Comments on: Kimmel, TV, and government coercion

By: Cappy

Cappy — Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:30:12 +0000

Thanks for posting this. Liberals built it, and they own it.

By: neo

neo — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 18:40:32 +0000

Scott:

A piece of advice, not that you’ll take it: if you come to troll, don’t lie and say you’re the big courageous truthteller, especially when your lie is so easily exposed by the actual quote from Kimmel.

It’s not courageous to lie about someone. In the case of what Kimmel actually said, the truth is plenty bad enough.

I’m also amused by your contention that I’m taking up the spot of other people. What an odd notion.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 17:37:35 +0000

Yes, he explicitly said the killer was MAGA. That’s what it means when he says it’s “one of them”. If you’re going to be this much of a coward, then just stfu and let the people who actually have the spine to speak the truth have your spot.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:00:54 +0000

If I understand correctly, federal legislation enacted in 1928 and 1934, the country was divvied up into local catchments which were in turn assembled into regional catchments. The wattage of a station was limited by the dimensions of its catchment. X number of licenses were assigned each catchment and twenty licenses were allocated to ‘clear channel’ stations which could reach the whole country at night. However, the deliberations which went into the award of licenses were occult. IMO, it would have been better had the licenses been auctioned for six year periods by qualified bidders who had signed on to a set of terms-and-conditions. A ‘qualified bidder’ might have been defined as a proprietorship, partnership, or limited corporation whose shareholders were all American citizens who had a domicile in the catchment in question. You might limit by law an individual or married couple to stakes in no more than eight stations, require that those changing their residence arrange a private sale of their stake in due time or submit to an auction of their stake, and prohibit the leasing of licenses. The terms-and-conditions, a violation of which could generate a suit to seize your license and debar you from bidding for a term of years, might be to limit advertising chatter to fifteen minutes per hour and to avoid broadcasting smut as defined by a practice manual. The regulations might have favored syndicated programming and the formation of co-operative networks like Mutual over corporate networks like CBS. “Equal time” rules, especially the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ were always a bad business. See Nat Hentoff’s remarks on the Fairness Doctrine derived from his experience as a radio announcer ca. 1949.
==
IIRC, cable services ca. 1978 were natural monopolies. The FCC could have required local authorities to auction the franchises. Does anyone familiar with the technology understand why cable channels are offered in packages and not a la carte?

By: Selfy

Selfy — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 06:59:35 +0000

I heard that Kimmel got dual Italian/USA citizenship last month. Wouldn’t it be nice if he emigrated, and took his wife with him?
(Sorry, posted earlier in wrong thread.)

By: Chases Eagles

Chases Eagles — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 04:12:33 +0000

Kimmel’s wife is executive producer and head writer??? Wow, triple dippers. Also, a whole lot of people are extremely confused about free speech.

By: DisGuested

DisGuested — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 03:36:06 +0000

He was taken off the air because Nexstar media said its affiliates would not broadcast the show. ABC followed suit because the lying violates FCC public airwave rules. I saw the clip. There was nothing funny about it, it didn’t even look like he was trying to make any joke. It was reminiscent of Jon Stewart on the Daily Show being serious about current events as if he were a news anchor. I’m for free speech and he said what he wanted to. The program owner is free to exercise their right to take this cratering money suck off the network.
PS: The soulless ghouls have outed themselves by being more upset at someone losing their job over something they said vs Charlie Kirk losing his life for what he said

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 01:15:55 +0000

Daily Mail says shots were fired at an ABC affiliate in Sacramento, after a previous pro-Kimmel demonstration.

By: huxley

huxley — Sat, 20 Sep 2025 00:32:27 +0000

As for the people trying to excuse him as a comedian “joking around”. His tone was dead serious and no one in the audience was laughing. He was not joking. He was pushing a narrative as hard as he could as that narrative was being totally destroyed.

Martin:

That’s the way I read Kimmel’s performance.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 23:43:23 +0000

Unlike the expressing of a sincere difference of opinion (Bill Maher), it is in lying with malicious intent (Jimmy Kimmel) that reveals a soul filled with excrement. However overdue, the removal of excrement is always to be welcomed. Yet the Jimmy Kimmels are symptomatic not causal. He could never have risen to public prominence in a society composed primarily of “a moral and religious people”.