Not too surprising.
When I saw him make the remark that the CK killer was a MAGA and they were doing everything possible to try to hide that, I wondered what motivation could Kimmel possibly have to make such an off base remark.

I can’t even imagine that in pre-show prep he and his writers would think that would be a good idea.
He hasn’t been funny for years in my opinion so maybe it’s an opportunity to give someone else a chance.

Good riddance to the cocky, humorless prick. Waste of airtime.

He was trying to speed up his move to Italy since he got Italian Citizenship. He wanted to spike the leftist ball as an exclamation point. He really has TDS bad.

He was obviously was not making the network money, or they would have kept him.
His audience base was to narrow.

AMF.

Let us hope ALL those idiots, from the right and left, get their arse kicked out!

"to make such an off base remark."

Because Tyler Robinson is so far from the left it's laughable? Or do you wish to stay in denial?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Let us hope ALL those idiots, from the right and left, get their arse kicked out!

if only, but having on sleep on that will make a great night for sure.

The really nasty bit is he was pulled he was DIVISIVE!

What about THE ORANGE MAGA ARSEHOLE?

Hypocrisy has no bounds in America!

quote:

Originally posted by rcraig:
AMF.

correct!

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:

quote:

Originally posted by rcraig:
AMF.

correct!

+1 more

Look in the Internet for the real reason he got canned!

This is the ultimate in corruption!

What do expect when you have this classless character in charge!

Yeah.

Fuck the 1st Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0...bc-jimmy-kimmel.html

>>>>The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration.<<<<<

All this time I thought Rightists were advocates of free speech. They said so.

So what's with all this?

Did they lie again?

Jimmy Kimmel lies and gets banished, Donald Trump lies and gets elected POTUS.

Seems odd, somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Jimmy Kimmel lies and gets banished, Donald Trump lies and gets elected POTUS.

Seems odd, somehow.

Of course!

You are experiencing the ultimate in political corruption!

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Jimmy Kimmel lies and gets banished, Donald Trump lies and gets elected POTUS.

Seems odd, somehow.

Not to criticize or argue, but let me re-phrase that.

Jimmy Kimmel lies tells the truth and gets banished, Donald Trump lies and gets elected POTUS.

It's just further evidence that trump is an existential threat to democracy and our country. It defies belief that there are people here applauding this just because they don't like the utterance.

First step of an authoritarian government is to silence criticism by opponents.

Here's a better way than censorship:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/n...wB1?ocid=socialshare

Trump v The Truth

Channel 4 Marking Donald Trump's Visit To UK With "Longest Uninterrupted Reel Of Untruths Ever Broadcast On Television"
Story by Max Goldbart • 3d •
2 min read

Channel 4 is planning a slightly different take on Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK.

The UK’s irreverent network has revealed a “night of TV dedicated to Donald Trump untruths” that will take place in two days’ time when the POTUS arrives in the UK, home to his golf courses and ancestors.

Trump v The Truth is described as an “unbroken catalogue of over 100 falsehoods, distortions and inaccuracies uttered or written by the US President since taking office in January.” Running over several hours, these statements will be punctuated by brief text-based fact-checks, which Channel 4 said will “offer viewers the truth behind the tweets, speeches and soundbites.”

On the same night, Channel 4 will air the second ep of The Donald Trump Show, a three-part documentary from Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story indie 72 Films that “uses news footage from TV, podcasts and social media to tell the story of the last nine months of the presidency as an unfolding soap opera.”

Ian Katz, who oversees content for Channel 4, said: “Donald J Trump loves making history. So, on Wednesday Channel 4 will do just that: we'll show what we believe to be the longest uninterrupted reel of untruths, falsehoods and distortions ever broadcast on television. We hope it will remind viewers how disorientating and dangerous the world becomes when the most powerful man on earth shows little regard for the truth. And if President Trump cares to watch along after the state banquet, he may even clear up a few misconceptions."

...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
It's just further evidence that trump is an existential threat to democracy and our country. It defies belief that there are people here applauding this just because they don't like the utterance.

First step of an authoritarian government is to silence criticism by opponents.

There are several articles now making the case that we're in phase two.

Oh, BTW, can you imagine the roar if Biden admin silenced Limpbaugh or any other or all far right clone/clown talk hosts?

Trump on Jan. 25, 2025:

“After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Trump on Jan. 25, 2025:

“After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I also will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

Only ONE of his lies!

Here's what I mean by phase two:

https://open.substack.com/pub/...=post&utm_medium=web

Trump Tightens his Grip on the Media: Jimmy Kimmel, the New York Times, etc.
A president shouldn't be allowed to use defamation to suppress criticism of him. Big businesses likely to surrender to this shouldn't be allowed to buy major media.
Robert Reich
Sep 18, 2025

Donald Trump has sued the New York Times for, well, reporting on Trump.

Rather than charging the Times with any specific libelous act, Trump’s lawsuit is just another of his angry bloviations.

The lawsuit says he’s moving against "one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.” And so on.

At least he sued The Wall Street Journal’s parent company for something specific — reporting Trump’s birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein (which Trump continues to deny even though it showed up in the Epstein files).

Last year, Trump sued ABC and its host George Stephanopoulos for having said that Trump was found liable for rape rather than "sexual abuse" in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. The network settled for $16 million

Trump sued CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris on "60 Minutes" to make her sound more coherent. CBS also agreed to pay $16 million.

Defamation lawsuits are a longstanding part of Trump’s repertoire, which he first learned at the feet of Roy Cohn, one of America’s most notorious legal bullies.

In the 1980s, Trump sued the Pulitzer-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Paul Gapp for $500 million, for criticizing Trump’s plan to build the world’s tallest building in Manhattan, a 150-story tower that Gapp called "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.”

Trump charged that Gapp had "virtually torpedoed" the project and subjected Trump to "public ridicule and contempt." A judge later dismissed the suit as involving protected opinion.

But such lawsuits are far worse when a president sues. He’s no longer just an individual whose reputation can be harmed. He’s the head of the government of the United States. One of the cardinal responsibilities of the media in our democracy is to report on a president — and often criticize him.

The legal standard for defamation of a public figure, established in a 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires that public officials who bring such suits prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

That case arose from a libel suit filed by L.B. Sullivan, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, against the New York Times for an advertisement in the paper that, despite being mostly true, contained factual errors concerning the mistreatment of civil rights demonstrators.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, finding that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the higher standard of proof was necessary to protect robust debate on public affairs.

Under this standard, there’s no chance Trump will prevail in his latest lawsuits against the Times or Wall Street Journal. Nor would he have won his lawsuits against ABC and CBS, had they gone to trial.

But Trump hasn’t filed these lawsuits to win in court. He has sought wins in the court of public opinion. These lawsuits are aspects of his performative presidency.

ABC’s and CBS’s settlements are viewed by Trump as vindications of his gripes with the networks.

He’s likewise using his lawsuit against the New York Times to advertise his long standing grievances with the paper.

His lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is intended to send a message to the Journal’s publisher, Rupert Murdoch, that Trump doesn’t want Murdoch to muck around in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

These lawsuits also put the media on notice that Trump could mess up their businesses.

Not only is it costly to defend against them — requiring attorney’s fees, inordinate time of senior executives, and efforts to defend the media’s brand and reputation.

When a lawsuit comes from the president of the United States who also has the power to damage a business by imposing regulations and prosecuting the corporation for any alleged wrongdoings, the potential costs can be huge.

Which presumably is why CBS caved rather than litigated. Its parent company, Paramount, wanted to be able to sell it for some $8 billion to Skydance, whose CEO is David Ellison (scion of the second-richest person in America, Oracle’s Larry Ellison). But Paramount first needed the approval of Trump’s Federal Communications Commission — which held up the sale until the defamation lawsuit was settled.

Here we come to the central danger of Trump’s wanton use of personal defamation law. The mere possibility of its use — coupled with Trump’s other powers of retribution — have a potential chilling effect on media criticism of Trump.

We don’t know how much criticism has been stifled to date, but it’s suggestive that a CBS News president and the executive producer of “60 Minutes” resigned over CBS’s handling of the lawsuit and settlement, presumably because they felt that management was limiting their ability to fairly and freely cover Trump.

It’s also indicative that CBS ended Stephen Colbert’s contract. Colbert’s show is the highest-rated late night comedy show on television. He’s also one of the most trenchant critics of Trump.

Among the capitulations CBS’s owners made to the Trump administration was to hire an “ombudsman” to police the network against so-called bias — and the person they hired was Kenneth R. Weinstein, the former president and chief executive of the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute think tank.

Note also that on Wednesday ABC pulled off the air another popular late-night critic of Trump — Jimmy Kimmel — because Kimmel in a monologue earlier this week charged that Trump’s “MAGA gang” was trying “to score political points” from Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

ABC announced the move after Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, appeared to threaten ABC, and its parent company Disney, for airing Kimmel’s monologue —ominously threatening: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and related businesses, has muzzled the editorial page of the Washington Post — prohibiting it from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and imposing a stringent set of criteria on all editorials and opinion columns, which has led to the resignations of its opinion page editor and a slew of its opinion writers.

Trump hasn’t sued the Washington Post for defamation, but Bezos presumably understands Trump’s potential for harming his range of businesses and wants to avoid Trump’s wrath.

Make no mistake. Trump’s efforts to silence media criticism of him and his administration constitute another of his attacks on democracy.

What can be done? Two important steps are warranted.

First, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard should be far stricter when a president of the United States seeks to use defamation law against a newspaper or media platform that criticizes him.

Instead of requiring that he prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, he should have to prove that the false statement materially impaired his ability to perform his official duties.

Better yet, a president should have no standing to bring defamation suits. He has no need to bring them. Through his office he already possesses sufficient — if not too much — power to suppress criticism.

Second, antitrust authorities should not allow large corporations or ultra-wealthy individuals with many other business interests to buy major newspapers or media platforms. They cannot be trusted to prioritize the public’s right to know over their financial interests in their range of businesses.

The richest person in the world was allowed to buy X, one of the most influential news platforms on earth, and has turned it into a cesspool of rightwing lies and conspiracy theories.

The family of the second-richest person in the world now owns CBS.

The third-richest person now owns the Washington Post.

The Disney corporation — with its wide range of business enterprises — owns ABC.

The problem isn’t concentrated wealth per se. It’s that these business empires are potentially more important to their owners than is the public’s right to know.

If Democrats win back control of Congress next year, they should encode these two initiatives in legislation.

Democracy depends on a fearless press. Trump and the media that have caved in to him are jeopardizing it and thereby undermining our democracy

Trump didnt censor Kimmel any more than Biden/Obama censored that idiot that made the comments about Sandy Hook.

Kimmel made some comments that were untrue (the shooter was MAGA/Trump supporter) and the parent company fired or suspended (not really sure which as I’ve heard both) him, probably to protect themselves in case of a lawsuit.

Censorship is preemptive removal of commentary by the government.

Kimmel would be perfectly free to start up his own webcast and say whatever… and get sued for remarks made.

But I agree it’s somewhat hypocritical to rail about cancel culture and then press for this.

Somehow I doubt Charlie Kirk would agree with it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Trump didnt censor Kimmel any more than Biden/Obama censored that idiot that made the comments about Sandy Hook.

Kimmel made some comments that were untrue (the shooter was MAGA/Trump supporter) and the parent company fired or suspended (not really sure which as I’ve heard both) him, probably to protect themselves in case of a lawsuit.

Censorship is preemptive removal of commentary by the government.

Kimmel would be perfectly free to start up his own webcast and say whatever… and get sued for remarks made.

But I agree it’s somewhat hypocritical to rail about cancel culture and then press for this.

Somehow I doubt Charlie Kirk would agree with it.

Maybe you need to go back and read the whole thread. Kimmel was fired after trump administration pressure to fire him.

The truth is that ABC stopped the show because Kimmel was appealing to a diminishing audience.
Nexstar and Sinclair decided that they didn’t want the show anymore - and they aren’t required to carry any content they feel is not popular with their customers - so they pulled the plug.
That was the business reason for the show’s demise.
The social reason is Kimmel’s inane political gibberish isn’t all that popular anymore.
Ratings and advertising revenues matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
The truth is that ABC stopped the show because Kimmel was appealing to a diminishing audience.
Nexstar and Sinclair decided that they didn’t want the show anymore - and they aren’t required to carry any content they feel is not popular with their customers - so they pulled the plug.
That was the business reason for the show’s demise.
The social reason is Kimmel’s inane political gibberish isn’t all that popular anymore.
Ratings and advertising revenues matter.

Actually, that is not the truth at all. And, if you would read all the reporting on it, you'd know that. Kimmel was fired after the head of the FCC threatened the network.

"ABC announced on Wednesday evening that it was pulling Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show “indefinitely” after conservatives accused the longtime host of inaccurately describing the politics of the man who is accused of fatally shooting the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0...bc-jimmy-kimmel.html

Same with Colbert. And, Harvard. Government blackmail.

That is what the courts are for.
If Kimmel was making them money, they would go to court over any FCC shutdown.
He wasnt, easier to get rid of him and save the hassle.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
"to make such an off base remark."

Because Tyler Robinson is so far from the left it's laughable? Or do you wish to stay in denial?

His family is kind of MAGA. There is not much about his own predilections in the public domain yet.

We might consider who shot Malcom X and why, before making too many assumptions.

quote:

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

The network did not explain its decision, but the sequence of events on Wednesday amounted to an extraordinary exertion of political pressure on a major broadcast network by the Trump administration."

"we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Brendan Carr

Do I understand this correctly - Trump can sue who he likes for any slight, real or imagined, and can bring the weight of regulatory agencies to bear for additional pressure, yet he as president is immune from suits bought against him due to presidential immunity?

Genuine question - does his immunity extend that far?

It does if he…sorry, ‘He’..says it does.

He was sent by God, I’m told. Sort of like Jesus, only richer and devoid of any morals or ethics and delivering the gospel of vanity, greed and licentiousness..