BillsFanNC Posted September 18 Posted September 18 BREAKING: FCC Chair Brendan Carr just dropped a TRUTH NUKE on the liberals crying "free speech" after Jimmy Kimmel's cable show was suspended. "We're on a cable show right now. If you don't have an FCC license, you don't have an obligation to serve the public interest. Podcasts don't either. Stand-up comedians, whether they're on lots of forms of communications, don't. And Kimmel is free to do that." "But if you have a broadcast TV license, that means that you have something that very few people have. And you're excluding other people from having access to that valuable public resource. And it comes with an obligation to serve the public interest." "And again, over the years, there's been a rule in place at the FCC that local TV stations get to preempt programming that they don't think meets the needs of their communities." "This is a very significant moment because local broadcasters are now pushing back on national programmers." 1
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 12 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: It’s not a lead in at all. You don’t understand what a lead in is. You’ve lost the plot. Out of your depth. Truly dimwitted. you should make sure you tell all your friends that Jimmy Kimmel was probably profitable and served as a good lead in for a morning show that starts six hours later. 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.
JDHillFan Posted September 18 Posted September 18 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. You’ve schooled me with something that nobody else alive believes. Score 1 for you! I do hate seeing a straight shooter like yourself come off as ignorant though. You can educate yourself a little bit here: https://fiveable.me/key-terms/television-studies/lead-in-strategy
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. From FCC website: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf "Broadcasting false information that causes substantial ‘public harm’ The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired" Let me guess. Kimmel wasn't lying! This kid was definitely MAGA!
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 7 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: From FCC website: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf "Broadcasting false information that causes substantial ‘public harm’ The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired" Let me guess. Kimmel wasn't lying! This kid was definitely MAGA! 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.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted September 18 Posted September 18 2 hours ago, SCBills said: Its literally in the Twitter Files, that I’m sure you’ve memory holed. 2 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: That's stupid. Trump's Cultural Revolution is making it so only Trump can lie. You people are ruining our country 2 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: WTF are you talking about? 1 hour ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: So, no. That's all you could of said. And maybe appologized for raising a red herring, but I get, monkey see monkey do with you, since others were making that silly argument you just blindly jumped in 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: This is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. 1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said: I didn't blindly job in. I read the articles about this. You didn't. That's on you. 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: you are out of your depth 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: Nope. You're out of your depth. 38 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: You got schooled so you started with the insults. On brand for you. 34 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Again, you got schooled, you're out of your depth, and you gotta resort to insults. 27 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: It’s not a lead in at all. You don’t understand what a lead in is. You’ve lost the plot. Out of your depth. Truly dimwitted. 14 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. 6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I do hate seeing a straight shooter like yourself come off as ignorant though *** MODERATOR ALERT *** This thread has disintegrated into a bunch of personal insults and and no longer serving a useful purpose. Therefore, a gratuitous photo of a woman with big jugs is needed in order to restore this thread to intelligent conversation: 1
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 17 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: You’ve schooled me with something that nobody else alive believes. Score 1 for you! I do hate seeing a straight shooter like yourself come off as ignorant though. You can educate yourself a little bit here: https://fiveable.me/key-terms/television-studies/lead-in-strategy What's the premise behind lead in? People don't change the channel. Same concept applies to the night shows. Face it, you got schooled. At least this time you didn't rely on insults. That's a step in the right direction.
JDHillFan Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, SectionC3 said: What's the premise behind lead in? People don't change the channel. Same concept applies to the night shows. Face it, you got schooled. At least this time you didn't rely on insults. That's a step in the right direction. Ok. Your incredibly unique interpretation of lead-in, one that allows for a 6 hour gap between shows, was certainly a strength of the Kimmel program and you have schooled me accordingly. Exceedingly well done on your part, straight shooter.
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 37 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: BREAKING: FCC Chair Brendan Carr just dropped a TRUTH NUKE on the liberals crying "free speech" after Jimmy Kimmel's cable show was suspended. "We're on a cable show right now. If you don't have an FCC license, you don't have an obligation to serve the public interest. Podcasts don't either. Stand-up comedians, whether they're on lots of forms of communications, don't. And Kimmel is free to do that." "But if you have a broadcast TV license, that means that you have something that very few people have. And you're excluding other people from having access to that valuable public resource. And it comes with an obligation to serve the public interest." "And again, over the years, there's been a rule in place at the FCC that local TV stations get to preempt programming that they don't think meets the needs of their communities." "This is a very significant moment because local broadcasters are now pushing back on national programmers." How is this a truth nuke? This is, how shall I put this, obvious to anyone with any involvement in the biz. The question is whether the FCC is following its own rules in what I understand to be the threat of license revocation. Using the Charlie Kirk model, prove me wrong. Just now, JDHillFan said: Ok. Your incredibly unique interpretation of lead-in, one that allows for a 6 hour gap between shows, was certainly a strength of the Kimmel program and you have schooled me accordingly. Exceedingly well done on your part, straight shooter. It's not unique. Another instance in which you're wrong.
JDHillFan Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, SectionC3 said: It's not unique. Can you find anything in the giant world of the Internet that would indicate someone agrees with you as it relates to the concept of a lead in television program? If not, that would make it unique.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. LOL What does the word "prohibit" mean? Are you really arguing this? He was very clearly trying to mislead the audience. You he was too, you're just fighting the narrative. The harm is it takes accountability away from their rhetoric and their rhetoric is dangerous. The assassin had antifacist on his bullet, he believed Kirk was a fascist and he killed them. It's something the Left has stated the Red is for years. Well a deranged person believed it and then killed him. ABC Attorney's obviously agreed that Kimmel was in violation because he was immediately put on hold without a fight. This is one of their biggest stars and they aren't fighting for him. Think about that. Stop pushing a narrative. 9 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said: *** MODERATOR ALERT *** This thread has disintegrated into a bunch of personal insults and and no longer serving a useful purpose. Therefore, a gratuitous photo of a woman with big jugs is needed in order to restore this thread to intelligent conversation: Whew....I was only mentioned once.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 18 Posted September 18 40 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. Dude 90% of what you throw at me is name calling from the start, so while that is true for you, not everyone is stunted as you.
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: LOL What does the word "prohibit" mean? Are you really arguing this? He was very clearly trying to mislead the audience. You he was too, you're just fighting the narrative. The harm is it takes accountability away from their rhetoric and their rhetoric is dangerous. The assassin had antifacist on his bullet, he believed Kirk was a fascist and he killed them. It's something the Left has stated the Red is for years. Well a deranged person believed it and then killed him. ABC Attorney's obviously agreed that Kimmel was in violation because he was immediately put on hold without a fight. This is one of their biggest stars and they aren't fighting for him. Think about that. Stop pushing a narrative. Whew....I was only mentioned once. Ha! "Pushing a narrative." Another MAGA trope. Find the rule and perform the analysis. Until then, you're just bloviating. You know why they suspended the guy? Because it's cheaper and easier than fighting the President of the United States leveraging the powers of government to interfere with this business. If you can't recognize how dangerous this is, then I'm sorry for you. 8 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Dude 90% of what you throw at me is name calling from the start, so while that is true for you, not everyone is stunted as you. Hoax. You like to insult people, and I just remind you of your various infirmities. 3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: These people man…. Context is bit different. FCC = leveraged against ABC. $788 million verdict = problem for Tucker's employer. Edited September 18 by SectionC3
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 18 Posted September 18 1 minute ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. You like to insult people, and I just remind you of your various infirmities. Thank you for proving my point again.
SectionC3 Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, Orlando Buffalo said: Thank you for proving my point again. About the various infirmities? The best friends you have are the ones who are honest with you.
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Ha! "Pushing a narrative." Another MAGA trope. Find the rule and perform the analysis. Until then, you're just bloviating. You know why they suspended the guy? Because it's cheaper and easier than fighting the President of the United States leveraging the powers of government to interfere with this business. If you can't recognize how dangerous this is, then I'm sorry for you. Hoax. You like to insult people, and I just remind you of your various infirmities. Context is bit different. FCC = leveraged against ABC. $788 million verdict = problem for Tucker's employer. 58 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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.
Doc Brown Posted September 18 Posted September 18 35 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: From FCC website: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_information.pdf "Broadcasting false information that causes substantial ‘public harm’ The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired" Let me guess. Kimmel wasn't lying! This kid was definitely MAGA! He technically never spread any false information. Technically. I guess you can say he lied by omission (not saying that the shooter was radicalized by the left). I don't like Kimmel because he's both not funny and a propaganda outlet for the left which is supposed to be a "comedy" show. That's why they should've cancelled the show. I'm uneasy with the government being part of the reason it was cancelled though. 2
Royale with Cheese Posted September 18 Posted September 18 Just now, Doc Brown said: He technically never spread any false information. Technically. I guess you can say he lied by omission (not saying that the shooter was radicalized by the left). I don't like Kimmel because he's both not funny and a propaganda outlet for the left which is supposed to be a "comedy" show. That's why they should've cancelled the show. I'm uneasy with the government being part of the reason it was cancelled though. Well then it would go to trial. And the sides would fight. ABC isn't willing to one of their stars....at least so far. I have worked long enough that I know Legal got involved and they saw enough to where they said it's not worth the fight. Or simply, just simply, an Executive on ABC really didn't like that comment and wants him to remove. I think the intent is clear what he was trying to do. But if you don't agree, that's fine. I think we can rule out he was a MAGA. It wouldn't make any sense and this is from my perspective, last ditch effort to not want the accountability on the Left.
Recommended Posts