Political Posts

[73 Reds]

56 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

ABC business decision which had what factors at play underpinning it?.... clear as day that again (like Paramount)....that Nexstar/Tegna merger deal was in jeopardy by Kimmel making fun of Trump....hence why Nexstar pulled carriage of the show on their affiliates....all done to please/not offend the King/FTC, which in effect doomed the economics of the show at an ABC level....if you want to ignore the causation here....and just lean into some weird correlation of events thesis I think your bending reality a bit too far.

 

 

And that's not business?  Again, other than viewers, why should anyone care one way or the other?  Doubtful that most people commenting on this even watched the show.  

Edited September 18, 2025 by 73 Reds
word

[Eldad]

1 hour ago, dwy000 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/09/17/trump-approval-rating-dips-below-40-in-latest-survey/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna228110

 

 

Two random polls? Real Clear Politics aggregates all of these and puts them in charts. Check it out. 

[Gregmal]

27 minutes ago, Eldad said:

Two random polls? Real Clear Politics aggregates all of these and puts them in charts. Check it out. 

Stop. Taking. Comfort. Food. Away. Kimmel. Canned. Rough. Day. 

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Stop. Taking. Comfort. Food. Away. Kimmel. Canned. Rough. Day. 

This was funny.

[RichardGibbons]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

In fact it is astonishing how many people feel compelled to complain about Kimmel's firing in public.  Why?  

 

Oh! I can help you understand this.

 

ABC was threatened by the state because Kimmel said things that the state didn't like. Some people believe strongly that the state shouldn't threaten people simply for saying things that the government doesn't like. So, they complain when the state does such things, particularly when the target of those threats is forced to buckle under the pressure.

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Oh! I can help you understand this.

 

ABC was threatened by the state because Kimmel said things that the state didn't like. Some people believe strongly that the state shouldn't threaten people simply for saying things that the government doesn't like. So, they complain when the state does such things, particularly when the target of those threats is forced to buckle under the pressure.

Since when does ABC or any company buckle to "the State"?  Looks like a business decision.  

[RichardGibbons]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Since when does ABC or any company buckle to "the State"?  Looks like a business decision.  

 

Oh, it's certainly a business decision as well. A business decision to buckle to the state because that the optimal path for the business when the state is threatening it.

Edited September 18, 2025 by RichardGibbons
Removed typo.

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

Oh, it's certainly a business decision as well. A business decision to buckle to the state because that the optimal path for the business when the state is threatening it.

Perhaps it was the right thing to do.  Businesses have to make such decisions all the time.

[RichardGibbons]

Yep, it was totally the right thing to do. You certainly don't want an authoritarian state to come down on your business hard. Best to bow to the threat.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

Yep, it was totally the right thing to do. You certainly don't want an authoritarian state to come down on your business hard. Best to bow to the threat.

I think the distinction here is, I don't view it as politics or authoritarian anything.  No matter what kind of business you engage in there are always obstacles.  Navigating the obstacles is part of the process.  Companies that don't like the obstacles or rules of engagement are free to operate elsewhere.  In this case I'm sure the company's legal counsel weighed in and the company did what is best for the company.

[RichardGibbons]

Absolutely what's best for the company. And probably what's best for the executives, too. Like, when the authoritarian state is willing to use its power to attack individual companies, they're not likely to stop at the company. There's a good chance they'll try to ruin the lives of the top executives as well. And even if the company tries to defend it legally, they'll burn their own resources fighting against a state that basically has unlimited resources it can deploy against the company. It's clear the right legal strategy is to buckle.

 

So, the best way to navigate the obstacle of an authoritarian government is to give in, lest the business and business leaders get completely screwed.

[changegonnacome]

18 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

And that's not business? 

 

Business infected by overt political cronyism.

 

18 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

why should anyone care one way or the other?

 

Cause you want to live in a free country......ratings should kill shows.......not the guy in the WH

 

I would say the same thing if Biden/Kamala/AOC was in the White House...had a stooge in the FTC...and say Gutfield got axed cause Rupert need his deal with Disney to get approval.

 

[73 Reds]

Just now, RichardGibbons said:

Absolutely what's best for the company. And probably what's best for the executives, too. Like, when the authoritarian state is willing to use its power to attack individual companies, they're not likely to stop at the company. There's a good chance they'll try to ruin the lives of the top executives as well. And even if the company tries to defend it legally, they'll burn their own resources fighting against a state that basically has unlimited resources it can deploy against the company. It's clear the right legal strategy is to buckle.

 

So, the best way to navigate the obstacle of an authoritarian government is to give in, lest the business and business leaders get completely screwed.

But you're talking "good chances", "not likely to stop", etc... Think what you want about this Country but most companies I know don't worry about such issues and are happy to operate here.  Maybe ABC learned its lesson from George Stephanopolous.

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

But you're talking "good chances", "not likely to stop", etc... Think what you want about this Country but most companies I know don't worry about such issues and are happy to operate here.  Maybe ABC learned its lesson from George Stephanopolous.

In fact, here on COBF many of us read 10Ks.  The risk factors included in every 10K border on the ridiculous. Find me any 10K of a US based public company where the "Authoritarian State" or adverse consequences thereof are listed as a risk factor.  

[RichardGibbons]

Don't worry about it, Reds. I think almost everyone is fine with governments threatening people who want to exercise free speech. There's no need to contort yourself to try to justify what the government did. You can just say that you're fine with the government taking authoritarian actions to restrict free speech in this case.

 

Heck, it's pretty clear that what Kimmel said was pretty close to an outright lie, and there's many people on the left and the right who think that outright lies on major networks are a problem that needs to be addressed. 

 

 

[Red Lion]

1 minute ago, RichardGibbons said:

Heck, it's pretty clear that what Kimmel said was pretty close to an outright lie, and there's many people on the left and the right who think that outright lies on major networks are a problem that needs to be addressed. 

 

 

The 1st amendment doesn't provide a blanket protection to defamation. I haven't even had time to read about the Kimmel thing yet other than what I've seen here, but if he's making outright lies then this very well may not even be a "free speech" issue. 

[73 Reds]

6 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

Don't worry about it, Reds. I think almost everyone is fine with governments threatening people who want to exercise free speech. There's no need to contort yourself to try to justify what the government did. You can just say that you're fine with the government taking authoritarian actions to restrict free speech in this case.

 

Heck, it's pretty clear that what Kimmel said was pretty close to an outright lie, and there's many people on the left and the right who think that outright lies on major networks are a problem that needs to be addressed. 

 

 

Makes no difference to me.  But thankfully I do business in an "at will" State where an employee can be terminated for any reason or no reason.  For me that is the only issue that matters here - a company should do what is in its best interest - period. (don't know whether ABC is based in an at-will State).  The rest is politics and ideology.

Edited September 18, 2025 by 73 Reds
spelling

[RichardGibbons]

Well, not quite an outright lie, but close.  He said:

 

Quote

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.

 

To me, that's implying strongly that the guy who killed Kirk was MAGA, or at least a right wing.  But he clearly wasn't. So, while it technically isn't an outright lie, it's close enough that I find it contemptuous.

 

[Gregmal]

Dave Portnoy, who has done a far better job running a media company than many of these talking heads and C suiters with an mba, petty much nails the issue. 

[dwy000]

4 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

Well, not quite an outright lie, but close.  He said:

 

 

To me, that's implying strongly that the guy who killed Kirk was MAGA, or at least a right wing.  But he clearly wasn't. So, while it technically isn't an outright lie, it's close enough that I find it contemptuous.

 

And this administration certainly doesn't support lying in any shape or form!  How's that Lisa Cook thing going?

[cwericb]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

I don’t know why you are saying I can turn it off - I never watched these guys.  I didn’t call for them to get fired or say they shouldn’t have free speech can say what they want.  But they are employees of the company, and if the product is crap, and if as employees they are bringing harm to the company is it any surprise they got the axe?

 

There is a code of conduct for my job, I keep my mouth shut in politics.

 

It’s all these guys.  I don’t understand how late night TV hosted by ‘comedians’ turned into quasi lectures on politics.  At least Bill Maher and John Stewart punch both ways often, but even then, just why is politics on the menu all the time.

 

 

Have you guys never heard of "Political Satire"?

 

Political satire has been a legitimate form of politically based humour that dates back hundreds of years and posters here are talking like it was just invented to embarrass the right. 

 

"Political satire is a type of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics. Political satire can also act as a tool for advancing political arguments in conditions where political speech and dissent are banned."

 

All this boohooing is pretty rich coming from followers of an elderly spoiled brat who constantly calls people childish names and spouts despicable insults numerous times a day. The really sad part of this is when many of his followers here and elsewhere attempt to emulate him.

 

     

 

[dwy000]

5 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Have you guys never heard of "Political Satire"?

 

Political satire has been a legitimate form of politically based humour that dates back hundreds of years and posters here are talking like it was just invented to embarrass the right. 

 

"Political satire is a type of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics. Political satire can also act as a tool for advancing political arguments in conditions where political speech and dissent are banned."

 

All this boohooing is pretty rich coming from followers of an elderly spoiled brat who constantly calls people childish names and spouts despicable insults numerous times a day. The really sad part of this is when many of his followers here and elsewhere attempt to emulate him.

 

     

 

"Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech.  It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion.  Thats why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.  Should the govenment censorship speech it doesn't like?  Of course not!"

 

Brandon Carr.

[cwericb]

15 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

"Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech.  It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion.  Thats why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.  Should the govenment censorship speech it doesn't like?  Of course not!"

 

Brandon Carr.

 

Those who cannot take criticism - even when it is delivered in a humerous manner - is a sign of weakness. 

[Sweet]

57 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Dave Portnoy, who has done a far better job running a media company than many of these talking heads and C suiters with an mba, petty much nails the issue. 

Went and read his take.  Very good.  And he’s right, the cancel culture thing was going back through peoples social media posts, and trying to get them fired for it.  In the UK there was a famous case with Maya Forstater, she tweeted ‘sex is binary’ in her personal capacity.  Disgruntled colleagues complained and got her sacked.  
 

Edited September 18, 2025 by Sweet

[Mephistopheles]

This Kimmel thing isn’t about cancel culture. It’s about the King giving someone an axe because he doesn’t like what they said. Much more dangerous than cancel culture where someone gets fired for writing a mean tweet.

At what point do the non cult Trump supporters like the Ackmans of the world recognize the danger? I guess never, given they supported this lunatic post Jan 6.