ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Off Air After FCC Pressure(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Off Air After FCC Pressure
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html
28 comments
Discussion (453 points, 17 hours ago, 869 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482
I’ll repeat what I said the last time this was posted before it gets flagged off the front page again: if you think government censorship is not on topic for a forum called “hacker news”, then you don’t understand what the word hacker means or its origins and you’re just appropriating a word to make your entrepreneurship forum sound cool. Freedom of speech and freedom of information are central to the hacker ethos and its BS to keep selectively flagging posts that are inconvenient for the tech industry under the false pretense that political discussions don’t belong here.
The topic of censorship is definitely relevant. However, HN submission guidelines suggest that if it’s something that you’re going to be reading about in the mainstream press or catching on the TV news, it’s probably not for this forum.
10000000% agree
Big discussion about it yesterday, but something new today is the FCC pressure, and that is what would be interesting to the HN crowd.
The government is using its power to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum as a way of getting political speech it doesn't like off the air. The President himself suggested NBC cancel their shows as well.
It's a blatant violation of the first amendment, using the government to censor speech. And it looks like not a thing will be done about it.
The government is using its power to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum as a way of getting political speech it doesn't like off the air. The President himself suggested NBC cancel their shows as well.
It's a blatant violation of the first amendment, using the government to censor speech. And it looks like not a thing will be done about it.
Not just "off the air," either. I'd be surprised if 1% of Kimmel's viewership receives the show over the air.
The distinction is vital. The FCC's stewardship of the public airwaves as a limited natural resource is the only reason we granted them this extraconstitutional power in the first place. When the airwaves aren't actually involved, the FCC should have no say whatsoever.
The distinction is vital. The FCC's stewardship of the public airwaves as a limited natural resource is the only reason we granted them this extraconstitutional power in the first place. When the airwaves aren't actually involved, the FCC should have no say whatsoever.
I wonder if abc news publishes tech startup news and app frameworks like Y publishes political news?
[deleted]
I mean,yes,obviously? :-)
> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” the host said.
I've heard this before, but where did this originate? Did Jimmy just make it up or was he quoting some source? I heard the same thing but from people I interact with that this guy was crazy right wing nazi and killed Kirk because Kirk wasn't hard-line enough. But then the bullets said "Catch, fascist" so that was just super confusing. Are fascists calling each other fascists as a meme, or was the killer signing his name like "catch, <signed by> fascist".
I've heard this before, but where did this originate? Did Jimmy just make it up or was he quoting some source? I heard the same thing but from people I interact with that this guy was crazy right wing nazi and killed Kirk because Kirk wasn't hard-line enough. But then the bullets said "Catch, fascist" so that was just super confusing. Are fascists calling each other fascists as a meme, or was the killer signing his name like "catch, <signed by> fascist".
The evidence is a bit fuzzy but it seems Tyler Robinson was kind of MAGA right earlier but in the last year moved to the left so he doesn't pigeon hole very well.
It originated as a form of collective narrative control, the source of which is thus far unknown. It was based around the fact that the killer's parents live in a 'red' area and quickly followed up with photos of the killer together with his family at gun shows, the killer wearing a Halloween costume in which he was supposedly riding around on Trump's neck (which I do not see as a pro-Trump statement but that aside). This narrative control was picked up by nearly all of the big actors in the legacy media and in some form still lingers. Kimmel is (or was, that remains to be seen) part of the legacy media and just did what was required of him. The attempt at narrative control failed when clear evidence of the killer's left-leaning political stance and motivation for the assassination surfaced and ABC - still reeling from its other failed attempts at controlling the narrative, remember the edited Harris interview - clearly saw him as a liability and reacted accordingly.
> It originated as a form of collective narrative control, the source of which is thus far unknown.
That's the part I am curious about. Some clues like the killer's parents I can see, but the bullet markings and riding on Trump's back doesn't point in that direction at all.
I think it would be interesting to study the origin of the narrative. In the most innocent interpretation it's a broken telephone starting with "wouldn't be nice if it was ...", to "I bet it was ...", to then "it was ..." and by the time it gets to Jimmy it's (sources familiar with the matter tell us) that "we definitely know...". But, I wonder if it was a bit more organized, as in people worked together to spread the story more effectively. However, that also means they didn't even think it through one step ahead when the police catch the guy, so that seems iffy.
That's the part I am curious about. Some clues like the killer's parents I can see, but the bullet markings and riding on Trump's back doesn't point in that direction at all.
I think it would be interesting to study the origin of the narrative. In the most innocent interpretation it's a broken telephone starting with "wouldn't be nice if it was ...", to "I bet it was ...", to then "it was ..." and by the time it gets to Jimmy it's (sources familiar with the matter tell us) that "we definitely know...". But, I wonder if it was a bit more organized, as in people worked together to spread the story more effectively. However, that also means they didn't even think it through one step ahead when the police catch the guy, so that seems iffy.
yeah, being a gay furry doesn't have much to do with being right-wing afaik
I'd say it makes you less likely to be right wing overall (since the right is hostile to you), but yeah, I've known some very conservative furries.
Furries are people, and any group of people is going to have a lot of different views and beliefs represented amongst its members.
Furries are people, and any group of people is going to have a lot of different views and beliefs represented amongst its members.
highly unlikely some young guy who had a relationship with his roommate who is a transexual both being furries are right-wing.
Also, highly unlikely a right-wing is going to shoot another right-wing because he is not "radical enough". Sure bud, if you want to believe so ;)
> highly unlikely some young guy who had a relationship with his roommate who is a transexual both being furries are right-wing
This is really not true. The current MAGA movement is rife with doublethink and it appeals strongly to people who feel outcast by society.
This is really not true. The current MAGA movement is rife with doublethink and it appeals strongly to people who feel outcast by society.
Right-wing furries are in the minority, but they do exist - which is what I thought your original comment was saying.
Again: furries are people, and any group of people isn't going to be homogenous.
Again: furries are people, and any group of people isn't going to be homogenous.
Again: None of the described above makes sense. Why would a gay furry shoot someone because he is not radical enough? You have everyone who knew the guy saying that he was very left-wing.
Also, try to check some of the content of Charlie Kirk, many trans students come up to him to confront him on his views, for example https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNcVnPkZlVI
tw_wankette(1)
[deleted]