Tigeraholic1 Posted September 19 Posted September 19 7 hours ago, Deleterious said: They even gave him a chance to fix it and he refused. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/how-jimmy-kimmel-benched-by-disney-dana-walden-1236374959/ This. Because advertisers were going to pull out just like Bill Maher. Jimmy wanted to double down and out came the hook. 1 Quote
CMRivdogs Posted September 19 Posted September 19 I find it fascinating that the FCC chairperson doesn't know that networks don't have FCC license's. The licensing applies to STATIONS not networks. Can't Trump find any competent persons. Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 6 hours ago, Deleterious said: I bet the big affiliates have quiet a bit of power. Especially if their business hopes and dreams lie in the hands of the regime. Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 20 minutes ago, mtutiger said: As has been discussed previously, actually firing him probably opens up a viable 1A lawsuit as well (given the FCC's statements on the matter) Depending on which district it winds its way through and whether it lands in the laps of the highest handpicked court in the land. Quote
mtutiger Posted September 19 Posted September 19 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: This. Because advertisers were going to pull out just like Bill Maher. Jimmy wanted to double down and out came the hook. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jimmy-kimmel-out-abc-charlie-kirk-comments-1235430078/ Earlier on Wednesday, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, publicly called on licensed broadcasters to stop airing Kimmel’s show. “I think that it’s really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, ‘Listen, we are going to preempt, we are not going to run Kimmel anymore, until you straighten this out because we, we licensed broadcaster, are running the possibility of fines or license revocation from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion,’” Carr said Wednesday, speaking with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr added. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Care to address this? The FCC Chairman's comments are the *entire* reason this situation happened. There are no emergency meetings, no phone calls, etc. without Carr's comments. Edited September 19 by mtutiger Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: I find it fascinating that the FCC chairperson doesn't know that networks don't have FCC license's. The licensing applies to STATIONS not networks. Can't Trump find any competent persons. And not for nothing, a lot of the lazier media outlets relying on content churners just out of college for keeping their websites filled aren’t regularly questioning it. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 (edited) Also not for nothing: this. All this right here. This is why the hard right, with Trump as its face, keeps doing all the terrible things they know will divide the country. They want people like us fighting with each other, instead of talking with each other, because people who focus on fighting can’t work together to make good things actually happen. People who are divided are easier to conquer. And the people at the top are there to make money off the entire thing. And we down here are the suckers. All of us. It’s working like a charm. How does that phrase go? “A house divided against itself cannot stand?” I think that applies here. Edited September 19 by chasfh Quote
CMRivdogs Posted September 19 Posted September 19 1 minute ago, chasfh said: And not for nothing, a lot of the lazier media outlets relying on content churners just out of college for keeping their websites filled aren’t regularly questioning it. I've been out of the game for so long I'm not sure it matters. Oh, for the days of that dreaded phone call. "The FCC's in town". Way back then we knew his first name. Quote "Jerry Freeman's in town" We all scrambled to get our **** in order. I doubt that happens now Quote
ewsieg Posted September 19 Posted September 19 34 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: This. Because advertisers were going to pull out just like Bill Maher. Jimmy wanted to double down and out came the hook. Jimmy didn't want to double down, he simply wasn't going to apologize for something he felt he didn't do. It was the conservative side that up until recently said we need to stop pussyfooting around everyone's supposed feelings and offering blanket apologies. I have 1 friend in particular that has told me he's MAGA for one reason and one reason only, that the 1st amendment was being attacked by dems and wokeness. I'm sure some of you realize that i'm sympathetic to some of those complaints. But now that he's part of the cult like you, I'm extremely interested in talking to him about Jimmy and wondering how he's going to contort himself and tell me this is a good thing. 2 2 Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 1 hour ago, mtutiger said: Pretty much the same percentage as for practically everything else. Death camps with glass walls built in toney suburbs would probably also get a 50-35 disapproval rating. Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 45 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Jimmy didn't want to double down, he simply wasn't going to apologize for something he felt he didn't do. It was the conservative side that up until recently said we need to stop pussyfooting around everyone's supposed feelings and offering blanket apologies. I wish I could give you three likes for this one. The trolliest part of this whole thing was the demand out of nowhere on Sinclair stationery that Kimmel make a substantial personal donation to Charlie Kirk's despicable TPUSA organization. Sinclair has exactly zero direct ties to that outfit, so what the **** was in it for them to demand that? Quote
oblong Posted September 19 Posted September 19 4 minutes ago, chasfh said: I wish I could give you three likes for this one. The trolliest part of this whole thing was the demand out of nowhere on Sinclair stationery that Kimmel make a substantial personal donation to Charlie Kirk's despicable TPUSA organization. Sinclair has exactly zero direct ties to that outfit, so what the **** was in it for them to demand that? it's just about making bosses happy and is completely above board... at least that's what this dumb **** was told but I caution against listening to what degenerate gamblers have to say about things. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 Too bad we don't have a WOW reaction face I could put on that! Quote
Deleterious Posted September 19 Posted September 19 11 minutes ago, oblong said: it's just about making bosses happy and is completely above board... at least that's what this dumb **** was told but I caution against listening to what degenerate gamblers have to say about things. At least have the balls to addresses me directly. Put your big boys pants on, come out and play. 1 Quote
chasfh Posted September 19 Posted September 19 2 hours ago, Deleterious said: At least have the balls to addresses me directly. Put your big boys pants on, come out and play. I don't know, given that you're a regular on this sidebar, that looked about as direct as it could be without flat out @ing you. Quote
oblong Posted September 19 Posted September 19 He thinks I called him a nazi. Which I did not do. I said his argument/reasoning was not far from those used by Nazis, which is definitely not the same thing as calling someone nazi. It's pointing out the ridiculousness of the foundation of the argument. He responded by calling me a dumb ****. I don't care to carry it on any further. We're big boys here. I don't need macho talk about balls and big boy pants like I'm in middle school. 1 2 Quote
oblong Posted September 19 Posted September 19 5 minutes ago, mtutiger said: Wow That is not something I would have expected in a million years. So much so that I expect him to walk it back. If he doesn't then good for him. That's what Trump's people are doing. Making me agree with Thomas Massie and Ted Freaking Cruz. Quote
mtutiger Posted September 19 Posted September 19 3 minutes ago, oblong said: That is not something I would have expected in a million years. So much so that I expect him to walk it back. If he doesn't then good for him. That's what Trump's people are doing. Making me agree with Thomas Massie and Ted Freaking Cruz. Ted spends more time podcasting than legislating at this point... He understands the precedent being set. 1 Quote
Deleterious Posted September 19 Posted September 19 6 minutes ago, oblong said: He thinks I called him a nazi. Which I did not do. I said his argument/reasoning was not far from those used by Nazis, which is definitely not the same thing as calling someone nazi. It's pointing out the ridiculousness of the foundation of the argument. He responded by calling me a dumb ****. I don't care to carry it on any further. We're big boys here. I don't need macho talk about balls and big boy pants like I'm in middle school. But you are not a big boy, are you? You are a child with zero self-control that attacks people who disagree with you. And you don't want to let it go. The original exchange was over 24 hours ago. You have posted here since and said nothing, then out of the blue you attack me again. That isn't letting it go. That is a child with no self-control. Quote
ewsieg Posted September 19 Posted September 19 5 hours ago, chasfh said: I wish I could give you three likes for this one. The trolliest part of this whole thing was the demand out of nowhere on Sinclair stationery that Kimmel make a substantial personal donation to Charlie Kirk's despicable TPUSA organization. Sinclair has exactly zero direct ties to that outfit, so what the **** was in it for them to demand that? What's in it is that it helps keep them in the good graces of the FCC and Trump. They help Trump, Trump will help Sinclair. Quote
CMRivdogs Posted September 19 Posted September 19 We have a Sinclair station in our market. I'm going to start keeping a log of commercials during their newscasts. Might even stay up to monitor spot loads during the Kimmel replacement time slot. Then start calling the local car dealers, stores, services I see advertised and let them know I'm starting a campaign to boycott them It's my first amendment right. Hit them in the pocketbook. Especially if the station's sales reps get told the reason they are no longer getting buys. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted September 19 Posted September 19 15 hours ago, Deleterious said: 1.7 million viewers across 200 affiliates is only 8,500 viewers per affiliate. Throw an episode of Friends and Seinfeld on and they can do those numbers. ABC sells ads based on all 200 affiliates. If a bunch of them no longer show Kimmel they are refunding ad buys while still paying full price to produce his show. Disney obviously has the means to eat those losses, but they won't want to. You also might end up losing some top tier guests. Why go on a show that doesn't reach a good chunk of the country? I bet the big affiliates have quiet a bit of power. but was it the affiliates who wanted it or just Sinclair management? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.