ABC Show Won't Air Interview With Democrat Because of FCC Threats (arstechnica.com) 279
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: ABC's Jimmy Kimmel said he will be interviewing a Democratic candidate for Senate tonight, but the interview will be on YouTube only and not broadcast on TV because of threats made by the Federal Communications Commission. Kimmel has been a prime target in the Trump FCC's attacks on ABC and its owner, Disney. In his monologue last night, Kimmel said he'll be interviewing Democrat James Talarico, a state representative who is running against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for a seat in the US Senate.
In previous years, such an interview would have aired on the broadcast show via local stations throughout the country, Kimmel said. This time, it will only be on the Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube channel in order to prevent further trouble for individual stations that hold FCC licenses, he said. "I'll be interviewing James Talarico tomorrow night under unusual circumstances," Kimmel told the audience on Wednesday. "For a lot of years, for the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I've been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like Letterman did, Leno did, Arsenio, et cetera, et cetera. I've interviewed a lot of political candidates, from Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump himself." But as Kimmel said, "something has changed." Disney suspended Kimmel briefly last year after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to revoke the licenses of ABC stations for "news distortion" if they continued to air Kimmel's show. [...]
Kimmel said the decision to put the interview on YouTube was made out of consideration for local stations that could face FCC threats to their broadcast licenses. "And so out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense, my interview tomorrow with James Talarico will not air on television," Kimmel said. "It will be posted on YouTube instead. It will not be on TV. So if you want to learn about a candidate for the Senate tomorrow, you will have to go to the Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube channel where you will see it in its entirety, and thank goodness we have that because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do, until November, of course." "Jimmy Kimmel's decision to keep his interview with a Senate candidate off the air shows just how far this administration's campaign of censorship and control has gone," FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission's only Democrat, said today. Gomez said the FCC "has no lawful authority to threaten broadcast licenses over guest bookings or editorial decisions," and that "no host, local affiliate, or network should have to weigh federal retaliation before booking a guest for a newsworthy interview. Any attempt to pressure broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and the public's right to hear from candidates in their communities seeking public office."
The report notes a similar controversy that occurred in February when Stephen Colbert said CBS forbade him from interviewing Talarico. CBS denied prohibiting the interview but said it gave Colbert "legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates [...] and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled." That interview also ended up being published on YouTube.
In previous years, such an interview would have aired on the broadcast show via local stations throughout the country, Kimmel said. This time, it will only be on the Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube channel in order to prevent further trouble for individual stations that hold FCC licenses, he said. "I'll be interviewing James Talarico tomorrow night under unusual circumstances," Kimmel told the audience on Wednesday. "For a lot of years, for the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I've been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like Letterman did, Leno did, Arsenio, et cetera, et cetera. I've interviewed a lot of political candidates, from Hillary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump himself." But as Kimmel said, "something has changed." Disney suspended Kimmel briefly last year after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to revoke the licenses of ABC stations for "news distortion" if they continued to air Kimmel's show. [...]
Kimmel said the decision to put the interview on YouTube was made out of consideration for local stations that could face FCC threats to their broadcast licenses. "And so out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense, my interview tomorrow with James Talarico will not air on television," Kimmel said. "It will be posted on YouTube instead. It will not be on TV. So if you want to learn about a candidate for the Senate tomorrow, you will have to go to the Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube channel where you will see it in its entirety, and thank goodness we have that because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do, until November, of course." "Jimmy Kimmel's decision to keep his interview with a Senate candidate off the air shows just how far this administration's campaign of censorship and control has gone," FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission's only Democrat, said today. Gomez said the FCC "has no lawful authority to threaten broadcast licenses over guest bookings or editorial decisions," and that "no host, local affiliate, or network should have to weigh federal retaliation before booking a guest for a newsworthy interview. Any attempt to pressure broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and the public's right to hear from candidates in their communities seeking public office."
The report notes a similar controversy that occurred in February when Stephen Colbert said CBS forbade him from interviewing Talarico. CBS denied prohibiting the interview but said it gave Colbert "legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates [...] and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled." That interview also ended up being published on YouTube.
No Balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid stunts all around. The only way to deal with a tyrant is to stand up to a tyrant.
Let them take the licenses and keep broadcasting anyway. Film the boots kicking it in and tearing it down, make them do all the bad things they threaten. They need you to believe that resistance is futile, it is not. Their future is futile.
Re: (Score:3)
And livestream it so they can't confiscate the footage.
Re:No Balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Livestreaming didn't do much to convince the MAGA's about Jan 6.
It turns out (Score:5, Insightful)
The "fuck your feelings" party has the most fragile feelings of all.
Re: (Score:2)
All about the 'natural order'.
Re: (Score:2)
The "fuck your feelings" party has the most fragile feelings of all.
The "fuck your feelings" party has the most fragile feelings of all.
I'm struggling to remember a time when that wasn't true
Freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
They're having a meltdown because mayor Zohran Mamdani is going to speak at the 9/11 ceremony. Can anyone fill me in on the reason?
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick answer: He's Muslim, they're racist
Muslim is not a race.
Re: Freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to constantly poke and prod an otherwise tame animal until it lashed out and bit you, is that your fault or the animal's?
That's the "support" and "blamed the victim" you are referring to. To pretend that Israel is completely innocent in what has happened to the west bank and Palestine over years (if not decades) is putting your own head in the sand. Did they deserve the Oct 7th attack? A reasonable person would likely say no. Did they provoke it via years of actions toward an occupied countr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you think "practices taqiyya" is a legitimate response to the question?
He is known to manage his religious identity to protect political image even managing photo shoots by removing various religious books from his shelf. Combined with past statements expressing support for terrorists convicted of supporting Hamas and similar statements of his wife it raises the question of what he truly believes. Does he for example actually support Hamas yet can't say it because it would destroy his political career?
His 10/7 commentary was akin someone expressing regret for the loss of li
Re: (Score:3)
Coming from the party that loudly boasts "freedom!," it's kinda weird - among other things - that they hate freedom of speech like this.
The Republicans literally dumbed down the populace and now they just follow whoever shouts the loudest. Does Tallarico know how to holler?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again how many times trump phones into fox & friends. Where's the equal time for a dem?
There are two things to remind you of.
(1) "Fox" is broadcast network. "Fox News" is a cable tv network. The equal time rule is for broadcast networks only, those using the public airway frequencies.
(2) "Fox News" does interview Democrats who are wiling to visit their shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting regulations say that the major political parties must be given equal time on the public broadcast frequencies.
That's not what it says, and there's no evidence that an equal opportunity on the network (note "network", not show) was not afforded to the other candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasting regulations say that the major political parties must be given equal time on the public broadcast frequencies.
That's not what it says, and there's no evidence that an equal opportunity on the network (note "network", not show) was not afforded to the other candidates.
"The equal-time rule (47 U.S. Code 315 - Candidates for public office[1]) specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates. This means, for example, that if a station broadcasts a message by a candidate, it must offer the same amount of time on the same terms (in, say, prime time) to an opposing candidate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
We live in interesting times (Score:3)
We have the attention of powerful people,
I can only hope we do not find what we are looking for.
Jimmy should ask him who bankrolled Talarico. (Score:3)
I've stopped seeing his begging for money adds on youtube at 3am in the last week or so. The only reason for that is that some PAC has donated a ton of money to his campaign. I'm not sure why he was advertising at me, I don't give money to political candidates, especially ones that don't represent my district...I'm not a Texas voter.
Re: (Score:2)
According to a report I heard yesterday Talarico has 50x the cash of Paxton and it's the Bush politicial machine that is funding him.
The situation was similar in the primary but the base favored Paxton over Cornin by such a huge margin that the spend didn't matter.
The dual state people hate Paxton so much they have been after him for years.
It's populists vs. oligarchs in most races where party affiliation is a distant second to the money machine.
Since Trump ran on populism but then did a 180 with Judas kniv
Re: (Score:3)
While that is certianly a very nice thought, I don't think it's accurate. If self-interest were the determining factor, we wouldn't be where we are in the first place. The fact that the man was elected even once, much less the second time, demonstrates quite clearly that there are vast hoardes in this country who hate brown people, immigrants, and LGBT people far more than they love their bank accounts, IRAs, and 401ks.
ahh yes...US freedom (Score:2)
Trump admin are nazis (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The progression from "bomb iran [youtube.com]" to "we shouldn't get involved in foreign countries' business" to "but won't you think of the Iranians?" has been fascinating, almost as much as going from "better dead than red" to "better russian than democrat"
Re:Trump admin are nazis (Score:4, Informative)
Not as comical as the progression from "we support oppressed peoples everywhere" to "we think the oppressors should have nuclear weapons"
You failed to observe the "Obama made a nuclear deal with Iran which Trump tore up and then tried to negotiate back again" phase of the argument. Whoops!
Nice Broadcast License You've Got There (Score:5, Insightful)
Talarico is leading Paxton 48%-44% in the AARP poll released September 10 [aarp.org] and 48%-43% in YouGov/Univision's September 9 release [univision.com]. The polling average puts him about three points ahead. [fiftyplusone.news] It's a close Senate race. Interviewing one of the candidates is about as ordinary an editorial decision as television gets.
Yet Kimmel says the interview is going to YouTube to spare ABC affiliates trouble from the FCC [apnews.com]. Apparently informing voters now requires a platform migration.
And the stations have reason to worry. Carr previously offered the "easy way or the hard way" while pressing for action against Kimmel and discussing fines or license revocations. He later denied threatening their licenses. [arstechnica.com] Sure. Everybody just independently developed the same sudden concern about their broadcasting equipment becoming an expensive paperweight.
Yes, equal-opportunities rules exist. So do exemptions for bona fide news interviews. The FCC's January notice [fcc.gov] says talk shows cannot assume they qualify. Lawyers can argue over that. The practical result is already visible: Kimmel says concern for stations' licenses is keeping this interview off television. The reporting identifies no formal FCC order banning it, but a regulator can accomplish plenty by making everyone nervous about what happens next.
That's the beauty of government by raised eyebrow. The network supplies the scissors, the regulator keeps his hands clean, and the public gets directions to YouTube.
Ancient "Secret": Streisand Effect Self-Inflicted (Score:2, Interesting)
Not clear whether Kimmel's not just making a public spectacle of "banning" his own interview to pump up interest in forbidden fruit.
It's a millenia-old hustle: even Jesus famously cured 2 blind men and admonished them "See that nobody hears of this" knowing full well that they'd blab, that a secret would spread all the more quickly.
Clearly Talarico's learned at least one practical lesson from all that bible study.
Por qué no los dos? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt the advertisers would love that. That is ultimately still who they work for.
short term memory problems (Score:2)
Wonder how Jasmine Crokett feels about all this.
Re: (Score:2)
She says you're fools for thinking the man who never pays his bills is going to give everyone $5k and that it's also illegal.
I'd like to hear how the republicans plan to address high gas prices, high grocery prices, inflation, deficit, spending, and that pesky little Gulf War 3.0.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what I was referring to, but thanks for trying.
First Colbert, now Kimmel? (Score:2)
Cripes.
Just what IS it with the GOP's obcession with silencing Talarico anyway. I watched the Colbert interview they also tried to suppress. And the guy is hardly a progressive and barely liberal at all. Before maga, the guy would have been running as a republican or; if he claimed to be Democratic; he'd be denounced as a DINO.
First they came for the press (Score:3)
Re:Talarico is a gay vegan (Score:4, Insightful)
They are oddly obsessed with gay/trans people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Talarico is a gay vegan (Score:5, Funny)
They are oddly obsessed with gay/trans people.
As I once told my homophobe uncle: "I find it strangely fascinating how often you rant about gay people. Like, you seem a little too interested in gay people. Ya know? Like, you're curious, about it, and that curiosity kinda makes ya a little loopy, and you're not quite smart enough to figure out why that makes you feel funny, so the only way you know how to cope is to throw little temper tantrums about it."
It only shut him up for a few minutes, but at least it shut him up briefly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean... Dennis Hastert, a rabidly anti-gay Republican who championed anti-gay laws such that one was named after him, was convicted under that very law because he was indeed gay. It's a classic case of "doth protest too much methinks".
Re:Talarico is a gay vegan (Score:5, Informative)
Hastert doesn't have a law named after him. There's the Hastert Rule, which is an informal rule that no bill should be brought before the House to vote on it unless it already has the support of the majority of the majority party.
Hastert was convicted of structuring withdrawals to avoid reporting requirements and making false statements. The charges themselves were not inherently about homosexuality, though it came about from him covering up his same-sex abuse of a minor, and the indictment didn't mention the sexual abuse, and his allocution under the plea deal didn't initially mention it. He did admit it under pressure from the judge, who seemed to start to lean against accepting his plea without him admitting to the molestation, for which he could not be charged because the statute of limitations had expired decades prior.
Hastert has never come out as gay. Most child molesters, even those who molest the same sex, never identify as homosexual.
Re: (Score:2)
Hastert has never come out as gay. Most child molesters, even those who molest the same sex, never identify as homosexual.
One might argue that his court disclosure was another kind of coming out, though not necessarily as homosexual per se.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he was convicted of illegally structuring of bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements.
Had he said "I'm paying hush money to someone I sexually abused a few decades ago earlier", the whole financial part of it would have been legal.
Re: (Score:3)
As others pointed out, I was mistaken in that he was convicted of paying hush money to young boys who he sexually assaulted. I confused part of one Republican's scandal with another Republican's scandal (Larry Craig). My bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine to point out hypocrisy, but there still are people who are genuinely just homophobic for the same reason Karens will be Karens - they feel if they're not taking some kind of action against what they see as the world slipping into depravity, then no one will.
Also, it's worth mentioning too that the meme of marginalized minorities being the source of their own problems (by making it seem as if most homophobia is perpetuated by self-loathing gays), is itself a form of victim-blaming. It turns a broad
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your theory is that if these people really had a problem with "sin" per se, they wouldn't have held their noses and voted for Trump.
Some of these folks don't like the idea of the world being different than the one they grew up in. Others don't want their kids growing up in a world that's different than the one they grew up in. You've also got the control freak weirdos who don't even have kids but hate the idea of other people's kids growing up in a world that's different from the one they
Re: (Score:3)
Well, now imagine you've got some weird irrational miswiring in your brain that puts gay sex on the same level as beating puppies to death. Those are the people you just have to wait for them to age out of society before their homophobia finally goes away.
Been 53 odd years since my Prime Minister declared that the government had no business being involved in what goes on in peoples bedrooms as long as there is consent and in that time gays etc were never cared about in my Provinces politics by either the right or the left until now. Polling shows acceptance of these things dropping as well. 50 years of acceptance going away rather then growing with the older people aging out.
I fully expect attacks on the left handed next, gotta be a choice to be left handed
Re: The scary thing about American evangelicalism (Score:4, Interesting)
You poor dear!
You don't know that Jesus loves you! He's why you'll burn for all eternity!
Re:The scary thing about American evangelicalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, seriously, show us on the doll where rsilvergun hurt you... I don't agree or disagree with rsilvergun's posts, but to see the same AC BS every single time has gotten old.
Re:The scary thing about American evangelicalism (Score:4, Informative)
He's spot-on.
Whenever there is a natural disaster like wildfires in California huge numbers of evangelical leaders will say things like "God is punishing California for all its homosexuals" or if a hurricane stomps on New Orleans they blame the city's "debauchery" for God smiting them.
America is a banana republic. (Score:2)
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:4, Interesting)
Does Fox "News" give equal time?
They don't have a broadcast license since they are only on cable or streaming. So this threat doesn't apply to them.
But, to answer your question, no, they never even tried to give equal time. And they never tried to present facts, either, but that's a different discussion.
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, they did claim in a court filing [npr.org] that they don't actually present news as facts that reasonable viewers should trust.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was about their opinion shows, not their news shows. That case was specifically about Tucker Carlson.
Those kinds of arguments weren't saving Fox from the Dominion lawsuit, though. If they seemed like to have worked, Fox wouldn't have settled for almost $800 million right before trial.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite true. The same opinion hosts spew the same BS nonsense about voter fraud and those were used in court to bring the massive settlement. Probably because 1) they knew they would lose and 2) they didn't want even more coming out.
Just because it's "opinion" doesn't mean that they have free reign to flat out lie. The case in my previous post was less about provable lies that caused economic harm and instead was about opinions on a News channel, that were then claimed as not news.
Re: (Score:3)
Does Fox "News" give equal time?
They don't have a broadcast license since they are only on cable or streaming. So this threat doesn't apply to them.
But, to answer your question, no, they never even tried to give equal time. And they never tried to present facts, either, but that's a different discussion.
Fox "News" can mean many things, but this sure is broadcast. The actual answer though as a news segment, no, those are exempt.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/ne... [fox5atlanta.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Fox "News" can mean many things, but this sure is broadcast.
Yes, the names are confusing. But "Fox" is an over the air broadcast network that is subject to broadcast licensing since they make use of the public airwaves, and any of the local affiliates that broadcast news would be subject to equal time provisions (although historically certain specific shows, such as late-night talk shows, including Fox's Arsenio Hall show, have been exempt from the provision).
Fox News is a cable or streaming-only station that is not subject to the same broadcast licensing since the
That's not equal time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they have but they typically don't. Ive seen them give hours of live campaign coverage only to republicans under the guise of "breaking news" how much would all that free airtime cost a candidate to buy?. They did a "State of the Senate Race" segment for Montana, it consisted of a softball interview with the republican candidate and that was it. Not really a mention that there was any other candidate. And no follow-ups to the non-answers.
Fox news is just straight up propaganda, it's not a valid source
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you seen Idiocracy? Fox lets Pete and Bernie on their network every once in awhile so their viewers can point and laugh at the "faggot" and the "communist". These people don't even hear the argument, they just see the caricatures Fox has created for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they have. Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders have appeared on multiple Fox shows. So too have the Democratic governors Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore and Gretchen Whitmer, and senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, John Fetterman and Chris Coons also dropped in on the network. (Although some may consider Fetterman 'barely' a Democrat these days.)
Well for one thing, the question was Fox News, and they'd likely be exempt as bonafide news right? If we're bringing the rest of Fox (we mean broadcast right?) into this, having had people on is not AT ALL the same as fulfilling equal time requirements. Jimmy Kimmel has had people on, Trump himself, Ted Cruz, etc. it doesn't mean anything.
The question is really if Judge Judy (national program carried by Fox broadcast affiliates) had a special with Ken Paxton, guest judge, on trial, jury, makes no diff, does
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:4, Interesting)
As the article states, Kimmel has already interviewed candidates like Ted (Rafael) Cruz and the orange one himself. He seems to have no problems. For some reason Talarico makes republicans shit their diapers.
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Insightful)
Talarico on the other hand appears to be a good family man that doesn't cheat on his wife and attends church regularly.
In other words, a Christian who actually follows Christ.
The notion that Jesus Christ would approve of the current crop of GOP politicians is absolutely laughable to me. You're not a Christian if "love thy neighbor" becomes "persecute thy neighbor is they're non-white or trans".
(Disclaimer: I don't follow Christ either, as I'm an atheist. I was raised Catholic, so I know all about how Christianity is supposed to be.)
Re: (Score:3)
I was raised Catholic, so I know all about how Christianity is supposed to be.
A+ would lol again
ABC Thinking Ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ABC Thinking Ahead (Score:5, Informative)
if Kimmel does not air a Republican interview of similar import, Republicans would demand one.
Kimmel has extended multiple invites to republicans in the past. Republicans turn down late night talk show hosts a lot because they can't steamroll the debate. There is no requirement to actually present equal time, only to offer it.
The problem here is that lawyers don't want to do their job and are avoiding conflict rather than arguing their case during conflict the way they are supposed to. Republicans have no leg to stand on, but they will almost certainly do something that results in a court case. ABC need to grow a pair of fucking balls.
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason Talarico makes republicans shit their diapers.
Don't be hyperbolic, that was probably their age.
It's because Greg Abbott is loaded with scandal (Score:2)
Bizarrely that's not the scandal that dogs him. Honestly I can't remember all the things he's done to pissed people off but y
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed.
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Interesting)
Under exceptions the same Wikipedia article, correctly, points out the current administration changed these rules to apply to... late night talk shows:
This is a new interpretation of the equal time rule designed to make it difficult for late night shows to interview politicians, and if it wasn't for SCOTUS being nakedly partisan these days, it wouldn't muster a single court's scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is a new interpretation of the equal time rule designed to make it difficult for late night shows to interview politicians, ...
Nope. All they have to do is offer the republican candidate a similar interview. If the other candidate declines the broadcaster is still in compliance.
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:4)
However this time he wants to only give one side a voice,
[citation needed]
Nobody but you has claimed this. Did you get that idea from the same place you get all of your ideas?
Re:Kimmel Doesn't Want to give Republicans a Platf (Score:5, Informative)
Except he doesn't. Equal time means you need to provide access, and his show often has invited republicans (who have often turned him down). Someone else saying no doesn't mean you aren't meeting your obligations.
There's a reason for this as well. Kimmel is a good interviewer, good at asking leading questions, doesn't take kindly to ranting, and isn't afraid of interrupting people who go off topic. Republicans are largely afraid of their arguments having to stand up in the face of scrutiny.
The legal team at ABC are a bunch of pussies who think their job is to prevent the network getting sued, when in fact their actual job is to protect a network when it is sued unjustly. They are the ones repressing political interviews, which is just plain stupid. This has nothing to do with Kimmel and is not in breach of equal airtime rules. The internal bitchfest they have is the reason they are publishing shows on Youtube.
Get a clue buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't want to do that.
He has already done that. "Equal time" in this case means giving Democratic candidates some screen time you dishonest moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Kimmel would have to obey the equal time rule and give interviews to Republican candidates amounting to the same time as the Talarico interview.
This rule only applies to news programs and to stations with over-the-air broadcasting. Kimmel (and the other comedy talk shows) have long been exempt from this standard. Until the big orange cheeto and his sycophants, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Kimmel has interviewed trump multiple times...
Re: (Score:3)
There is no equal time rule that applies to late night talk shows. This came up with the Colbert thing last year when Paramount similarly caved into FCC threats about it. This is a rule the FCC have arbitrarily decided to re-interpret despite decades of precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Kimmel would have to obey the equal time rule
The FCC gives exceptions to that on a case-by-case basis. They seem to have announced they wouldn't do it here, which favors the currently dominant party, which is why the FCC shouldn't be in charge of these decisions. The rule also hasn't been to the supremes. Kimmel won't want that to happen now for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this leaves out the fact that they do not believe the same rule applies to talk radio, which just so happens to be almost entirely right wing.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as allowing Democratic Socialists airtime, the FCC doesn't consider them to be any different than any other Democrats so it's a no go.
Trump has already called Democrats "godless communists", so that is the official party lin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to say it like that but it feels like the U.S. is slowly turning more and more into a dictatorship. Isn't this the kind of things you have to do in a dictatorship? I feel for the U.S. people right now.
There has been erosion over many years, but Trump is doing it's best to make it one right now.
Lucky for us he's an utter fuckup.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, Don-boy, I called you a fuckup. Tell the FCC to ban the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You joke now, but I would assume there are many politicians there who would love to do that. My guess is they are waiting for your democracy to be weakened enough that they no longer have to worry about voters actually having a say in who is elected, then they will fix that pesty Internet thing.
I figured that's part of why Donny is so fond of AI companies. They're flooding the internet with so much garbage that it will eventually become unusable for the great masses, and for those that do use it, they won't be able to get any real information through the constant shit-spew of AI output.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also his offer is completely illegal and no one seems to be talking about that little detail.
Trump and the Republicans think that voters are whores and will sell their rights for an empty promise. I'm afraid they might be right.
Re: (Score:3)
Where's my $2000 from DOGE savings? Does no one remember the last time?
$5000 doge dividend https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/2... [cnbc.com]
$2000 tariff dividend https://truthsocial.com/@realD... [truthsocial.com]
Then there was the 1400% - 1500% savings on drugs https://www.presidency.ucsb.ed... [ucsb.edu]
Now there's also: $500 obamacare rebate checks https://www.yahoo.com/news/pol... [yahoo.com]
Feelingx wrong, its equal time rule (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to say it like that but it feels like the U.S. is slowly turning more and more into a dictatorship. Isn't this the kind of things you have to do in a dictatorship? I feel for the U.S. people right now.
Your feelingx do not match reality, Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time. Since Kimmel only wants to give a voice to one party he cannot use the broadcast network.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.
It's the equal time rule, not the threat that Trump and his goon squad appointees will attack the network with the full force of the federal government just like they've done in the past. Nope- totally the equal time rule, even though JK has had a ton of republicans on in the past. JK has finally just now decided to freeze out conservatives after years of having them as guests... because you said so. Totally legit. Nothing to do with the think skinned man-baby in the oval office.
Re: (Score:2)
When was that? Around the time that the FCC decided to perform a never-before-done force renewal of ABC's broadcast licenses.
Re:Feelingx wrong, its equal time rule (Score:5, Informative)
Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time. Since Kimmel only wants to give a voice to one party he cannot use the broadcast network.
On what basis are you saying that Kimmel only wants to give voice to one party?
Also, they do NOT have to give equal time, and "major parties" is not part of it; They have to afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office. IE: if Paxton passes on the opportunity, that doesn't block Talarico from airing.
ALSO, as you implied, the "broadcast network" has to give said opportunity. I see nothing in 47USC315 that says it has to be on the same show.
47USC315 also says, "Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any ... bona fide news interview ... shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection." IANAL, but this isn't a paid for appearance, and it is an interview, and it's only falling under this provision because the FCC recently reclassified how late night shows are handled.
There are too many ways in which this doesn't apply or is being applied incorrectly. It's the government strong arming a broadcaster to chill speech.
Re: (Score:2)
On what basis are you saying that Kimmel only wants to give voice to one party?
Engineering the interview to avoid the broadcast network and the equal time rule.
Also, they do NOT have to give equal time, and "major parties" is not part of it; They have to afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office. IE: if Paxton passes on the opportunity, that doesn't block Talarico from airing.
Tomatoe/Tomato
ALSO, as you implied, the "broadcast network" has to give said opportunity. I see nothing in 47USC315 that says it has to be on the same show.
The network would likely be unhappy with Kimmel is he created an obligation they had to fulfill elsewhere.
Its a moot point anyways. He engineered the interview to avoid broadcast TV so equal time does not apply. Except as a gimmick for him to generate publicity for the interview.
Re: (Score:2)
> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.
The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation. It was introduced by the FCC on a whim basically because they didn't want Colbert to interview the same person as Kimmel.
Re: (Score:2)
> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.
The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation.
You are referring to a FCC policy, not the original legislation. The FCC made an exception, the FCC ended an exception. Late night used to be fair, deservidly making fun of both sides. That era is over, as is the arguments for that exception
Re: Feels like the U.S. is turning into a dictator (Score:2)
We've always been a very authoritarian-friendly country. People here love using their power to capriciously determine what others cannot say and cannot do. Combined with money being our true God. Freedom is not really valued here because you cannot buy and sell it on the open market.