Kimmel suspension

[Immanuel Can]

State controlled TV is great.

Not at all. But Socialist-dominated media is booooring.

For years, we've had to be subjected to "THE MESSAGE" in every bit of entertainment we've had. And being lectured by half-wits is just screamingly dull, especially when "THE MESSAGE" takes over from such things as plot development, characters, new ideas, jokes or information. Recycling propaganda is just bad entertainment.

It's become a joke in itself. And Kimmel was just made too dumb by his indoctrination to realize that in channeling "THE MESSAGE" every night, he was just being tedious. So the ratings had to tell him. And now he knows...or should, if he's capable of learning.

Maybe now, somebody in Hollywood or New York will actually have to write an original story or a genuinely fresh punchline. Wouldn't that be nice?

[Immanuel Can]

What I've heard is that the chairman of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), who was appointed by Trump, exerted some kind of pressure (perhaps suggestively at least) on the media company hosting Kimmel's show to take it off the air. Is that not true?

Disney pulled the plug, through the ABC network. Neither is a particularly "right wing" group, I think you'll agree. The trigger event was Kimmel's attempt to lie to the public about a homosexual, trans-paired Biden supporting murderer being MAGA. That seems to have been just too much nonsense for the public to swallow, and Disney saw the writing on the wall.

Unusual for them. Disney's about as Woke as any company can be, and has been pumping out a steady stream of Leftist propaganda for years now. Nothing ever stops them, it seems...but I think Kimmel was just not good enough. His ratings were already in the tank, and he'd made himself a public embarassment, and I think they felt they had to distance themselves from his stupidity and incompetence. He was just too obviously wrong.

That's why they didn't fire or censure him, but just "suspended" his show, I would say. But if the FCC, or anyone else, finally helped Disney see the light, then good for them. It sure was obvious to the rest of us, because people were voting with their remote controls already. Kimmel was an ideological stiff. We won't miss him.

Ridiculous. Getting something wrong isn't the same as lying. He obviously just got it wrong.

Yes, he did. But HOW he got it wrong is very telling.

He talked as if he knew something. He spoke as if the Kirk murder was some sort of MAGA plot. He didn't wait for even the first sliver of information to leak out...because if he had, he'd immediately know he was dangerously close to being proved badly wrong. And now he's exposed.

His fault.

He should have shut up until the facts were known.

Absolutely. But he not only didn't shut up, but outright invented a whole story that didn't even have one grain of truth in it. And it was very clearly a partisan story, one that was desperately shilling for the Left and seeking any chance to slander the opposition. So he exposed himself as a mere propagandist, and showed no respect for Kirk or his family in the process. Kimmel's just not a very good human being, obviously.

I wouldn't have thought that was a firing offence,

I don't believe it was. Had his ratings not been at an all-time low already, I suspect Disney would have happily kept him on. But it was just the straw that broke the back of a camel that had long been ailing.

I thought Ameruica prided itself on 'free speech'.

Kimmel's "free speech" hasn't been violated. He's just as free to speak today as yesterday, and without being harmed for doing it, even if what he says is stupid and dead wrong.

But being on TV isn't a right, but a privilege, and one usually given to people who have something to offer, especially talent and ratings, which they are supposed to bring to the network that pays them lavishly and gives them an outlet no other American gets.

Kimmel's no longer funny, if he ever was, and no longer even trustworthy as an ironist. He's blown his own cover, and lost his privilege. But his right to speak remains utterly uninfringed. It's the same as everybody else's. He can go out on the street corner, and shout his petty nonsense to the moon. Nobody will stop him.

[Gary Childress]

Kimmel was fired by a Woke company, not by Trump, and for being unfunny (his ratings were in the tank), and for having put his political ideology before his duty to entertain. He imagined himself to be some kind of social activist, whereas he was really just an unskilled entertainer.

But his freedoms have not been taken away. He can still say as many stupid and ideologically-possessed things as he always did. He just now has to say them from the street-corner instead of a lavishly-paid post on TV. So he's lost nothing, and we've lost nothing in losing him.

What I've heard is that the chairman of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), who was appointed by Trump, exerted some kind of pressure (perhaps suggestively at least) on the media company hosting Kimmel's show to take it off the air. Is that not true?

Disney pulled the plug, through the ABC network. Neither is a particularly "right wing" group, I think you'll agree. The trigger event was Kimmel's attempt to lie to the public about a homosexual, trans-paired Biden supporting murderer being MAGA. That seems to have been just too much nonsense for the public to swallow, and Disney saw the writing on the wall.

Unusual for them. Disney's about as Woke as any company can be, and has been pumping out a steady stream of Leftist propaganda for years now. Nothing ever stops them, it seems...but I think Kimmel was just not good enough. His ratings were already in the tank, and he'd made himself a public embarassment, and I think they felt they had to distance themselves from his stupidity and incompetence. He was just too obviously wrong.

That's why they didn't fire or censure him, but just "suspended" his show, I would say. But if the FCC, or anyone else, finally helped Disney see the light, then good for them. It sure was obvious to the rest of us, because people were voting with their remote controls already. Kimmel was an ideological stiff. We won't miss him.

According to news I heard on NPR (National Public Radio) The FCC Chairman made some kind of allusion or remark concerning his discontentment with Kimmel to Kimmel's superiors and that may have gotten Kimmel's superiors thinking about a very sensitive expansion the network is undertaking and that they may have wanted to stay on Trump's good side in order to receive favoritism from the FCC in a business venture that the FCC was going to have to approve.

That may sound innocent enough, a politician complaining to his buddies in the media industry about how he's being depicted by a critic, but really that is the sort of media interference that is, in reality, enough to move and shake things. That's really all influence peddling is. It doesn't have to include outright sanctions or sending in federal police to ransack someone's business, but when a lucrative deal is on the line, staying in good favor with the powers that be is often prudent business for a business. That doesn't seem like how a society with a free press should work in peacetime. (Maybe if we were at war and sensitive war plans or whatever were on the line it might be a different scenario.)

Now I don't know to what extent that the FCC Chair may have been used in such an influencing capacity by Democrat Presidents, but this is the first I've heard of the practice. Perhaps we're hearing of this now as a product of the current political climate but it's still something that ought to be addressed in my opinion. Maybe it takes a flagrant abuse of power to demonstrate that an institution or how it's administered is a threat to democracy or free speech.

[Gary Childress]

Disney pulled the plug, through the ABC network. Neither is a particularly "right wing" group, I think you'll agree. The trigger event was Kimmel's attempt to lie to the public about a homosexual, trans-paired Biden supporting murderer being MAGA. That seems to have been just too much nonsense for the public to swallow, and Disney saw the writing on the wall.

Unusual for them. Disney's about as Woke as any company can be, and has been pumping out a steady stream of Leftist propaganda for years now. Nothing ever stops them, it seems...but I think Kimmel was just not good enough. His ratings were already in the tank, and he'd made himself a public embarassment, and I think they felt they had to distance themselves from his stupidity and incompetence. He was just too obviously wrong.

That's why they didn't fire or censure him, but just "suspended" his show, I would say. But if the FCC, or anyone else, finally helped Disney see the light, then good for them. It sure was obvious to the rest of us, because people were voting with their remote controls already. Kimmel was an ideological stiff. We won't miss him.

Ridiculous. Getting something wrong isn't the same as lying. He obviously just got it wrong.

Yes, he did. But HOW he got it wrong is very telling.

He talked as if he knew something. He spoke as if the Kirk murder was some sort of MAGA plot. He didn't wait for even the first sliver of information to leak out...because if he had, he'd immediately know he was dangerously close to being proved badly wrong. And now he's exposed.

His fault.

He should have shut up until the facts were known.

Absolutely. But he not only didn't shut up, but outright invented a whole story that didn't even have one grain of truth in it. And it was very clearly a partisan story, one that was desperately shilling for the Left and seeking any chance to slander the opposition. So he exposed himself as a mere propagandist, and showed no respect for Kirk or his family in the process. Kimmel's just not a very good human being, obviously.

I wouldn't have thought that was a firing offence,

I don't believe it was. Had his ratings not been at an all-time low already, I suspect Disney would have happily kept him on. But it was just the straw that broke the back of a camel that had long been ailing.

I thought Ameruica prided itself on 'free speech'.

Kimmel's "free speech" hasn't been violated. He's just as free to speak today as yesterday, and without being harmed for doing it, even if what he says is stupid and dead wrong.

But being on TV isn't a right, but a privilege, and one usually given to people who have something to offer, especially talent and ratings, which they are supposed to bring to the network that pays them lavishly and gives them an outlet no other American gets.

Kimmel's no longer funny, if he ever was, and no longer even trustworthy as an ironist. He's blown his own cover, and lost his privilege. But his right to speak remains utterly uninfringed. It's the same as everybody else's. He can go out on the street corner, and shout his petty nonsense to the moon. Nobody will stop him.

I don't believe he was fired. His show was suspended until further notice, I believe.

[Immanuel Can]

That may sound innocent enough, a politician complaining to his buddies in the media industry about how he's being depicted by a critic, but really that is the sort of media interference that is, in reality, enough to move and shake things.

Oh, that's priceless.

Do you really think that the execs at Disney are more susceptible to an offhanded remark from one politician on the right than to the disapproval of the hordes of them they have on the Left? And do you really think that Woke Disney would have had the slightest compunction about keeping Kimmel around if they thought it was in their interest to do so?

That theory is as bad as Kimmel's theory.

[Immanuel Can]

Ridiculous. Getting something wrong isn't the same as lying. He obviously just got it wrong.

Yes, he did. But HOW he got it wrong is very telling.

He talked as if he knew something. He spoke as if the Kirk murder was some sort of MAGA plot. He didn't wait for even the first sliver of information to leak out...because if he had, he'd immediately know he was dangerously close to being proved badly wrong. And now he's exposed.

His fault.

He should have shut up until the facts were known.

Absolutely. But he not only didn't shut up, but outright invented a whole story that didn't even have one grain of truth in it. And it was very clearly a partisan story, one that was desperately shilling for the Left and seeking any chance to slander the opposition. So he exposed himself as a mere propagandist, and showed no respect for Kirk or his family in the process. Kimmel's just not a very good human being, obviously.

I wouldn't have thought that was a firing offence,

I don't believe it was. Had his ratings not been at an all-time low already, I suspect Disney would have happily kept him on. But it was just the straw that broke the back of a camel that had long been ailing.

I thought Ameruica prided itself on 'free speech'.

Kimmel's "free speech" hasn't been violated. He's just as free to speak today as yesterday, and without being harmed for doing it, even if what he says is stupid and dead wrong.

But being on TV isn't a right, but a privilege, and one usually given to people who have something to offer, especially talent and ratings, which they are supposed to bring to the network that pays them lavishly and gives them an outlet no other American gets.

Kimmel's no longer funny, if he ever was, and no longer even trustworthy as an ironist. He's blown his own cover, and lost his privilege. But his right to speak remains utterly uninfringed. It's the same as everybody else's. He can go out on the street corner, and shout his petty nonsense to the moon. Nobody will stop him.

I don't believe he was fired. His show was suspended until further notice, I believe.

Let's see if he ever comes back. Then we'll know which it really was.

[accelafine]

He'll show up on some other network or however it works over there. It's a very niche field. Your average Joe wouldn't be able to do standup and interview narcissists, regardless of whether or not you find him funny.

[phyllo]

ABC now has to fill the Kimmel time slot.

I hear the working title of the new show is 'The Late Night Hour of Praise. Live!'.

Format is still to be finalized, but it will be non-stop praise for Donald Trump. It could be a talk show format or a competition format.

Exciting times.

[Gary Childress]

That may sound innocent enough, a politician complaining to his buddies in the media industry about how he's being depicted by a critic, but really that is the sort of media interference that is, in reality, enough to move and shake things.

Oh, that's priceless.

Do you really think that the execs at Disney are more susceptible to an offhanded remark from one politician on the right than to the disapproval of the hordes of them they have on the Left? And do you really think that Woke Disney would have had the slightest compunction about keeping Kimmel around if they thought it was in their interest to do so?

That theory is as bad as Kimmel's theory.

Sounds like a pretty plausible theory to me if the situation is as described by the commentators on NPR.

[Gary Childress]

Here's more on the issue from NPR:

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told the right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. "These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group – two huge corporations that own many local television stations including dozens of ABC affiliates – weighed in within hours to announce they would pull Kimmel's show indefinitely. Then, so did ABC. Nexstar, Sinclair and ABC's corporate owner, the Walt Disney Co., all have major deals pending that require approval by either the FCC or federal antitrust regulators.

Carr being the chairman of the FCC appointed by Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/19/nx-s1-55 ... ree-speech

[Immanuel Can]

That may sound innocent enough, a politician complaining to his buddies in the media industry about how he's being depicted by a critic, but really that is the sort of media interference that is, in reality, enough to move and shake things.

Oh, that's priceless.

Do you really think that the execs at Disney are more susceptible to an offhanded remark from one politician on the right than to the disapproval of the hordes of them they have on the Left? And do you really think that Woke Disney would have had the slightest compunction about keeping Kimmel around if they thought it was in their interest to do so?

That theory is as bad as Kimmel's theory.

Sounds like a pretty plausible theory to me if the situation is as described by the commentators on NPR.

So let me get this straight: the theory is that the Woke execs of one of the largest entertainment mega-conglomerates in the world, who had for years shilled openly for the extreme Left, and had published innumerable propagandistic projects for it, suddenly wilted like warm lettuce when one conservative politician expressed some kind of displeasure, and cancelled a wonderful, talented, successful and honest critic, rather than sacked an incompetent and unfunny entertainer? And that was a case of egregious government censorship, and an indication of coming totalitarianism?

I just want to get the story straight. Because "plausible" doesn't seem the right adjective, on the face of it.

[Gary Childress]

Oh, that's priceless.

Do you really think that the execs at Disney are more susceptible to an offhanded remark from one politician on the right than to the disapproval of the hordes of them they have on the Left? And do you really think that Woke Disney would have had the slightest compunction about keeping Kimmel around if they thought it was in their interest to do so?

That theory is as bad as Kimmel's theory.

Sounds like a pretty plausible theory to me if the situation is as described by the commentators on NPR.

So let me get this straight: the theory is that the Woke execs of one of the largest entertainment mega-conglomerates in the world, who had for years shilled openly for the extreme Left, and had published innumerable propagandistic projects for it, suddenly wilted like warm lettuce when one conservative politician expressed some kind of displeasure, and cancelled a wonderful, talented, successful and honest critic, rather than sacked an incompetent and unfunny entertainer? And that was a case of egregious government censorship, and an indication of coming totalitarianism?

I just want to get the story straight. Because "plausible" doesn't seem the right adjective, on the face of it.

When the bottom line is in question, don't you think corporations would be pretty quick to drop all pretenses of "social justice"? Or do you think Corporations are benevolent institutions by nature? Are you suggesting that leftist rhetoric is malevolent by nature?

[Immanuel Can]

Sounds like a pretty plausible theory to me if the situation is as described by the commentators on NPR.

So let me get this straight: the theory is that the Woke execs of one of the largest entertainment mega-conglomerates in the world, who had for years shilled openly for the extreme Left, and had published innumerable propagandistic projects for it, suddenly wilted like warm lettuce when one conservative politician expressed some kind of displeasure, and cancelled a wonderful, talented, successful and honest critic, rather than sacked an incompetent and unfunny entertainer? And that was a case of egregious government censorship, and an indication of coming totalitarianism?

I just want to get the story straight. Because "plausible" doesn't seem the right adjective, on the face of it.

When the bottom line is in question, don't you think corporations would be pretty quick to drop all pretenses of "social justice"?

Well, "social justice" is a silly, Leftist idea anyway. But do you really think that Kimmel's super-privileged position as late night talk show host was an issue of "social justice"?

Or do you think Corporations are benevolent institutions by nature? Are you suggesting that leftist rhetoric is malevolent by nature?

Leftism is malevolent and evil, and so are the Big Business interests that, for their own interests, are currently driving it.

[phyllo]

That may sound innocent enough, a politician complaining to his buddies in the media industry about how he's being depicted by a critic, but really that is the sort of media interference that is, in reality, enough to move and shake things.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" ( also expressed as "troublesome priest" or "meddlesome priest") is a quote attributed to Henry II of England preceding the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While the quote was not expressed as an order, it prompted four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket due to an ongoing dispute between crown and church. The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express that a ruler's wish may be interpreted as a command by their subordinates. It is also commonly understood as shorthand for any rhetorical device allowing leaders to covertly order or exhort violence among their followers, while still being able to claim plausible deniability for political, legal, or other reasons.

Henry made the outburst on Christmas 1170[1] at his castle at Bures, Normandy, at the height of the Becket controversy. He had just been informed that Becket had excommunicated a number of bishops supportive of the king, including the Archbishop of York.[1] Edward Grim, who was present at Becket's murder and subsequently wrote the Life of St. Thomas, quotes Henry as saying:
A modern memorial at the Canterbury Cathedral marking the site of Archbishop Thomas Becket's assassination.
Memorial at Canterbury Cathedral marking the site of Archbishop Thomas Becket's assassination in 1170.

What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk![2]

The popular version of the phrase was first used in 1740 by the author and bookseller Robert Dodsley, in his Chronicle of the Kings of England, where he described Henry II's words as follows: "O wretched Man that I am, who shall deliver me from this turbulent priest?" This was modelled on Romans 7:24: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"[3] A similar version of the phrase was later used in George Lyttleton's 1772 History of the Life of King Henry the Second, where the quote is rendered as "[he said] that he was very unfortunate to have maintained so many cowardly and ungrateful men in his court, none of whom would revenge him of the injuries he sustained from one turbulent priest."[4][5] In The Chronicle of the Kings of England (1821), it becomes "Will none of these lazy insignificant persons, whom I maintain, deliver me from this turbulent priest?", which is then shortened to "who shall deliver me from this turbulent priest?"[6]

In Jean Anouilh's 1959 play Becket, Henry says, "Will no one rid me of him? A priest! A priest who jeers at me and does me injury."[7] In the 1964 film Becket, which was based on the Anouilh play, Henry says, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"[8]

There are likely several English iterations of Henry II's original quote because it had to be translated; Henry, though he understood many languages, spoke only Latin and French.[9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_o ... _priest%3F

[mickthinks]

He talked as if he knew something.

No he didn’t. Manny just made that up.

He spoke as if the Kirk murder was some sort of MAGA plot.

No he didn’t. Manny just made that up.

Kimmel was fired for making good jokes at Trump’s expense.

Like this