I wonder what I would find in an old SDMB thread about Trump being banned/suspended by twitter and facebook.
Old posts, from old posters (who were younger).
What’s your point?
Remind me, which President had been publicly demanding that for years?
Mr. @Magiver, sometimes a lawyer will make a case to the court of an alternate explanation of the facts that make his client seem not, or less, guilty than the more obvious interpretation because their job is to be a professional advocate for their client and present the jury with an alternate interpretation more favorably for their client. They may even pretend that other interpretations which are less favorable to their client don’t have merit or don’t exist.
Let me propose to you an alternate explanation to the one you were advocating in this thread:
- We know recently that Skydance/CBS were merging and that merging required executive approval.
- We know that Trump wields the mechanisms of the executive branch in a corrupt fashion, granting favors to those who have given him favors, or even simply praise and a demonstration that they are a faithful supporter to him and an enemy of his enemies.
- It is fairly obvious that CBS/paramount did not renew the Late Night talk show because Stephen Colbert is a prominent critic of Trump. Furthermore, CBS/paramount agreed to install a conservative ombudsman to make sure the network’s programming was less critical of conservatives and Trump.
- The obvious implication would be that this is the favor they paid in order to get the merger granted.
- Jimmy Kimmel is very similar to Stephen Colbert in that they are a late night talk show host that is very critical of Trump.
- Kimmel said something that gave MAGA and more importantly conservative-oriented media networks (including ownership networks of TV stations) a pretense under which to cancel him. Obviously whether this is justified is open to argument, but IMO of course it was not. His statements are mild and people are misinterpreting them on purpose to make it seem worse than it was. But even if it was the worse statement that they claim it is, it still does not justify the reaction. The idea that this was so over the line that it required immediate suspension is laughable. It is a pretense, not a genuine reaction.
- Trump’s executive branch attempted to intimidate ABC and ABC affilitates to punish Kimmel by having the FCC Chairman threaten to investigate pulling licenses for ABC affiliates
- Very similar to the CBS/Paramount and Skydance situation, the nextstar merger needs approval from Trump’s executive branch, and they may be giving Trump the favor he requires to approve the merger in the exact same fashion that Paramount/Skydance did.
- Sinclair is a conservative media source that has a conservative agenda that is compatible with cancelling Kimmel, and they may be opportunistically hopping on board both to push their agenda and curry favor with Trump
- Emboldened by this situation, Trump has made moves to declare that criticism of him on television is illegal which is not only absolutely fucking bonkers but indicates a governmental effort to silence his critics
So let me ask you this. The interpretation of the situation you have continuously advocated for in this thread is that what Kimmel said was so over the line that dozens of stations organically reacted by demanding his cancellation, and that none of the agendas of the government nor corporations involved here are the determining factor in cancelling Kimmel.
Do you believe that the interpretation that the corporations involved trying to curry favor with Trump, who holds regulatory power over their merger ambitions, and that Trump takes extreme actions to punish his critics, and therefore they were looking for a reason to cancel Kimmel and seized on this as an opportunity, is wrong or unreasonable? Do you acknowledge it as a valid interpretation of the facts? Do you acknowledge it as credible and even likely?
Do you think it’s less likely than the interpretation you’re advocating in this thread?
Or are you simply making a lawyer’s case for your “client”, in this case, your political side, when you advocate your interpretation of events, offering us a possible interpretation that you do not sincerely believe to be the best explanation of events?
SenorBeef. You’re putting way to much effort into this. For the sake of argument assume I agree with you.
My opinion doesn’t really matter beyond the idea that Kimmel made an insensitive statement at the height of a highly public assassination. It’s something he could have easily walked back in the face of losing 60 stations. That’s a lot of lost viewers in light of the 43% decline this year. Lost viewership directly affects ABC’s ability to generate revenue from the show.
It was a 2 sentence walk-back. “Looking back at it, it looks insensitive and I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I’m sorry.”
If Kimmel and ABC want the show to go on I think they can make that happen.
It shouldn’t happen. Hes allowed to make an offensive statement.
Which he didn’t.
Yes, he’s free to say what he wants. If it’s offensive then the people who buy his program are free to move on to other programming.
That of course is your opinion. It doesn’t matter if Kimmel believes it wasn’t offensive. It matters that he gets in front of it. So far he hasn’t done this. Lawyering-up just looks like he’s digging his heels in.
Nope, in reality others are digging their heels on the worst meaning of what Kimmell said, when he was more closer to the truth:
You’re trying to move the goal posts on the shooter. He clearly follows a left-wing ideology. Saying he wasn’t part of a group effort doesn’t change anything.
This is exactly right, and I believe it gets at the heart of the matter. It does NOT matter if Kimmel believes it wasn’t offensive. The only thing that DOES matter is if the right wing media and the Trump administration can lie about what Kimmel actually said, by fabricating and endlessly repeating a totally baseless, propagandistic, inflammatory, sacreligious straw man argument against which Trump supporters can bray endlessly and bark at the moon without reservation until they – seething with anger – buy some Trump cryptocurrency and a new DJT Bible.
You, @Magiver , have – again – gotten to the crux of the issue. Kudos.
Uh, there is no evidence for that, only the wishful thinking of the incompetent executive members that we have now.
Except…as has been noted many times…he didn’t insult or say anything insensitive about Charlie Kirk. He opined that:
Which was not inaccurate.
And then played a clip of Trump glossing over his “grief” over Kirk’s murder, because he wanted to show off the new ballroom that he’s having built, and made fun of Trump’s “performative sorrow.” Which, again, was not inaccurate, because Trump has a long history of demonstrating a complete lack of empathy or positive human emotions about anyone.
So, Kimmel got censored for being mean to assholes.
But beyond that…if he walked it back under the pressure, that’s just letting the camel stick its nose into the tent. Once Trump and his supporters see that they can manipulate Kimmel, they’ll start demanding more and more capitulation…and that’s overt censorship.
I don’t particularly like Kimmel’s show, but there comes a time when you stand up for your morality and what’s right; this is one of those times, and I support Kimmel not knuckling under.
He offended the MAGA-Morons, and they are on the top of the list of those there is absolutely no need to apologize to. I refuse to pretend that he insult Kirk (although there was no reason not to insult that vicious bigot)
What’s not accurate about what Kimmel said?
That is not what was said. Please re-read.
You can refuse to believe whatever you want. Kimmel can do the same. Your opinion affects no one. Kimmel’s opinion affects his career.
This isn’t about “beliefs”, since what he actually said is there for all to see, your repeated retelling of the MAGA version notwithstanding. Oh, and @kenobi_65 said “not inaccurate”, not “not accurate”.
So what advise would you give Kimmel?
My advice to Kimmel would be: Stick to your guns, dude. Stand up for free speech, and stand up against an administration which is actively trying to silence any public opposition.
Don’t pay the danegeld, basically. Do not apologize for things you didn’t say, do not pay one red cent to Kirk’s organization, do not let Sinclair extort you, and get a lawyer.