Nope he's not coming back to ABC.NY Post says Kimmel is (bleeping) livid and he "wants to end his relationship with ABC". Welp, sounds like Nightline follows your late local news now:
Jimmy Kimmel reportedly ‘f–king livid’ over ABC pulling ‘Live!’ — as Trump cheers ‘great news for America’
Kimmel faced backlash after he said Monday night that the “MAGA gang” was trying to score political points off Kirk’s murder after the right-wing influencer was shot dead on the campus of Utah Vall…nypost.com
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Live
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
- Status
Again, that does not mean the government cannot be weaponized against them. That’s the entire point. Law firms don’t own FCC licensed stations, but the administration went after a slew of them to coerce them into capitulating. We have a plethora of cabinet departments headed by loyalists and sycophants who will do whatever they want to target perceived enemies and extract payback for transgressions.
They will if Skydance Paramount buys them.
It’s the Post so….🤷NY Post says Kimmel is (bleeping) livid and he "wants to end his relationship with ABC". Welp, sounds like Nightline follows your late local news now:
Jimmy Kimmel reportedly ‘f–king livid’ over ABC pulling ‘Live!’ — as Trump cheers ‘great news for America’
Kimmel faced backlash after he said Monday night that the “MAGA gang” was trying to score political points off Kirk’s murder after the right-wing influencer was shot dead on the campus of Utah Vall…
Legitimacy isn’t their claim to fame.
Guess you're right. But Kimmel didn't even say anything bad about Kirk himself (he could have), just MAGA commentators on places like Fox News...that's who he was angry at.
While I (mostly) agree with your critics, I'm going to make a point on one specific sentence you wrote. Here is that sentence:
"In this case, if what Kimmel said was provably wrong at the moment he said it, then the contract's suspension or cancellation clauses would likely hold up in arbitration."
On Monday night, there was, in fact, no public knowledge of Mr. Robinson's motives. What was known was that he came from a conservative state (Utah) which doesn't produce a lot of political liberals.
Word was also getting out over the weekend that Mr. Robinson's roommate was cooperating with authorities and that both he and Mr. Robinson might have had a romantic relationship. Word was also leaked out that the roommate was in the middle of seeking a sex-change operation. Finally, Utah's Governor Cox read the messages on some of the unfired bullets which seemed to be at odds with Mr. Robinson's background.
Finally, by Monday, there was growing evidence that the supporters of the late Charlie Kirk, including the U.S. president, were threatening the livelihoods of people who spoke out against what Mr. Kirk stood for on social media.
My conclusion from all of this is that on Monday evening, nobody outside of state authorities investigating the case, actually knew what the motives of Mr. Robinson were. That information wouldn't come until a day later when that information was released to the public.
What is scary and forms a background for all of this discussion is the high percentage of predominantly young people who believe that the assassination of undesirable persons is acceptable.
In this case, one person did the murder (insert "alleged" or "allegedly" at will). But the fact that we have had attempts on a presidential candidate, the murder of a health care executive and other incidents shows that there is a mentality of acceptance or even encouragement among some.
I still don't think it matters. He wasn't targeting Kirk...he was targeting MAGA for exploiting the tragedy.
I fully agree Kimmel said nothing either factually wrong or remotely insensitive about the victim. He made a statement about the accused suspect.
Kimmel incorrectly attributed the killer's motives and philosophy. In this case, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he misstated the event to justify his monologue. That is obviously what network management considered.
Yes, and "one of them" is not factually inaccurate...he grew up in a MAGA household.
The man who was killed was a close friend of the president and most of the men and women close to him. Not much time has passed. Temperatures are high. People are saying and doing things they normally wouldn't, and in some cases, shouldn't. Important men and women with the ear of the president and his team have already come up loud and clear about free speech concerns.
Mr. Kimmel could have totally ignored this subject; he could have just told jokes about sports or the weather or Mr. Trump. Worked for Carson. He crossed a line; if you look over the facts of the case as currently presented, Mr. Kimmel's statement is insane wishful thinking. That is his right, you know: he can stand on any soapbox, owned by Mr. Kimmel, on any public street corner. As soon as he chose to speak his mind on the ABC Television Network, he crossed a line. He doesn't own the soapbox. The street corner he's speaking from? Ultimately, it belongs to you and me, as leased (via license) to the network and its affiliates. The American Broadcasting Corporation has to decide, how far do they wish to go in support of Mr. Kimmel and his unpopular opinion?
Walter Cronkite's famous negative take on Vietnam resulted in CBS getting an unpleasant call from LBJ, but the "most trusted man in America" kept his job. But, suppose Cronkite opined that Sirhan Sirhan was a liberal Democrat, upset that RFK wasn't liberal enough, and that the DNC & LBJ were at fault? Or, if you prefer, what if Dick Cavett stated it on his late night show? I don't know. Go back and watch early reports of the JFK shooting and they were suggesting the gunman must have been a right-winger. Maybe not much has changed.
Mr. Kimmel could have totally ignored this subject; he could have just told jokes about sports or the weather or Mr. Trump. Worked for Carson. He crossed a line; if you look over the facts of the case as currently presented, Mr. Kimmel's statement is insane wishful thinking. That is his right, you know: he can stand on any soapbox, owned by Mr. Kimmel, on any public street corner. As soon as he chose to speak his mind on the ABC Television Network, he crossed a line. He doesn't own the soapbox. The street corner he's speaking from? Ultimately, it belongs to you and me, as leased (via license) to the network and its affiliates. The American Broadcasting Corporation has to decide, how far do they wish to go in support of Mr. Kimmel and his unpopular opinion?
Walter Cronkite's famous negative take on Vietnam resulted in CBS getting an unpleasant call from LBJ, but the "most trusted man in America" kept his job. But, suppose Cronkite opined that Sirhan Sirhan was a liberal Democrat, upset that RFK wasn't liberal enough, and that the DNC & LBJ were at fault? Or, if you prefer, what if Dick Cavett stated it on his late night show? I don't know. Go back and watch early reports of the JFK shooting and they were suggesting the gunman must have been a right-winger. Maybe not much has changed.
Are we sure it was a MAGA household or, simply a Republican household. Not that it makes a great difference, but it is obvious that the perpetrator went off on his own, dropped out of college and became polarized in a very different direction.
It's not like he made jokes about the victim. And there have been instances on TV where they actually do a short time after South Park with Steve Irwin; pretty much the entirety of The Jeselnik Offensive in 2013...but this wasn't one of those times.
I find it interesting how Trump went out of his way to save Tik Tok, instead of letting the ban take effect. The platform is filled with mostly anti-Trump videos. When Kirk was killed, there were videos of people celebrating and cheering his death. And of course comments like..."But is the shooter OK?".
This leads me to believe it's strictly the network news organizations. that he has it out for.
This leads me to believe it's strictly the network news organizations. that he has it out for.
Guess I interchanged them, but could have been what Kimmel was referring to. But accurate or not, he is technically a comedian and not a part of ABC News. I'm sure you could dig through his show and find something of the same scale, or of The View on that level.
Now that you bring up South Park... it is interesting that the "next" episode has been postponed, and statements from the creators of the show are vague about the reasons. It will be very interesting to watch that next edition of South Parrk.
That is ridiculous. Guilt by association with a minority of a demographic.
Yeah, about that…
Here’s part of a poll from this week:
And here’s the whole doggone poll:
What Americans really think about political violence
Most Americans say political violence is never justified, but younger and more liberal Americans are more likely to say it can be.
today.yougov.com
There is a difference her. TikTok anti-Trump posts come from site users, not the management. In the case of Kimmel, this was a show produced by the network and done by an employee of the network
Whether or not a subjectively determined “high” number think one thing or another, only one person committed this crime, only one committed the crime in the UHC case. What people say they think in a survey is not what they do. Someone thought it was OK to murder Melissa Hortman, her husband and her dog. A sitting US Senator thought it was an appropriate topic for a joke. Someone thought it was ok to attack Paul Pelosi and would have done the same to the Congresswoman had she been there. Multiple people on the right thought that was a real laugh riot. Someone thought it was ok to try to kill the governor of Pennsylvania by firebombing his home and whoever else was in it be damned.
Funny thing how those were left off the list by name in lieu of others. I do so wonder what the difference is. Gee, what could it be….
What’s new here? John Wilkes Booth was hardly alone in his sentiment. This kind of thing is not unique to this time period. Sometimes it’s just a deeply deranged person (Hinkley), sometimes it’s a person who believes their cause to be just.
- Status