Media (Traditional and Social Media) News

[ChapelHillSooner]

The FCC (read Government) is limited to how much sway they have over cable tv as opposed to broadcast tv. And they have zero (0) authority over internet streaming platforms. I think things are run differently in Hungary than they are here in the U.S..

Also, I think it’s easier to have a smaller country of a rather homogeneous populace kowtow down to a dictator. Given States’ Rights here in the good ol’ U.S. - something the right wingers and their SCOTUS have always espoused and cemented - makes that kowtowing more problematic. Also the diversity of the populace and something called the Constitution (the rights of which Hungary doesn’t have or ever had) would also provide obstacles for a Hungarian style take over of the continental U.S.

Or at least I’d like to believe…

I wouldn't say they have zero considering their fight against net neutrality.

I would not be surprised if they start putting pressure on the internet service providers to block left leaning sources. In Comcast's case, the same company is in both broadcast media and the provider of internet access. That means the FCC can exert pressure directly. In others, they will just pull other government levers.

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

People have been cancelled before…

The difference is the government didn't threaten actions against their employers.

That isn't a minor distinction. It is a huge one and one you should have recognized it.

 

[Icky Mettle]

A couple of things, the Charlie Kirk fan club keeps talking about free speech yet they are doing everything in their power to shut down any commentary of conversation that doesn't treat Charlie as a god.

Second, it's sad that the cult doesn't realize how dangerous it is for the government to be controlling speech as they are trying to.

Of course the right wing’s heralding of some of their heroes as “free speech advocates” is their way of whitewashing, justifying, and deflecting from those people’s expressions of hate, bigotry, cruelty, and divisiveness. “He’s not [racist/sexist/antisemitic/hateful/bigoted, etc.]; he loves and stands up for free speech! You don’t like it, you must hate free speech!”

They don’t actually care about, and maybe and don’t understand, freedom of speech. They deny or fail to understand that criticism of speech is not suppression of free speech and is also an expression of free speech. They have twisted free speech to be the expression of hateful, bigoted, cruel, and/or divisive views and ideas without pushback.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[theel4life]

 

[Centerpiece]

Hungary had a Communist era Constitution that was heavily amended when the Iron Curtain fell to purge it of properties that created a monopower in government. Then Orbon's party had more than a 2/3 majority in their Parliament in 2011 and used this majority to throw out that Constitution and adopt a new one which.... created a monopower in government.

Yep. They never did have a constitution like ours and they certainly don’t now

 

[altmin]

Fallon and Seth up next it seems

Jimmy Fallon Abruptly Bows Out Of NYC Conference Slot Amid Late-Night Furor

Minutes before NBC late-night host Jimmy Fallon was slated to appear on a New York conference stage Thursday, organizers said he was out of the lineup.

deadline.com

Minutes before NBC late-night host Jimmy Fallon was slated to appear on a New York conference panel Thursday, organizers announced he was out of the lineup.

“Unfortunately, Jimmy Fallon is no longer able to attend today’s session,” the Fast Company Innovation Festival said in a statement.


Fallon and marketing executive Bozoma St. John had been slated to discuss Fallon’s new advertising-focused NBC series On Brand. The panel, minus Fallon, went on as scheduled. A representative of the festival at the conference venue in Lower Manhattan told a Deadline reporter there would be no comment on the situation beyond the statement.

...

Trump offered his “congratulations” to ABC in a Truth Social post in the wake of the Kimmel move. He said it, along with the announcement from CBS last month that it was cancelling Late Night with Stephen Colbert at the end of the current season has turned the focus to NBC. The Kimmel suspension “leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”

 

[superrific]

I'm just not seeing the cancellation of Colbert/Kimmel as all that significant or evidence of Trump's authoritarian reign. As has been discussed, these late night shows have greatly diminished audiences and are very expensive to produce. Everybody (including Trump) predicted Kimmel would be next since his audience is about the same as Colbert's. These shows have only themselves to blame since a decade ago they decided to narrow cast their comedy towards half the country instead of appealing to the country at large.

No one is preventing Colbert and Kimmel from pursuing another platform for their "speech." Likely both will land with shows on streaming services. Great, let the market speak.

It doesn't matter if Colbert or Kimmel get their audiences back. What part of this do you not understand?

They shouldn't have to find new platforms just because Trump doesn't like what they say. That, in itself, is a huge chilling effect on speech. You're saying, "it's OK if you made a joke and now you have to completely reorient your life and career," based on the assumption that it will turn out fine in the end. But Kimmel and Colbert are not the issue. Both have enough money to comfortably retire.

It's the effect on everyone else, people who maybe want to speak up but don't have a cushion to fall back on.

It is so painful to have to explain these things to someone who claims to be trained in law. I mean, this is the very basics. This is the stuff they assume you understand even before you get to law school.

You reacted quite badly to the suggestion that you should be disbarred because of your political views. Well, now you're saying it's OK for others to be disbarred (in effect). Then you wonder why we are hostile to you. That's not just a different viewpoint. That's sociopathy disguised as politics.

 

[superrific]

The FCC (read Government) is limited to how much sway they have over cable tv as opposed to broadcast tv. And they have zero (0) authority over internet streaming platforms. I think things are run differently in Hungary than they are here in the U.S..

The FCC also has no power to impose viewpoint discrimination but that ain't stopping them. None of Trump's executive orders are within the law.

What makes you think he won't just claim power over cable?

 

[Centerpiece]

I wouldn't say they have zero considering their fight against net neutrality.

I would not be surprised if they start putting pressure on the internet service providers to block left leaning sources. In Comcast's case, the same company is in both broadcast media and the provider of internet access. That means the FCC can exert pressure directly. In others, they will just pull other government levers.

The FCC has little control over content on cable networks because they transmit signals through wires and cables, not the public airwaves. Unlike with broadcast TV, the FCC has very limited regulations on cable content, including indecency standards.

The FCC generally does not regulate internet streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime. Congress has not granted (not yet anyway) the FCC explicit authority over the content on these platforms, which are not transmitted over public airwaves.

Streaming companies do not face the same ownership limits as traditional media, meaning a single service could theoretically serve the entire U.S. market without triggering regulatory concerns.
Net neutrality: The FCC's involvement with the internet primarily relates to the transmission paths, such as enforcing net neutrality rules that affect how internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic.

Cable, less regulated than broadcast, still uses a form of physical infrastructure. The internet, however, is an entirely different transmission model. Streaming platforms leverage this infrastructure but are not subject to the same regulatory framework because their distribution is not limited by the same public resource constraints.

Now, any of the owners can certainly pull the plug or silence the talent or the influencers, but the FCC itself holds little to no sway. But your point is taken. Trump (not the FCC) can put pressure on the owners and coerce them. We’re seeing that in real time.

 

[superrific]

I'm just not seeing the cancellation of Colbert/Kimmel as all that significant or evidence of Trump's authoritarian reign. As has been discussed, these late night shows have greatly diminished audiences and are very expensive to produce. Everybody (including Trump) predicted Kimmel would be next since his audience is about the same as Colbert's. These shows have only themselves to blame since a decade ago they decided to narrow cast their comedy towards half the country instead of appealing to the country at large.

No one is preventing Colbert and Kimmel from pursuing another platform for their "speech." Likely both will land with shows on streaming services. Great, let the market speak.

The FCC's revoking of ABC's license was an empty threat. I am, however, not completely comfortable with the Trump administration working the refs as much as they're doing. No one likes to see it when it's not your team, see, e.g. K. You'll likely see the next Democratic President doing it as well.

What I think we're witnessing to today's environment is Trump pushing the boundaries of Executive Power. Presidents have been doing this for some time,

1. No, presidents have not been pushing the boundaries of executive power anywhere close to this. It's telling that you always have to resort to bullshit both-sides shit. There is a massive chasm between a vaccine mandate (well established in American history) and targeting law firms or universities because of what they teach or who they represent. That is unprecedented -- certainly unprecedented in the modern era.

2. They decided to narrowly cast their comedy? So they just decided they wanted smaller audiences? First off, that doesn't in any way justify censorship. But second, the fact that you think Gutfield is amusing should tell you how their audience splintered. Your sense of humor and my sense of humor are very different. Late night shows have been joking about the president and politics for as long as I can remember. SNL certainly has. What's changed is that a big part of America turned into snowflakes and decided that criticizing Trump was blasphemy. That is not the shows to blame.

3. It boils down so much to silly MAGAs who thought Trump would be great despite liberals telling them, no he really won't. And they know he's horrible, which is why all of his policies poll underwater. But to admit that he himself is horrible is to admit error, and that is something that MAGAs just can't do.

Including you.

 

[Centerpiece]

The FCC also has no power to impose viewpoint discrimination but that ain't stopping them. None of Trump's executive orders are within the law.

What makes you think he won't just claim power over cable?

Obviously Trump is above the law. That’s been shown to us time and again.
See my other comment about that. Trump’s coercive efforts are indeed on full display and have been

 

[mynameisbond]

Jimmy Kimmel is getting the George Carlin treatment from the FCC. MAGA keeps taking us backward.

 

[superrific]

Cable, less regulated than broadcast, still uses a form of physical infrastructure. The internet, however, is an entirely different transmission model. Streaming platforms leverage this infrastructure but are not subject to the same regulatory framework because their distribution is not limited by the same public resource constraints.

Now, any of the owners can certainly pull the plug or silence the talent or the influencers, but the FCC itself holds little to no sway. But your point is taken. Trump (not the FCC) can put pressure on the owners and coerce them. We’re seeing that in real time.

Net neutrality was premised on the theory that ISPs are common carriers.

 

[Ramrouser]

It doesn't matter if Colbert or Kimmel get their audiences back. What part of this do you not understand?

They shouldn't have to find new platforms just because Trump doesn't like what they say. That, in itself, is a huge chilling effect on speech. You're saying, "it's OK if you made a joke and now you have to completely reorient your life and career," based on the assumption that it will turn out fine in the end. But Kimmel and Colbert are not the issue. Both have enough money to comfortably retire.

It's the effect on everyone else, people who maybe want to speak up but don't have a cushion to fall back on.

It is so painful to have to explain these things to someone who claims to be trained in law. I mean, this is the very basics. This is the stuff they assume you understand even before you get to law school.

You reacted quite badly to the suggestion that you should be disbarred because of your political views. Well, now you're saying it's OK for others to be disbarred (in effect). Then you wonder why we are hostile to you. That's not just a different viewpoint. That's sociopathy disguised as politics.

I've already noted that I'm not comfortable with the FCC official, Carr, commenting on Kimmel and looking into revoking ABC stations licenses. I reject the premise of your argument - that Kimmel was suspended due to "threats" from the FCC. Superficially, it appears that way. Sinclair and Nexstar used the FCC comment as their opportunity to pull the Kimmel show from their stations due to low ratings and the show's hostility to a majority of their audiences in more rural areas. It was a commercial decision which I'm fine with.

I also strongly disagree (like many conservatives) with Bondi's comment on targeting "hate speech." Geez, that's all we need. She later qualified it to mean inciting violence but her first instinct was terrible.

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

People have been cancelled before…

Please identify the instances in which the government was involved. Oh, it wasn't? And were those comments innocuous or maliciously disparaging toward minorities, i.e. potential audience members and cast/crew?

 

[superrific]

I've already noted that I'm not comfortable with the FCC official, Carr, commenting on Kimmel and looking into revoking ABC stations licenses. I reject the premise of your argument - that Kimmel was suspended due to "threats" from the FCC. Superficially, it appears that way. Sinclair and Nexstar used the FCC comment as their opportunity to pull the Kimmel show from their stations due to low ratings and the show's hostility to a majority of their audiences in more rural areas. It was a commercial decision which I'm fine with.

I also strongly disagree (like many conservatives) with Bondi's comment on targeting "hate speech." Geez, that's all we need. She later qualified it to mean inciting violence but her first instinct was terrible.

At least you know what a premise is. Unlike our FBI director.

What has to happen for you to be more than "not comfortable?" I mean, who the fuck cares if you are comfortable? People who supported Hitler might or might not have been "comfortable" with death camps. It doesn't matter unless you are willing to say, "I cannot support this any more."

So what would be too far? When would your "not comfortable" become "we can't tolerate this and I must do my part to stop it"? That's been my point all along when I challenge you about being disbarred or stripped of voting rights. Is that the line you draw in the sand? When the oppression affects you?

If you're not cool with being disbarred because of politics, then how could you possibly support a president who was basically doing the same thing (on a federal level, making it impossible for them to practice law), except to others? Is your line in the sand ' does it affect me'?

And if that is really your line in the sand, you are telling us that we have to do those things to you in order to create the possibility of you acting ethically. You don't seem to like that idea, but it's unavoidable unless you can specify a line in the sand that, if crossed, will mean you will not support MAGA in any way. So what's the line in the sand? What is it that Trump could do, but hasn't done, that could make you stop supporting him?

Also the line in the sand can't be comical. Like if your answer is start nuclear war, then it's not an answer at all.