Tony, your "Jimmy Kimmel is not news" deflection crumbles on contact with reality.
By the time Kimmel made his statements, the facts about Robinson's left-leaning politics were emerging and available to anyone consuming news seriously. Kimmel's production team has resources that dwarf most newsrooms; they knew better. The YouGov poll data proves exactly why this matters: 41% of Democrats incorrectly believed the shooter was Republican. Kimmel chose to reinforce that false narrative when accurate information was available to him.
This wasn't premature commentary; it was calculated disinformation disguised as entertainment.
Your "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" is actually a threat argument falls flat. That's textbook regulatory language signaling consequences for broadcast licensees. Carr was doing his job: preventing influential media figures from exploiting public confusion with deliberate falsehoods during major national events.
Your strategic argument is backwards. Preemptively surrendering to bad-faith "martyrdom" narratives guarantees the complete erosion of broadcast standards. The proper response to deliberate misinformation isn't to avoid accountability out of fear of political theater: it's to consistently enforce basic accuracy requirements regardless of partisan whining.
Kimmel had the facts, ignored them, and chose to spread disinformation that aligned with politically convenient public misconceptions. That's exactly when regulatory oversight should kick in.
Your Führerbunker comparison remains ridiculous hyperbole that undermines serious discussion of media accountability.
Why is it not surprising that your chief recommendation seems to be: "Just bend over and let the Left owned media have their way."
By the time Kimmel made his statements, the facts about Robinson's left-leaning politics were emerging and available to anyone consuming news seriously. Kimmel's production team has resources that dwarf most newsrooms; they knew better.
Yeah, duh. Of course they knew. They're liars.
And lying is legal. And he isn't news. But that wasn't even my point.
Your "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" is actually a threat argument falls flat. That's textbook regulatory language signaling consequences for broadcast licensees. Carr was doing his job: preventing influential media figures from exploiting public confusion with deliberate falsehoods during major national events.
LOL. I linked the actual whatever that was that you cited. It is nothing of the sort, and even if it were, that is obviously unconstitutional.
Your strategic argument is backwards. Preemptively surrendering to bad-faith "martyrdom" narratives guarantees the complete erosion of broadcast standards. The proper response to deliberate misinformation isn't to avoid accountability out of fear of political theater: it's to consistently enforce basic accuracy requirements regardless of partisan whining.
You cried when Biden "enforce[d] basic accuracy" standards (at least what he claimed) on Twitter. Now you want to become the tyrant.
As I said, my point isn't even that you're a hypocrite. I can understand that. It's that this is BLUNDERING. It's worse than a crime, it's a blunder. If you want to censor people, you need to shut up and not talk like a mob boss like that total retard.
Your Führerbunker comparison remains ridiculous hyperbole that undermines serious discussion of media accountability.
When this 'strategy', or whatever the hell that was, resulted in you getting your ass kicked so hard, you may want to consider if speaking like a mob boss and blundering about was the best way to go about. I don't know why you think this is controversial. Do you normally persist in paths that result in you getting your ass kicked this hard?
Why is it not surprising that your chief recommendation seems to be: "Just bend over and let the Left owned media have their way."
So now I'm a traitor for pointing out your failed strategy?
My recommendation is that if you want to censor, at least do it in a way that is smart and doesn't result in your getting your ass kicked. Don't go around and shout "HAHA, WE ARE EVIL AND WE'RE CENSORING". Instead, disguise it so that people can't pounce on it.
Tony, our major disagreement seems to be that you think that broadcast TV should be without standards or enforcement.
I disagree.
Twitter isn't governed by the FCC. It isn't broadcast over the airwaves.
A government monopoly is granted by broadcast licences, and that comes with conditions.
The enforcement of those conditions has been entirely absent for a long time. Lying over the airwaves, radio or TV should have consequences. This was as clear-cut as it gets.
This isn't Twitter. As unethical as that was, I don't think it was strictly prohibited by federal law.
Your argument is that the director of the FCC threatened to enforce the law? Well fuck him. How dare he do his job, amIrite?
This isn't censorship. If it was there would be actual consequences for discussing this on the Internet, which there are not.
The The left leaning media was going to try to spin this with a lie no matter what happened. They are mobilizing their useful idiots to try to neutralize any kind of enforcement.
The sick, sad joke is that private broadcast companies are reflecting public opinion and preemptively canceling the airing of this shitty, unpopular show, not the US government.
This isn't censorship. It would be fucking great if the FCC actually did it's fucking job and enforced the law. Do it impartially.
The lie that this is politically motivated censorship will die off, because it will lose steam or stop working. This is just like Russia Collision or any other lie that was a useful lever to pull.
If I were Trump I'd push to have laws passed to break up media ownership, but I am not.
It is fucking hilarious that you think that enforcing a very reasonable law is mustach twirling evil. How unexpected.
Tony, our major disagreement seems to be that you think that broadcast TV should be without standards or enforcement.
No, this is an 'is' and not an 'ought'. By the way, your position on the 'ought' changed about 8 months ago.
This isn't Twitter. As unethical as that was, I don't think it was strictly prohibited by federal law.
Of course it was. Not by criminal law, unfortunately, but it's an illegal government action based on the highest law.
This isn't censorship. If it was there would be actual consequences for discussing this on the Internet, which there are not.
Do you think something cannot be censorship unless there are consequences for discussing it on the internet? As long as you don't touch the internet (yet), it's not censorship? Of course, people like Don Bacon and other GOP Congressmen want to touch the internet as well...
The sick, sad joke is that private broadcast companies are reflecting public opinion and preemptively canceling the airing of this shitty, unpopular show, not the US government.
If that's the case, why would you even need to talk like a mob boss like the FCC guy? Why would you give your opponents ammunition to spin it as censorship and bring back an extremely unpopular, unfunny guy back, now as a martyr of censorship?
This isn't censorship. It would be fucking great if the FCC actually did it's fucking job and enforced the law. Do it impartially.
Who do you trust with the power to censor? You talk like Donald Trump is president for the rest of eternity.
If I were Trump I'd push to have laws passed to break up media ownership, but I am not.
That's actually great. It's not targeting any speech, and it would be an overall improvement that everyone can agree with. Or Democrats would have to admit that they love concentrations of power.
It is fucking hilarious that you think that enforcing a very reasonable law is mustach twirling evil. How unexpected.
I mean, you're not even willing to admit that it's extremely STUPID, the way they went about doing it.
Tony, your "Jimmy Kimmel is not news" deflection crumbles on contact with reality.
By the time Kimmel made his statements, the facts about Robinson's left-leaning politics were emerging and available to anyone consuming news seriously. Kimmel's production team has resources that dwarf most newsrooms; they knew better. The YouGov poll data proves exactly why this matters: 41% of Democrats incorrectly believed the shooter was Republican. Kimmel chose to reinforce that false narrative when accurate information was available to him. This wasn't premature commentary; it was calculated disinformation disguised as entertainment.
Your "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" is actually a threat argument falls flat. That's textbook regulatory language signaling consequences for broadcast licensees. Carr was doing his job: preventing influential media figures from exploiting public confusion with deliberate falsehoods during major national events.
Your strategic argument is backwards. Preemptively surrendering to bad-faith "martyrdom" narratives guarantees the complete erosion of broadcast standards. The proper response to deliberate misinformation isn't to avoid accountability out of fear of political theater: it's to consistently enforce basic accuracy requirements regardless of partisan whining.
Kimmel had the facts, ignored them, and chose to spread disinformation that aligned with politically convenient public misconceptions. That's exactly when regulatory oversight should kick in.
Your Führerbunker comparison remains ridiculous hyperbole that undermines serious discussion of media accountability.
Why is it not surprising that your chief recommendation seems to be: "Just bend over and let the Left owned media have their way."
Yeah, duh. Of course they knew. They're liars.
And lying is legal. And he isn't news. But that wasn't even my point.
LOL. I linked the actual whatever that was that you cited. It is nothing of the sort, and even if it were, that is obviously unconstitutional.
You cried when Biden "enforce[d] basic accuracy" standards (at least what he claimed) on Twitter. Now you want to become the tyrant.
As I said, my point isn't even that you're a hypocrite. I can understand that. It's that this is BLUNDERING. It's worse than a crime, it's a blunder. If you want to censor people, you need to shut up and not talk like a mob boss like that total retard.
When this 'strategy', or whatever the hell that was, resulted in you getting your ass kicked so hard, you may want to consider if speaking like a mob boss and blundering about was the best way to go about. I don't know why you think this is controversial. Do you normally persist in paths that result in you getting your ass kicked this hard?
So now I'm a traitor for pointing out your failed strategy?
My recommendation is that if you want to censor, at least do it in a way that is smart and doesn't result in your getting your ass kicked. Don't go around and shout "HAHA, WE ARE EVIL AND WE'RE CENSORING". Instead, disguise it so that people can't pounce on it.
Tony, our major disagreement seems to be that you think that broadcast TV should be without standards or enforcement.
I disagree.
Twitter isn't governed by the FCC. It isn't broadcast over the airwaves.
A government monopoly is granted by broadcast licences, and that comes with conditions.
The enforcement of those conditions has been entirely absent for a long time. Lying over the airwaves, radio or TV should have consequences. This was as clear-cut as it gets.
This isn't Twitter. As unethical as that was, I don't think it was strictly prohibited by federal law.
Your argument is that the director of the FCC threatened to enforce the law? Well fuck him. How dare he do his job, amIrite?
This isn't censorship. If it was there would be actual consequences for discussing this on the Internet, which there are not.
The The left leaning media was going to try to spin this with a lie no matter what happened. They are mobilizing their useful idiots to try to neutralize any kind of enforcement.
The sick, sad joke is that private broadcast companies are reflecting public opinion and preemptively canceling the airing of this shitty, unpopular show, not the US government.
This isn't censorship. It would be fucking great if the FCC actually did it's fucking job and enforced the law. Do it impartially.
The lie that this is politically motivated censorship will die off, because it will lose steam or stop working. This is just like Russia Collision or any other lie that was a useful lever to pull.
If I were Trump I'd push to have laws passed to break up media ownership, but I am not.
It is fucking hilarious that you think that enforcing a very reasonable law is mustach twirling evil. How unexpected.
No, this is an 'is' and not an 'ought'. By the way, your position on the 'ought' changed about 8 months ago.
Of course it was. Not by criminal law, unfortunately, but it's an illegal government action based on the highest law.
Do you think something cannot be censorship unless there are consequences for discussing it on the internet? As long as you don't touch the internet (yet), it's not censorship? Of course, people like Don Bacon and other GOP Congressmen want to touch the internet as well...
If that's the case, why would you even need to talk like a mob boss like the FCC guy? Why would you give your opponents ammunition to spin it as censorship and bring back an extremely unpopular, unfunny guy back, now as a martyr of censorship?
Who do you trust with the power to censor? You talk like Donald Trump is president for the rest of eternity.
That's actually great. It's not targeting any speech, and it would be an overall improvement that everyone can agree with. Or Democrats would have to admit that they love concentrations of power.
I mean, you're not even willing to admit that it's extremely STUPID, the way they went about doing it.
https://youtu.be/Aoam4Vtt3sw
Watch this.
Midnight' s Edge have been a reliable scooper for years.
This is what actually happened.
If you want to go on and believe every lie on TV, then knock yourself out, but you are better than that. Even if I am the only one who thinks so.