Wildmen03 said:

---

Did someone with the show watch that monologue before it aired and even though the information was false, just say "Nah, it'll be fine" and push it through anyway?

---

I mean, they've been doing it for years when you consider how inaccurate Kimmel's political jokes have been for quite some time. Seems like that was standard practice for them.

bmks270 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point.

---

To take this a step further. Let's say Kimmel recorded his monologue at noon. Editing, etc. takes some time, and the show is ready to go by 5pm for a 10pm broadcast. If news breaks at 6pm that directly contradicts what was said in the monologue does ABC or the show's producers have an obligation to pull the episode or do they let it run with a disclaimer at the start of the show?

With how fast news breaks these days facts can easily change between recording and broadcast.

Did someone with the show watch that monologue before it aired and even though the information was false, just say "Nah, it'll be fine" and push it through anyway?

---

Isn't it a live show? It's in the name: Jimmy Kimmel Live.

---

You're probably right, I've never watched it. I just thought a lot of those talk shows were prerecorded.

But still, take Kimmel out of the question for any prerecorded show and my inquiry would be the same.

bmks270 said:

---

Wildmen03 said:

---

zag213004 said:

---

Thank you for posting at least one of the actual policies that the FCC chair alluded to Kimmel violating and thus creating pressure on the tv station companies.

Based on the first bullet point of the hoax policy, were those texts (which haven't been verified as admissible evidence in a court of law yet) made public before the monologue? These texts directly contradict kimmels statement. However if he didn't have that information then he would not be subjected to the violation of that first point.

---

To take this a step further. Let's say Kimmel recorded his monologue at noon. Editing, etc. takes some time, and the show is ready to go by 5pm for a 10pm broadcast. If news breaks at 6pm that directly contradicts what was said in the monologue does ABC or the show's producers have an obligation to pull the episode or do they let it run with a disclaimer at the start of the show?

With how fast news breaks these days facts can easily change between recording and broadcast.

Did someone with the show watch that monologue before it aired and even though the information was false, just say "Nah, it'll be fine" and push it through anyway?

---

Isn't it a live show? It's in the name: Jimmy Kimmel Live.

---

Live to tape. He records the show at 4:30 PM.

Kimmel brought this on himself.

Empowered by a left wing orthodoxy that controls all culture in Western Civilization, Kimmel felt untouchable and could say the most heinous things and never face a consequence. In fact the more hurtful the comments the better the ratings. The liberals lapped it up like fresh cool water in summer.

But two parent companies wanted to merge. Kimmel was essentially a pain in the ass employee who was making things difficult to complete the merger.

He got axed and the show canceled because Kimmel felt he was untouchable.

This happens everyday in corporate America. A pain in the ass employee breaks the final straw and gets canned.

There is actually nothing new here.

Secondly Trump put a guy like Carr in charge who is going to , you know, enforce the facking law that had been flaunted for decades.

I think we've finally gotten to a good place.

There's a lot of noise on 18 pages but really there are two factions:
- those that think weaponization of government as retaliation is fair, and
- those that feel it shouldn't be happening at all, even if we think the other side is "always" doing it, because it's not a good end game for the Republic.

By the way, both are/can be Republicans/conservatives or whatever label you want to use. Contrary to popular belief on this forum political position lives on a spectrum.

And I know this board is VERY heavy in the first group, but I firmly believe the vast majority of everyday people not posting here live in the second group.

I think it's not that simple. In this instance, don't listen to mainstream media but listen what he said, I think they should investigate. How is this different than Dan Rather? Knowingly lie when there are no facts to back it up and evidence to the contrary is very different than giving your opinion on something.

Relevant rules are on this thread. I think it should be investigated. I think telling ABC there is going to be an investigation is appropriate. I also think some places already knew that he knowingly lied and they got ahead of it by dropping him fast. ABC just followed suit. Can't blame them.

You know, I blame the networks themselves for this mess.

For years, these shows -- Colbert, Kimmel, The View, even SNL to an extent -- have been nothing but nasty, vicious attack dogs for the left. It's no secret. In fact, it was a strategy.

As viewership dropped, they had plenty of time to reconfigure and be less partisan. They could have easily returned to the old standard of bipartisan comedy that worked for so long. Maybe being more Carson-like would have attracted more viewers.

They didn't care. And now, half of America doesn't care about them.

Bottom line: It's patently unfair to use the public airwaves for such partisan content. Brendan Carr is right to push the issue.

This is not good. I haven't cared for Kimmel since the man show. But, I don't agree with this.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

I'm only on page 10 and I already nominate this the thead of the year. Never seen so many receipts in my life.

Imagine your lot in life is that Jimmy Kimmel getting ****canned for being an ******* is the straw that broke your back.

---

If you want to really be amazed (and entertained) go read the thread on the entertainment board!

I know we have the James Woods telescope, but every town should at least have one James Woods high school.

"Jimmy Kimmel Storms Out Of Studio After His Sudden ABC Cancellation"

Well, bye!

https://www.lifezette.com/2025/09/jimmy-kimmel-storms-out-of-studio-after-his-sudden-abc-cancellation-watch/

I don't think the relevant question is whether the FCC can investigate or threaten to take action (which is as far as it got here) or even actually take action. The text of the statute seems clear that the FCC can do those things.

I also don't think the relevant question is whether the FCC chair's comments were a primary factor in Kimmel getting fired. I think it's likely he was going to lose his job just based on market forces, but we will never know that for sure since the FCC chair unfortunately muddied the waters.

The real question is whether the FCC should do any of these things, both in this instance and in general.

I don't want the FCC weighing in on a situation like this. I could see some situations where I'd feel it's appropriate, but this one doesn't quite get over the line to me.

In general I prefer to let the marketplace of ideas sort these things out and let the govt intervention be rarely used when it comes to political speech and the vague "public interest" justification. That standard is much too easily abused.

Her statement is idiotic. Charlie Kirk was murdered because leftists hate free speech. She should probably choose the right to remain silent.

And they didn't.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

And they didn't.

---

Who is they and what didn't they do?

If you mean the FCC didn't weigh in, the FCC chair made public comments that amounted to a threat. That happened.

Did it impact the firing and should he have said what he did are really the only topics up for debate.

captkirk said:

---

2023: Chuck Schumer demands Tucker Carlson be taken off the air because he “slimed the truth." pic.twitter.com/MXfn6ceVCO

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) September 18, 2025

---

Funny how that was ignored by the voices who are currently looking for every reason to tie Trump to Colbert/Kimmel being let go.

88Warrior said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Agreed. Maher is who he's always been. He's not tempering anything.

---

Sorry but a hard disagree…Go back just a couple of years ago and watch an episode of Real Time…Maher was just as arrogant and dismissive about all things on the right as Kimmel…His conservative guests were routinely put through the gauntlet by him and the 2 or 3 other liberal guests he would have on in addition to his audience…Bill's definitely noticeably moved more to the center if by just a hair…Whether he did this because he see things differently now or by trying to save his career who knows….

---

10/7/23

Just read an opinion piece on Fox that said Kimmel was gaslit by the MSM as they were bending over backwards to blame the shooting on anyone but their own. Anyone think Kimmel stated what he did because he believed his liberal brethren were reporting the truth vs. wanting to take part in their duplicity as well?

Queso1 said:

---

This is not good. I haven't cared for Kimmel since the man show. But, I don't agree with this.

---

I'm not a 9 year old girl, fattycap or moron with a Peter Pan complex. I don't consume Disney.

DTP02 said:

---

I don't think the relevant question is whether the FCC can investigate or threaten to take action (which is as far as it got here) or even actually take action. The text of the statute seems clear that the FCC can do those things.

I also don't think the relevant question is whether the FCC chair's comments were a primary factor in Kimmel getting fired. I think it's likely he was going to lose his job just based on market forces, but we will never know that for sure since the FCC chair unfortunately muddied the waters.

The real question is whether the FCC should do any of these things, both in this instance and in general.

I don't want the FCC weighing in on a situation like this. I could see some situations where I'd feel it's appropriate, but this one doesn't quite get over the line to me.

In general I prefer to let the marketplace of ideas sort these things out and let the govt intervention be rarely used when it comes to political speech and the vague "public interest" justification. That standard is much too easily abused.

---

While I tend to agree with you we also have to deal with "tainted waters" so to speak. The FCC granted them broadcast rights (I believe its a lease, right?) with restrictions and are therefore beholden not only to their shareholders but also to the people of the US....which is left (for the most part) to the FCC to enforce.

If you selectively attack the party in power, you can expect a little heat in the process if it is breaking any rules....best to dot your i's and cross your t's before going so which they apparently didn't do.

The only way to truly get the FCC out of the picture is to get the government out of the broadcasting business which I would be all in favor of as well.

He is a liberal at heart, and wanted to do anything to make Trump and / or is supporters look like the villain