sprawling message board arguments that has a really simple resolution nobody wants to accept, which is that commitment to free expression and "right/left" are mostly orthogonal, and both the right and the left weaponize commitment to free expression when it makes sense for them to.

cool post, what are you trying to communicate with it? everything is the same, all positions are equivalent, there is no right or wrong?

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

#912

Post by mrguyorama »

sparrish wrote: post #770
jacquesm wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Until you start bragging about it. That changes the perspective completely. I've never heard a farmer or a vet brag about when they had to put down an animal.

I doubt anyone enjoys putting an animal down and there are those who are psychologically unable to do it. They usually ask a neighbor or family member to do the necessary. I disagree that she was bragging about it. I think she was illustrating that she can do what needs done, even the unpleasant parts. I believe it resonated well with anyone who's had to do similar tasks.

>I disagree that she was bragging about it

It was bragging because it's meant to be a story about how she's capable of doing the "hard" things, which is the perspective that reality is tough, and you need to be willing to hurt some people to do "the right" thing.

It's literally Call of Duty's philosophy, that only the "hardest" people, who can do literally cruel and awful things, like illegal torture, because they must be done, and those bleeding heart liberals can't kill a dog if it's the "right" thing.

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

#913

Post by notmyjob »

queenkjuul wrote: post #806
notmyjob wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you should get downvoted but I don’t agree either. He insinuated the shooter was maga, but in a way that was “perfect” in terms of deniability. I think that sort of rhetorical sleight of hand by our media elites is why we are where we are now with killing each other and societal Discord, so alas it’s better for society if Kimmel is off the airwaves. But the quote itself is rather tame. First, they came…

The FCC came for Glenn Beck? When?

The FFC should not have power over broadcasters. I totally agree we should weaken or even get rid of the FCC if needed to preserve absolute freedom of speech. I also think advertisers and big corporations should not dictate what cannot be said, hence my comment. So we agree after all?

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

#914

Post by hnuser123456 »

slg wrote: post #897
hnuser123456 wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all whit…

>Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. This is why I think the American government is doomed in its current construction. First past the post voting has conditioned people like you to believe that everything is binary. You describe a world with only two parties that can have no dissentio…

Oh trust me, I saw the CGPgrey video about the issues with first past the post pretty soon after it was uploaded 14 years ago, I know that it doesn't have to be two parties who have to convert all opinions into binary and pick a side. If there's ever an initiative to change that to ranked voting, I'll gladly vote for that proposal. People will have to do a lot more critical thinking if they can't just keep pointing to the same bogeyman over and over.

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

#915

Post by mrguyorama »

nebula8804 wrote: post #487
thehappypm wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“All media” is a huge stretch.. legacy hyper regulated media maybe

YouTube recently introduced an AI-driven policy that automatically places suspected under-18 accounts into Restricted Mode, which blocks access to political and news content. This happens because lots of people are sharing accounts with their kids and despite Youtubers attempts to change this there are large amount of viewers who actually dont subscribe to channels. This change has already caused independent creators…

>YouTube recently introduced an AI-driven policy that automatically places suspected under-18 accounts into Restricted Mode

This is blatantly false. This was a single youtube channel's mistaken belief

It was incorrect. Restricted Mode is completely unrelated to the issue, and plenty of the videos that are doing just fine are not available if you have restricted mode on.

There's still no definitive answer IMO, but it might be that an analytics endpoint was blocked by ad blockers.

Note that the people affected by this problem say they are getting the same revenue, just view counts changed. That means their videos are getting the same number of not-adblocked views.

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

#916

Post by [deleted] »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #870
fhdkweig wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who want to see the full clip in context, he has a youtube channel (for now). The video in question is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA (Sept 16, 2025) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3YdxNSzTk (Sept 15, 2025)

The quote cited in TFA claims that the murderer was "one of them". Now, why would someone take out a prominent spokesperson for their own party? They wouldn't, because that's not something that people do to other people they agree with. But somehow, people interpret that remark to make sense? The remark only makes sense if "one of them" refers to the fact the shooter was a white male, and the reader believes all whit…

[deleted]

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

#917

Post by gruez »

baobun wrote: post #512
gruez wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. Off topic, but has there been convincing evidence that the suspect is right wing/MAGA, as Kimmel implied? I've seen some posts on reddit to this effect, but they're far from convincing.

There is no such implication there.

There is, despite the fact that a strict reading would turn up no such implication. However taking into account the phrasing and the general zeitgeist on reddit (and similar left-leaning circles), it's pretty obvious what he was trying to do. Imagine you read a passage that said:

>The sugar industry desperately trying to characterize the obesity crisis as being caused by anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it

what would your conclusion be? That sugar isn't a contributing factor to obesity?

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

#918

Post by abustamam »

suzdude wrote: post #428
JLO64 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm somewhat convinced that (at least among the younger generation) the role that these talkshow hosts held has already been replaced by live streamers and podcasters. Even Conan has transitioned into primarily focusing on podcasts while others refused to adapt and stuck to the networks. 10 years ago I'm fairly certain these moves would have been met with a strong reaction from the public, but now nobody cares...

It seems like there is, and will be, a strong reaction from the public (I may, of course, be hoping for something I'd like to see). This thread is certainly active with those critical of the administration. Note, the public at large did not know what Kimmel said until now. The Streisand effect is coming into play, because it was so uncontroversial. The podcast part, I agree, although it's sad in someways, as it demol…

Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I like late night TV. I don't have cable so I just caught Colbert and The Daily Show on YouTube the next day but for some reason podcasts just don't jive with me. I can't exactly say why. There are some podcasts I'll tune into sometimes (like Ramit Seth's money for couples, or Strike Force Five which had the Jimmy's and Colbert) but other than that, nada. Rather listen to an audio book.

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

#919

Post by kulahan »

dfxm12 wrote: post #449
kulahan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think they need to. I think they just need to shake hands and say it’s okay to have a different opinion. There have been a number of studies around the world, plus some real world examples (Utah gubernatorial 2020) where showing your opponents in a sympathetic light can make a big difference in reductions in political polarization. It’s especially effective when signaled by the “elite”: https://journals.sagep…

Counterpoint: dehumanizing trans people, black people, other minorities, women, is not acceptable. It's not "a different opinion". When Republican politicians or prominent conservative talking heads talk about replacement theory, other conservatives shoot up synagogues or super markets in a minority neighborhood. I don't want to talk to you if this is what you support, unless what you're saying is you've had a change…

Why would they have a change of heart when the only people interested in that happening refuse to engage?

All you’re doing is ensuring the strength of their beliefs.

Edit: You don’t have to like someone to not actively attack them at every opportunity, even if what they believe is reprehensible to you.

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

#920

Post by zeven7 »

nabla9 wrote: post #906
zeven7 wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizations are led by humans. > Stop criticizing large corporations as moral entities. They have no other incentives other than money. I want better for the world.

Ask for regulation. Amoral entities can work towards good goals when incentives are right. Empty moral grandstanding does not help.

> Amoral entities

Organizations are led by humans.

I want better for the world.

Post reply on HN