Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Considering how many people in the conservative movement were fundraising off his death within the first 48 hours, is it really surprising?

The whole enterprise is a grift. 

Remember how grief-stricken the president was the night of the Kirk shooting? Very touching. 

 

 

 

[chasfh]

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/

 

Kimmel fix what? Fix his penchant for criticizing our brave and handsome president who has totally big hands? Is that what “first person” and “sources” are suggesting? Because that’s exactly how it reads to me.

[chasfh]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

the thing which is stupid is that Sinclair probably really didn't have much leverage - what are they going to do, run "Bowling for Dollars"?. ABC could have called their bluff and they'd have been back in pretty short order once their viewers gave the affiliates an earful. Put the shoe on the other foot with the viewers.

I believe they’re going to run a tribute the Charlie Kirk, which will certainly contain nothing of what he’s actually said on his show. And then they’ll just re-run it over and over to pwn libtards.

[Tigeraholic1]

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. 

[CMRivdogs]

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.

[chasfh]

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. 

 

[chasfh]

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.

[mtutiger]

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 1 hour ago by mtutiger

[chasfh]

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.

[chasfh]

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 1 hour ago by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

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

[mtutiger]

 

[romad1]

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

Very interesting!

[ewsieg]

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.

[chasfh]

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.

 

[chasfh]

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?

[oblong]

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.

 

 

[chasfh]

Too bad we don't have a WOW reaction face I could put on that!

[Deleterious]

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.