SectionC3

That's a consumer guide. Not a rule. Keep trying. And even if it represents the rule, good luck meeting those elements. Did Kimmel know the info to be false? Hardly. Nobody really knows right now. And what's the public harm? Beats me. So how could that harm be substantial? Good luck with that one counselor. Then let's take it a step further. Say, in this bizzaro world of 2025 that the elements are met, what's the remedy? Can you put a finger on that one? I'm gonna take a whack a this and say it is patently absurd to conclude that this violation would result in forfeiture of a license/licenses.

Wrong. All the way around. Nice insults, by the way. You can always tell who has lost the argument when the insults arrive on scene.

Tell me the rules if it's so easy. Put your finger on it. I'm all ears. And then get to the rule in which making an unkind political remark should threaten the license. Normally, and I realize you're versed in such matters, such as thing might result in a fine. If that. But stripping the license? Woof. Big leap. So let's see the rule. Typical hyperbole. Nobody said "entire." But it helps. It's a good lead in. Again, you got schooled, you're out of your depth, and you gotta resort to insults.

Cool. What about the rules? Or is that not something that you're capable of finding on your own? Yeah no. You got schooled so you started with the insults. On brand for you.

Nope. You're out of your depth. Channel left on ABC at night turns on to ABC in the morning. And they see the promos for ABC morning programming on ABC at night. Maybe cable providers can place it right next to Trump's show on the Epstein Network. Based on what you've put forth here, that's a hoax. Are you the guy who is supposed to be looking for those FCC rules that were violated by Kimmel? How's that coming?

GMA.

This is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. By your logic, any lie is subject to license forfeiture. How will a clip of even one of Trump's many lies be shown on an evening news program under that paradigm?

"Complaining" and "threatening licensure with the FCC" are two vastly different things, which you either know or should know.

As to #2, yup. You're out of your depth if you think otherwise. As to #1, the show stayed on the air through summer and until the FCC checked in. If this was strictly a monetary issue, it would have been dumped awhile ago if the staff could have been let go. If the staff can't be let go without payment, then it makes little sense to dump it now, unless the issue, again, is the FCC. Got a finger on those back channels? Or is this just another right wing conspiracy?

The obvious difference is that the government didn't lean on twitter to get that result.

Assuming the point about CNN is true, was it $787m worth? Seems like a lot of lie there by Fox News. Or at least a very, very, very expensive lie. Denied. We don't strike witnesses. Only in banana republics does that happen.

Of course he has. Like all of linear television. Is the show still profitable? Is it still a good lead for a (likely highly profitable) morning show? Tale not told in those numbers. If that's the litmus test then Fox has a problem. So where is this integrity issue codified or enumerated in a rule? Let's get our finger on it. Floor is yours, counselor.

What does that mean? And, put your finger on the violation. There's no profanity or hate speech here. This isn't something that would get a license pulled in any iteration of a rational universe. Yet here we are.

It may be. I think the FCC comments did it in large part because the candle of the show (probably profitable, but not a huge profit driver like, say, MNF, Saturday Night Football, or 90s Seinfeld) wasn't worth the game of the FCC headache. And, FYI, this isn't directed at you, but at the person who cited the August numbers. It's friggin August. TV viewership is down across the board. They're also 18-49 numbers IIRC, which probably aren't the target demo of that show.

So the timing of the FCC involvement is just a coincidence? And when were those numbers released? Probably quite awhile ago. So the idea that this is *just* numbers driven is probably BS. I don't disagree that ABC might not have been so quick to pull the plug if this was 90s Seinfeld with 28 million viewers. But viewership is far from the only reason, and probably not even the catalyst, from what happened here.

You know who doesn't know it? You. You just spouted off without any basis for your assertion. And you don't know whether these attorneys actually reached the conclusion you assume they did. Take it from an actual attorney. Put your finger on this rule or rules that allegedly were violated, otherwise I don't want to hear about it. It's a different way of saying put up or shut up on the issue.

Which conditions, exactly?

What about the Antifa Air Force? We heard about that in 2020. Seems like this Trump administration really dropped the ball on Kirk if it knew this organization was so sophisticated to have an Air Force, but turned a blind eye to the organization when back in power. So, applying the tortured Trump logic about Antifa to the Kirk murder, Kirk’s blood is on Trump’s hands.

Sweet. How did the government lean on business interests there? Who did the FCC threaten under Obama, or Biden, or Clinton? Apparently the switch has flipped, eh? Government ownership of Intel all of a sudden isn't socialism, but . . . whatever it is that MAGA calls it these days.

Apparently America is great when we threaten license holders for exercising speech. Even assuming that he has been lying, so has Fox and Trump, to far more significant degrees. Why was the ABC broadcasting license threatened, but not that of Fox? And, is it acceptable to lie on cable news (no FCC license), or in an elected position, but not on broadcast television?

I thought about this last night. The difference between this issue and a different private sector firing is that the FCC stepped in and (to my knowledge) impliedly threatened the license(s) of ABC. I don't think what Kimmel said was in great taste, although I happen to think it to be arguably true. I am appalled by the government's intervention and thumb on the scale on this issue. It is completely wrong. If that's the trigger for cancellation, then the President should have been cancelled quite awhile ago. Yeah, he found out that MAGA is into using the government to cancel people.

Hoax. You responded.

How do you feel about Trump trying to silence critics using the FCC and about government ownership of Intel? Seems a bit … commie to me.

Sure. The kid comes from a MAGA family and grandma didn't know any Democrats in the family. Also, when asked about his grieving, Trump quickly changed the subject to his waste of money ballroom that nobody but him thinks is a good idea. There you go.

The thread title is inaccurate. Antifa, whatever that is, was designated as "A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION," whatever that is. Not a minor terrorist organization. Not a terrorist organization. But "A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION." This guy's marbles are long gone.