C’mon, if he’d only said he was sorry, he’d still be on TV. They wouldn’t be able to touch him!
It’s a good thing you typed that and not actually spoken it, because it is pretty hard to talk with your tongue in your cheek. 
This is straining the definition of “ideology” to the breaking point. Besides which, if you have evidence for it, I suspect the FBI would be grateful for the tip, as they don’t seem to have stumbled across it yet.
The FBI isn’t quite at the point where “Because MAGA says so!” is evidence enough…yet.
@Magiver the problem is not bosses firing their front facing creative talent over what they have said. The problem is the government using its regulatory power as a cudgel to force those decisions in its obsequious mission to please its leader. We should not be emulating Thailand’s lèse-majesté law but here we are.
A company wants to hire talent who express a particular political set of beliefs, who insult one group or who elevate enough. Obviously that’s allowed. Fox is fine. A government threatening Fox or Disney with regulatory consequences unless they comply with remove talent that says “badthink”, insulting the Chief Executive and his supporters, should not be.
You’re still bringing up this decontextualized statistic after it had been cited previously by @DavidNRockies that you’re comparing apples to oranges, or, to be more precise, new content to reruns:
That would not be sufficient. Kimmel has been called on to make a personal apology to Kirk’s family, and a meaningful donation to his organization.
Since no one has asked, I will,
Specifically, what left-wing ideology does he follow?
I expect you will respond with things that are not left-wing ideology so your work is clear.
@Magiver, this is not the first time you have had this pointed out to you. Do you acknowledge it?
Which, incidentally, is pretty much exactly what Kimmel said.
British radio show host James O’Brien weighs in.
(Video is about 16 minutes long, and it’s all relevant.)
Edit to correct link
It was from the Nielsen Ratings which is what is used by advertisers. The apples and oranges aspect of it are all part of the same revenue pie. If reruns tank in the ratings then so does the revenue. So my statement stands, lost viewership directly affects ABC’s ability to generate revenue from the show.
Hell, they’re STILL running Johnny Carson reruns. His show was that good.
If Kimmel’s show takes a monthlong hiatus in August, I’m sure that was discussed while negotiating the contract with ABC, and ABC ran the numbers, made their own ratings predictions based on previous ratings of reruns, and gave Kimmel less money because of it. So if the revenue pie is smaller, the expense is smaller as well.
It all comes out in the wash. Again: apples and oranges.
Kimmel should offer to make a donation when and if Brian Kilmeade makes an equal donation to a homeless shelter of Kimmel’s choice.
Kimmel is brave and right when he refuses to take the easy route and make an apology and a donation. He has nothing to apologize for given that he never insulted Kirk or the Kirk family, let alone an unjustified insult, nor does forcing him to make a donation to an organization he thinks harms the world makes sense. This is integrity, more integrity than a lot of people have shown in the face of fascism. I really hope he doesn’t cave. Apologizing when he did nothing wrong so the fascists can declare victory would be harmful capitulation. I admire him for not doing it.
Kimmel knows that kissing the right’s ass like that would destroy his reputation.
I think people would get over it. After all, who else is really being punished for collaborating? It would definitely be the easier, and probably personally beneficial route for Kimmel, but I believe the dude has the integrity to stand on principles.
Kimmel has been doing that show for 23 years – he’s been the host of it for longer than any other person not named Johnny Carson has hosted a single late-night talk show. He’s been on TV consistently for 28 years, going back to Win Ben Stein’s Money and The Man Show, plus being a producer of a number of shows.
He’ll turn 58 in a few weeks, and unless he’s been a complete idiot with his money, he’s likely an extremely wealthy man. He absolutely does not need that show, and he could easily and very comfortably retire if he so chose – or if he wanted to continue to make political or entertainment commentary, he could set himself up on a podcast or streaming program and get a much bigger audience than he had on ABC.
I think you’re right that he could retire but that’s from a view of a much greater income than mine. He’s certainly got a financial goal in mind and could take on other projects.
And that “solution” would certainly lessen the number of people on national television that make a habit of calling Trump on his bullshit, wouldn’t it? The fact that he hasn’t done this seems to point to the possibility that pure monetary gain may not be his goal here, though. This Republican solution would be perfect…If not for his silly ethics.
Amiright?