Again, as has been pointed out, it's not about Jimmy getting cancelled; it's not even about Disney/ABC whoever taking a political position and canning Jimmy for being in opposition to it. It's all about the fact that a government agency (the FCC) and the direct words of the President PRESSURING civilian media.
Exactly This !!!
www.forbes.com
Alex Jones on aliens is a favorite.
Saying outrageous things is protected but sometimes comes at a price.
Feel free to direct me to any videos of any democrat presidents along with their fcc commissioner and US attorney general threatening to pull network licensing and even use the justice department to muzzle the media like Trump and his people have done.
First sentence explains second. It's been done often enough that those who aren't politically obsessed are desensitized to it.
And you have quotes from, say, a regulatory body or Biden himself hinting at/threatening to shut down Twitter, FB & social media when this happened? Happy to be educated, here.
Yeah, partisan communications is always like the Rorschach test, seeing the same thing in very different ways based on which glasses you wear.
More likely are unimpressed than we hear, but when we see what happens to some people talking/wirting the "wrong" way about government behaviour, some might also be leery about saying/writing things out loud.
Those might be hard to find. Repeated attempts to legislate "content moderation" and to let the EU DSA become a backdoor for policing US-based social media over the past few years, easy to find.
The State might get to pass judgement on "public interest", which is what was alluded to by Carr earlier.
except that isn’t at all what Kimmel said.
A complication is that "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" is ambiguous: was he describing a phenomenon, or asserting his conclusion? Those are the two interpretations people are adopting, guided mostly (but not entirely; read Nate Silver at his Substack "Silver Bulletin") by their priors. And while "scoring political points" can be characterized as low, denying accusations cannot. Kimmel's case for being misinterpreted is also weakened by his decidedly partisan history.
None of which reduces the impropriety of Carr obviously threatening a broadcaster.
Put your tin foil gloves on!
Remember to warm them up in the microwave first.
Sliding ratings. Independently of and preceding Trump and Carr (FCC), other companies (eg. affiliates) in the distribution chain have been complaining. They have no legal obligation to provide platforms to unprofitable entertainers, and the owning companies probably no longer have the clout to compel them (eg. carry this, or we drop you entirely). In part ratings are dropping because of generally changing viewer habits, and in part because of partisanship. If a show goes full-on left/progressive it loses some right/conservative viewers; if it insults the latter, it loses more of them. If the remainder isn't a large enough audience - game over.
Correct, unless there's a provision in legislation on which it can be grounded. The past few years have been awash in proposals to curate public information and force platform owners to do the dirty work. That camel's nose is undeniably in the tent, and may have been there since 1934 (Communications Act).
I don't know either, which is why I included:
