- Messages
- 31,109

Brendan Carr Targets ‘The View’ As FCC Chairman Continues Regulatory Threats In Aftermath Of Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
The FCC chair suggested that he would look into whether the show was exempt from an FCC regulation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Truly a shocking development.
![]()
Brendan Carr Targets ‘The View’ As FCC Chairman Continues Regulatory Threats In Aftermath Of Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
The FCC chair suggested that he would look into whether the show was exempt from an FCC regulation.deadline.com
Yeah but hard to watch the “burn it all down” types suddenly discover that fire is hot without at least an eye roll.At least some of them aren’t, what’s the word we see used here so often…? Oh, yeah, “HYPOCRITES!!!!”
This is the effect of the Supreme Court's lawless stays of all those judgments against the Trump administration. I predicted its effect will be to chill lawsuits, and that seems to be the case.Good commentary on CNN this morning. It's astonishing to me that corporate America, including big media, doesn't seem to understand this. Or maybe they do, but they're more than happy to put profits before principles. In any event, what Trump and MAGA are doing to the concept of a regulated free market is what a one-year old does to a birthday cake. Shame on those continuing to defend it.
Loading…
www.cnn.com
Late last year, ABC News spent $16 million to settle a defamation lawsuit with President Donald Trump. At the time, you could squint and see the business sense of it: Just pay up, say you’re sorry and this will all blow over.
It’s not blowing over. And it won’t.
Across Corporate America, companies are learning the hard way that giving Trump what he wants won’t appease him — it will only stoke his appetite. (It seems some folks have forgotten the sage wisdom underpinning Laura Joffe Numeroff’s 1985 classic “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” Spoiler alert: The mouse has some more demands.)
I agree with you on the frustration with the Supreme Court orders but also think institutions should not be taking the message that the SCt will always side with Trump, which is not really accurate and makes things all the worse by "complying in advance" versus actually making the administration and the justices put their rationale down on paper (they can't just enter shadow docket orders forever).This is the effect of the Supreme Court's lawless stays of all those judgments against the Trump administration. I predicted its effect will be to chill lawsuits, and that seems to be the case.
What the Supreme Court has signaled this summer, by staying judgments without explanation, is that it doesn't matter how strong your case; the Trump administration will always win when it matters (i.e. now). So why sue? If you win, you'll get told to wait a few years for some reason.
Agreed. I posted it in another thread but this Ringer article from today on this point is also good:Good commentary on CNN this morning. It's astonishing to me that corporate America, including big media, doesn't seem to understand this. Or maybe they do, but they're more than happy to put profits before principles. In any event, what Trump and MAGA are doing to the concept of a regulated free market is what a one-year old does to a birthday cake. Shame on those continuing to defend it.
Loading…
www.cnn.com
Late last year, ABC News spent $16 million to settle a defamation lawsuit with President Donald Trump. At the time, you could squint and see the business sense of it: Just pay up, say you’re sorry and this will all blow over.
It’s not blowing over. And it won’t.
Across Corporate America, companies are learning the hard way that giving Trump what he wants won’t appease him — it will only stoke his appetite. (It seems some folks have forgotten the sage wisdom underpinning Laura Joffe Numeroff’s 1985 classic “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” Spoiler alert: The mouse has some more demands.)
* * *
The companies also claim that canceling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” in July was purely a business decision and not a concession to a president who doesn’t like being the target of Colbert’s jabs.
That “it’s just business” line has become a go-to defense for Trump against accusations he is attacking free speech.
On Thursday, Trump and other Republicans insisted that Kimmel’s suspension was a decision driven by poor viewership rather than punishing dissent.
“He had bad ratings more than anything else,” Trump said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune echoed that sentiment, saying Kimmel was simply a victim of market forces and that the network made “economic market decisions.”
But it still smells a bit funny.
While late-night TV viewership has been declining across the board, Kimmel and Colbert have ranked among the highest-rated shows among the key demographic of viewers ages 25 to 54. The shows are also popular on YouTube and TikTok, which don’t count toward TV ratings. It may be true that Kimmel and Colbert weren’t making enough money, but it’s impossible to ignore the timing of the decisions.
“It’s not a business decision. It was a political decision, full stop,” said journalist and media critic Jeff Jarvis in an interview. “If Colbert was losing money, why wasn’t he canceled a year ago? Why wasn’t Kimmel canceled before? The business of linear television is tough, true, but … you could make Colbert or Kimmel very inexpensively if the network wanted to make it profitable.”
And Trump himself is starting to give up the game.
On Air Force One on Thursday, Trump also appeared to depart from the “business decision” line and acknowledge that he just really doesn’t like being made fun of and thinks networks’ broadcast licenses should be revoked if they air overwhelmingly negative perspectives on him.
“When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do,” he said. “They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
* * *
Bottom line: Corporate America made a big gamble on the theory that playing nice with Trump, a leader known to pick fights on social media that can tank a company’s stock, would buy them some kind of goodwill. It’s not working. Carr and Trump won’t stop with Kimmel — in fact, Trump already posted on social media Thursday that “Jimmy and Seth” (Fallon and Meyers) should be on NBC’s chopping block. “Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”
Separately, Carr said he thinks it would be “worthwhile” to have his agency “look into whether ‘The View’ and some of these other programs … still qualify as bona fide news programs.”
ABC gave the administration a $16 million cookie. It’s coming for its glass of milk.
“Those who cave in — those like ABC who cave in — what they do is give the bully an even bigger appetite,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told MSNBC on Thursday. “When they appease the bully, they put all of us at risk.”
While I'm willing to acknowledge that the left deserved criticism for the lengths it went into in terms of speech policing, especially on college campuses, I get really annoyed when some of these pro-free-speech culture guys don't acknowledge the critical legal and cultural difference between "private citizens joining together to do speech policing" (i.e. trying to shout down/"cancel" supposedly unwelcome speech) and "the government doing coercion/compulsion to stop speech it doesn't like." Both are, arguably, similarly illiberal in a society that values a free exchange of ideas, but only the latter is a First Amendment violation (and it involves, in this instance, the terrifying power of the federal government, which dwarfs the power of what a "heckler's veto" or "online mob" or similar can do). So I'm glad to see at least one of these guys, while saying "both sides do this," at least acknowledge that what Trump is doing is scarier and more dangerous than liberal "cancel culture."
Why shouldn't they? The justices have sided with Trump like 14 consecutive times or something like that. They haven't ruled against him since March when they ruled due process was due.I agree with you on the frustration with the Supreme Court orders but also think institutions should not be taking the message that the SCt will always side with Trump, which is not really accurate and makes things all the worse by "complying in advance" versus actually making the administration and the justices put their rationale down on paper (they can't just enter shadow docket orders forever).