Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[Edman85]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

Were you guys in the same uproar when Rosanne Barr was removed from her TV show for her views?  How about when Donald Trump when he was removed from Social Media over his views?  Kimmel has been wronged because you agree with what he said?

Did Biden or his appointees pressure the companies to do any of that?

THAT'S the difference.

Carr and Trump have been behind this, with enough plausible deniability for you to come back and say "nuh uh."

[Mr.TaterSalad]

26 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Did Biden or his appointees pressure the companies to do any of that?

THAT'S the difference.

Carr and Trump have been behind this, with enough plausible deniability for you to come back and say "nuh uh."

The other key difference between Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump is that to my knowledge, Jimmy Kimmel did not insight violence. Nor did Jimmy Kimmel attempt a violent coup d'etat to stay in power in an elected, public office on January 6th. Nor did Jimmy Kimmel violet any oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Nor did Jimmy Kimmel attempt to appoint or support appointing fake Electors in a scheme to thwart the Electoral Count Act. Nor did Jimmy Kimmel encourage people to go to the US Capitol building to physically try and stop the electoral vote process from occurring.
 

Trump's attempts to insight violence and his attempts at a coup d'etat to stay in power were primary reasons he was canceled off of social media I do believe. I believe his bans on Facebook and Twitter came after January 6th's attempted insurrection and coup d'etat, did they not?

Edited 12 hours ago by Mr.TaterSalad

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Were you guys in the same uproar when Rosanne Barr was removed from her TV show for her views?  How about when Donald Trump when he was removed from Social Media over his views?  Kimmel has been wronged because you agree with what he said?

I forget—which FCC commissioner was it who publicly called for ABC to remove Roseanne from the show?

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, mtutiger said:

There ya go.

Make Sinclair the one to deprive the people of their entertainment choices.

It's worth remembering that Sinclair and Nexstar cover only small fraction of ABC's potential nationwide audience, and that most of that audience reside in small markets. They have 56 of ABC affiliates in the 210 markets, but only 14 of them are in Top 50 markets, covering 8.6% of US TV households; while 14 more are in markets 51-100 covering 3.4% of US TV HH; and the remaining 28 are in markets 101-210 covering 1.2% of US TV HH.

So, 56 of 210 markets sounds like a lot, and it's not nothing, but grand total, the "ban" covers only about 13.3% of US TV HHs, which is fewer than the number of TV households in the New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago DMAs combined.

It's because Sinclair and Nexstar focus on affiliates in small markets, many of those in deep ruby red areas, populated by people who probably didn't watch much Kimmel—or other late night talk shows—in the first place.

So in the final analysis, all this posturing by the companies is for the benefit of an audience of one, and by extension, for both the minions who work for him and the red hats who idolize him.

[romad1]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

It's worth remembering that Sinclair and Nexstar cover only small fraction of ABC's potential nationwide audience, and that most of that audience reside in small markets. They have 56 of ABC affiliates in the 210 markets, but only 14 of them are in Top 50 markets, covering 8.6% of US TV households; while 14 more are in markets 51-100 covering 3.4% of US TV HH; and the remaining 28 are in markets 101-210 covering 1.2% of US TV HH.

So, 56 of 210 markets sounds like a lot, and it's not nothing, but grand total, the "ban" covers only about 13.3% of US TV HHs, which is fewer than the number of TV households in the New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago DMAs combined.

It's because Sinclair and Nexstar focus on affiliates in small markets, many of those in deep ruby red areas, populated by people who probably didn't watch much Kimmel—or other late night talk shows—in the first place.

So in the final analysis, all this posturing by the companies is for the benefit of an audience of one, and by extension, for both the minions who work for him and the red hats who idolize him.

Sinclair has the Washington DC ABC station which means they are serving their very angry customers by denying them the 1st Amendment.  

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

It's worth remembering that Sinclair and Nexstar cover only small fraction of ABC's potential nationwide audience, and that most of that audience reside in small markets. They have 56 of ABC affiliates in the 210 markets, but only 14 of them are in Top 50 markets, covering 8.6% of US TV households; while 14 more are in markets 51-100 covering 3.4% of US TV HH; and the remaining 28 are in markets 101-210 covering 1.2% of US TV HH.

So, 56 of 210 markets sounds like a lot, and it's not nothing, but grand total, the "ban" covers only about 13.3% of US TV HHs, which is fewer than the number of TV households in the New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago DMAs combined.

It's because Sinclair and Nexstar focus on affiliates in small markets, many of those in deep ruby red areas, populated by people who probably didn't watch much Kimmel—or other late night talk shows—in the first place.

So in the final analysis, all this posturing by the companies is for the benefit of an audience of one, and by extension, for both the minions who work for him and the red hats who idolize him.

Nexstar is in the process of purchasing another 56 or so stations from TENGA Broadcasting many of them ABC affiliates. 
Flood the FCC with letters requesting they do not approve this merger as it waters down the competition in the market 

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Nexstar is in the process of purchasing another 56 or so stations from TENGA Broadcasting many of them ABC affiliates. 
Flood the FCC with letters requesting they do not approve this merger as it waters down the competition in the market 

By the time the deal goes through and they take control of the Tenga stations, the Kimmel thing will be a distant memory, supplanted by hundreds of subsequent horrors big and small, and all super important for one news cycle.

[Motor City Sonics]

If ABC, on their own accord decided to suspend Jimmy Kimmel it's not a free speech violation.   Your employer has a right to make that decidsion

But when the FCC pressures ABC to suspend someone, then it IS a free speech violation. 

 

Pretty thick hair to split there.       

 

Gilbert Gottfried getting fired by Aflac after offensive comments post 2011 earthquake is not a violation.  Obama never pressured Aflac to do it.  

Hey, we're going to hire a comedian known for his vulgar humor -  nothing could go wrong there, huh?  

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, romad1 said:

Sinclair has the Washington DC ABC station which means they are serving their very angry customers by denying them the 1st Amendment.  

Sinclair owns stations in Rochester, NY, St Louis and the Champaign/Urbana/Peoria/Springfield markets. Their ownership leans red, but it's more mixed than is given credit for. 

Nexstar is similar, they own stations all across Upstate New York (Syracuse, Binghamton Albany), Hartford CT, and Richmond VA.

I don't see any way how this doesn't harm all of them more than Disney/ABC running Kimmel harms Disney.

[Archie]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I forget—which FCC commissioner was it who publicly called for ABC to remove Roseanne from the show?

Disney also fired Gina Carano from the Mandelorian for her conservative comments. I think she won a lawsuit against them.  Was that wrong?  Kimmel comments were over the top and in very bad taste. He should be punished by his employer for being stupid and making them look bad.

[Motor City Sonics]

7 minutes ago, Archie said:

Disney also fired Gina Carano from the Mandelorian for her conservative comments. I think she won a lawsuit against them.  Was that wrong?  Kimmel comments were over the top and in very bad taste. He should be punished by his employer for being stupid and making them look bad.

But it's not up to the FCC to force that.........

[romad1]

10 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

But it's not up to the FCC to force that.........

I do remember when that bint was fired as a result of Joe Biden ordering the FCC to make it so.  

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

But it's not up to the FCC to force that.........

exactly. If ABC or Sinclair pull a show the right or the left argue the merits and can make as big a deal about it and try to create all the PR and economic pressure over it they can, and ALL of THAT is just a matter of free commerce. As soon as the US Government or any of it's duly authorized representatives, in particular a regulator of said media,  weigh in, THEN it's immediately a potential constitutional issue. Don't know why this has be clarified and re-clarified at every one of these episodes. The same public that can remember what happened on Survivor Season 1 episode 5 can't keep a little constitutional knowledge in their head long enough to bridge from one media controversy to the next. 

Edited 7 hours ago by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

exactly. If ABC or Sinclair pull a show the right or the left argue the merits and can make as big a deal about it and try to create all the PR and economic pressure over it they can, and ALL of THAT is just a matter of free commerce. As soon as the US Government or any of it's duly authorized representatives, in particular a regulator of said media,  weigh in, THEN it's immediately a potential constitutional issue. Don't know why this has be clarified and re-clarified at every one of these episodes. The same public that can remember what happened on Survivor Season 1 episode 5 can't keep a little constitutional knowledge in their head long enough to bridge from one media controversy to the next. 

I mean, the horse has been beaten to absolute death in this thread, yet whether it's Tigeraholic or Archie, the message still seems to fly over their heads.

Almost seems like willful ignorance at this point

[mtutiger]

[Tigerbomb13]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Why not throw in a little extortion on top of the government overreach. 

[GalagaGuy]

Kimmel is going scorched earth on Trump and Carr.   

[ewsieg]

10 hours ago, Archie said:

Were you guys in the same uproar when Rosanne Barr was removed from her TV show for her views?  How about when Donald Trump when he was removed from Social Media over his views?  Kimmel has been wronged because you agree with what he said?

Two things

1) I've done it too, I'm sure most of us have, but I feel like I notice it more now.....  I don't get how pointing out supposed hypocrisy of the other side is a good argument because you are admitting by using this type of argument that you were upset 'When X, Y, or Z happened' and are choosing to be hypocritical now because others were hypocritical back then.

2) You didn't even use the correct examples.   The government was not involved in the Barr thing and he violated the TOS of Twitter, again, no government involvement.   The correct example would be Biden's administration informing the socials what accounts/topics to shadow ban.  I was livid about it back then and I think people that care about free speech should be livid now too.

[CMRivdogs]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

In a sane world this could open up a whole new can of worms. It would allow any center of left leaning group could go after every radio station owner in the country that airs “conservative” talk and make it a test case. 
 

I would love to see someone challenge whatever Clear Channel or whatever they’re calling themselves today tiptoe around a case like that. Same with every owner who airs a preacher who ventures into the political space during one of their on air sessions