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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by nobody9999 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #681
davesque wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MAGA did, in fact, do their best over the weekend to cast the shooter as anything other than one of them. Comments made in poor taste? Maybe? Not really? No poorer taste than the president saying on Fox & Friends that he "couldn't care less" about promoting unity after the Kirk shooting. Next point, from NYTimes article covering this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-... "The abrupt decisio…

>So yes, ABC/Nexstar are within their editorial rights to make this decision, but that decision came at an awfully conspicuous time. So what, nothing to see here? {Paraphrasing for those who don't get it] Brendan Carr: That Kimmel guy sure is a pill. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comic? Hey ABC, It would be a shame if something bad happened to you guys, wouldn't it? In fact, let's do some investigating to mak…

Amazing how my defense of the First Amendment (in a sibling comment) earned flagging and death.

Is that the death rattle for the First Amendment? I hope not

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

#982

Post by mcintyre1994 »

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…

Have you read that document?

> The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired.

> FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”

> Broadcasters may air disclaimers that clearly characterize programming as fiction to avoid violating FCC rules about public harm.

It’s very obvious that Kimmel didn’t cause, and couldn’t have caused, any public harm.

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

#983

Post by tsoukase »

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…

Both Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel do funny anti-governmental shows, but the difference is the former is kind of silly, superficial, low-impact, short-sighted while the latter is more influential, serious and capable to generate opposition.

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

#984

Post by Smeevy »

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…

They "didn't do anything" in the same way that a mob boss saying that someone should be "dealt with" didn't mean for that someone to be murdered.

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

#985

Post by ModernMech »

alpha_squared wrote: post #48

I'm unsure where we as a society go from here. The left's cancel culture resulted in the firing of private citizens from their jobs, or at least some reprimand. The right's cancel culture is the full weight of the federal government brought down against opposition, in stark violation of the First Amendment; that is, until the Supreme Court can find some new carve-out for why this isn't protected speech. Realistically…

> Realistically, how could anyone be okay with the level of power this administration is wielding? I struggle to see a peaceful transfer of this specific set of powers. Unless the assumption is just that the left will always behave "more responsibly."

As with all authoritarian regimes, their assumption is that this is the end of history and those in power today will be in power forever. You're also right that they believe liberals will never do what they're doing now.

But the old guard is dying. Trump, Bush, Biden, Clinton, Obama are all boomers+ who will be dead sooner rather than later. The younger generation realizes the pendulum is about to swing, power will be ours to take, and you can be damn sure we will not behave like our parents and grandparents did.

So me personally, when I see them take Kimmel off the air for "not serving the public interest", all I hear is permission for the first progressive millennial president to shut down all of right wing AM talk radio on that same basis. And you know who else sees it that way? Right wing AM talk radio hosts, who have been the only ones on the right asking MAGA to pump the brakes on what they're doing (see: Tucker Carlson).

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

#986

Post by ModernMech »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #925
UmGuys wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no comparison here. The left's "cancel culture" doesn't exist and is literally free speech in action. This is the destruction of free speech. I think you have to participate in social media to understand what the left's cancel culture is because it's just a bunch of individuals expressing their opinions. Hence many are out of the loop. I wouldn't refer to authoritarian regimes as "cancel culture".

I'm 100% against what's happening rn with Trump's fascism, but let's not pretend that there was no cancel culture on the left and pressure on companies. Example: Disney itself fired Gina Carano from The Mandalorian because of comments she made. There was no gov interference -- so what's happening here is much much worse -- but there was a fear (valid or otherwise) of blowback/ratings/whatever.

> There was no gov interference -- so what's happening here is much much worse

That's what the other poster is saying. There's a difference between "cancel culture" and what's happening here. Cancel culture is culture, meaning it's something that arises spontaneously through group dynamics, not something that's directed by the government. Yes, Disney fired Gina Carano, but not because Biden tweeted out "Gina Carano is next" and his FCC director said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way". It was because a bunch of Disney's customers pressured Disney.

And that's how the free market / free speech is supposed to work. If that's somehow reprehensible and antisocial, then fine, but then we need to rethink the entire idea of free market capitalism; if the government prevents me and my friends from boycotting some shitty company, then that's not a free market, and what we're doing is crony capitalism, which is just the worst of all worlds.

Can you propose a speech model that supports free speech but disallows cancel culture? As far as I can tell, you'd have to limit free expression and association from the top down to enforce that.

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

#987

Post by rdtsc »

thrance wrote: post #864
rdtsc wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but it's written on a bullet meant to assassinate someone in real life. Had it been in the context of playing video games, I would see it just being a game quote. Ok, fine, but then "Bella ciao" is an anti-Nazi and anti-fascist Italian folk song (at least according to wikipedia) [1], so, we got a hard right winger, mentioning killing fascists and listening to Bella ciao killing someone like Charlie Kirk.…

The guy was at best confused in his ideological leanings. He held midly leftist ideas on some issues and right wing ideas on others, like on gun ownership. Typical of a young Utah white guy, I'd say. He was raised in a die-hard Trump Christian family. He allegedly had some LGBT friends too, and got angry at Kirk's rhetoric against them as a group. Which, if you knew Kirk before his murder, framing LGBT people as dege…

> The guy was at best confused in his ideological leanings. He held midly leftist ideas on some issues and right wing ideas on others, like on gun ownership.

I am wondering how did Jimmy know what his leanings where? It didn't seem like a guess. The language was pretty definite.

I guess someone found his gun ownership views online. I mean besides using a gun to shoot Kirk, which I don't think anyone needs to hold any ideological leanings to acquire a weapon in US. For instance, if I hear of shootings in Chicago overnight, I am not thinking "it's those 2nd amendment nuts again".

> Typical of a young Utah white guy, I'd say.

I'd agree but only if it wasn't shooting someone like Kirk. If some unknown John Doe was killed somewhere in Utah I can see making a guess that it's probably some maga trumper person doing it. And it would still be a wild guess. Here it seems there was more than a wild guess. And common sense would dictate the guess should have been the opposite -- it's someone opposed to Kirk and maga and all that stuff not for it. And it should been emphasized it's a just a wild guess until it becomes more obvious.

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

#988

Post by actualwitch »

alpha_squared wrote: post #48

I'm unsure where we as a society go from here. The left's cancel culture resulted in the firing of private citizens from their jobs, or at least some reprimand. The right's cancel culture is the full weight of the federal government brought down against opposition, in stark violation of the First Amendment; that is, until the Supreme Court can find some new carve-out for why this isn't protected speech. Realistically…

Society's failure was taking gamergaters seriously. It was the beginning, slippery slope into full on totalitarian censorship but because basic human respect was framed as oppression it served as invitation for tit for tat retaliation. This tactic has been ridiculously successful in turning extremest ideas mainstream, and it was obvious to many people even back then, however because it exploits human nature it's hard to fight. You can find the most ridiculous crazies that present as "other side" and use it to justify whatever you want, and if you keep repeating "this is totally normal" some people just start to believe. If you are interested in finding the peaceful way to oppose this, I invite you to try and come up with the answer to this "totalitarian ratchet" because no one so far figured it out and it is a foundational part of modern authoritarian playbook.

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

#989

Post by slg »

qcnguy wrote: post #971
slg wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The US isn't designed to ensure a two party system. FPTP can allow many parties. The UK is an example of that. America has two parties because both parties are very internally open. Democrats have given up on that in the last few primaries but that's still very new, and Republicans are still open. You can enter as an outsider and take over the parties. That's how the Republicans ended up with Trump. If the two partie…

I'll admit I was being somewhat simplistic blaming exclusively first past the post voting. The real problem is the combination of FPTP and our presidential system. That is what makes the US converge to a two party system, not the open primaries you mention.

The UK having a parliamentary system counteracts this due to when the coalition building step happens. In a parliamentary system, the government is formed via coalition building in the parliament after an election. However, the US being a presidential system means that post-election coalition building would be too late to impact the chief executive, the coalition must be built before the election. This combined with FPTP is what yields our two party system.

For example, imagine the US has an even 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans. Now imagine the tension in the Democratic Party boils over and the party splits into Liberals and Progressives. Maybe some Republicans were really centrists, so they peel off to the center-left Liberal party. That might leave us with a breakdown of 45% Republicans, 35% Liberals, and 20% Progressives. This almost guarantees the president will be a Republican. Despite attracting a majority of voters, the Progressives and Liberals costs themselves a chance at winning by splitting. They would have a natural incentive to merge their parties again before the next presidential election. But if this was a parliamentary system, the Liberals and Progressives would now make up 55% of the parliament and they could successfully form a government together and choose a PM without having to actually merge parties.

The reason I blamed this entirely on FPTP in my original comment is because something like ranked choice voting is a much more reasonable change that the US could adopt. Shifting from a presidential system to a parliamentary system is an unlikely enough change that I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

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

#990

Post by insane_dreamer »

ModernMech wrote: post #986
insane_dreamer wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 100% against what's happening rn with Trump's fascism, but let's not pretend that there was no cancel culture on the left and pressure on companies. Example: Disney itself fired Gina Carano from The Mandalorian because of comments she made. There was no gov interference -- so what's happening here is much much worse -- but there was a fear (valid or otherwise) of blowback/ratings/whatever.

> There was no gov interference -- so what's happening here is much much worse That's what the other poster is saying. There's a difference between "cancel culture" and what's happening here. Cancel culture is culture , meaning it's something that arises spontaneously through group dynamics, not something that's directed by the government. Yes, Disney fired Gina Carano, but not because Biden tweeted out "Gina Carano…

Yeah, I agree with the way you described it here. Businesses taking corrective action because of customer pressure, or to avoid boycotts or bad media coverage, has long been around, and is just the market. So long as the gov doesn't get involved, that's fine.

If it was just a matter of ABC cancelling Kimmel because they were afraid they'd lose ratings, or even because their new owners dislike Kimmel and his messaging, that's fine and not suppression of free speech. It's the fear of gov action against them that is problematic. Even trying to curry favor with the gov by replacing a talk show host with one more favorable to the gov, is probably still within the realm of "business decision" and not suppression of free speech -- though on the other hand, media shouldn't _need_ to curry favor with the gov because the gov is supposed to be _impartial_ to speech and only gets involved if laws/regulations are being broken. But companies trying to get on the gov's good side seems to be a (bad) feature of capitalism that I don't think we'll ever get rid of.

By the way, the self-censoring that ABC did, for fear of gov retaliation, is exactly how things work in China. The gov doesn't need to censor media companies there -- they self-censor because they know the consequences if they don't.

So basically the Trump admin is no better than communist China (though China's not actually communist, but rather just authoritarian).

Post reply on HN