Foie gras yourself rich boy
The NY Times on the state censorship:
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.
It’s a shot across the bows. Watch what you say or you will be next.
The comments at the center of this week’s firestorm came during Mr. Kimmel’s opening monologue on Monday night. “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.
…
Mr. Carr, in an interview on a right-wing podcast on Wednesday, said that Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the F.C.C. was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Mr. Carr told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”
How gangsterish. We can do this the easy way, you jump when we say jump, or we can do it the hard way, we use the power of the state to force you to jump.
Late Wednesday, Sinclair, another owner of many local TV stations, said that it would also suspend Mr. Kimmel’s program, and called on Mr. Kimmel to apologize and “make a meaningful personal donation” to Mr. Kirk’s family and the activist’s political group, Turning Point USA.
Now there’s a new one. We will wreck you, and also, give us a lot of money. Censorship plus extortion: our exciting news media future!
Mr. Schumer, the Democratic leader, denounced the pressure on ABC from the Trump administration as “despicable, disgusting, and against democratic values,” and compared it to the playbook of autocratic Chinese and Russian leaders.
“Trump and his allies seem to want to shut down speech that they don’t like to hear,” Mr. Schumer said on CNN. “That is not what democracies do. That is what autocracies do…”
Late on Wednesday, after ABC pulled Mr. Kimmel, Mr. Carr went on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program and described the actions by Nexstar and Sinclair as “unprecedented.”
“I’m very glad to see that America’s broadcasters are standing up to serve the interests of their community,” Mr. Carr said. “We don’t just have this progressive foie gras coming out from New York and Hollywood.”
At the very moment Trump was befouling the dinner table at Windsor Castle with his presence. Foie gras enough yet?
I’ve had a tee printed for my self. If you see some guy wearing a black tee with ‘Mr Trump – Terminator response number 5″ on it, we’ll have met.
This has to be all of our responses to Der Trumpher from this day forward – FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!
Cool. Now do Fox News.
Progressive foie gras?
It’s progressives who have condemned foie gras.
“Nice network you got there, be a shame if somefin happened to it! whoops! How did that late night show get broken? What a shame eh fingers?
Foie gras is illegal in Hollywood, progressive or otherwise. What a weird metaphor.
A variation on Limousine Liberals.
But also, what incredible cowardice from ABC/Disney.
All this wailing and gnashing of preternaturally pearly-whites by Republicans because some people aren’t showing the correct level of mourning for Kirk* and yet when Trump was taking questions from the press at the White House before he left for his UK jaunt, did you see how he replied when a reporter asked how he was holding up following the death of his friend? “I think very good, and by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.”
Totally grief stricken, clearly. Charlie who? Yeah, whatever, look at my new toy!
* There is something unsettlingly eerie about the reaction from conservatives; with all the performative mourning it’s almost as though Kirk was their Diana, Princess of Wales.
No I did not see that!
It’s so Trump.
Speaking of reactions, Nullius hasn’t been back since no one agreed with his view that criticizing Kirk amounted to saying “Yes but” about his murder. I hope his distance isn’t permanent, his commentary is valuable.
And still it goes on…..
“Univision fires talent director after posts about Charlie Kirk’s murder – The network claimed that Puerto Rican Karen Padin violated the company’s social media policies.”
(Spanish-language article)
https://www.elnuevodia.com/entretenimiento/television/notas/univision-despide-a-directora-de-talento-tras-publicacion-de-asesinato-de-charlie-kirk/
From the article, translated:
Who are the “snowflakes” now? Where’s the “Facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd now?
Weird question. If they’re in heaven, obviously it was worth it.
Some context: this is the cartoon in question:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DOfZ6i-jSAb/
Since the children and Kirk both have bullet wounds on them, they’re meant to be victims of gun violence. It’s obviously referring to Kirk’s now-infamous comment:
“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. ”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/what-charlie-kirk-say-gun-35885077
Ophelia, in your comment #10 above, you wrote:
I do not recognize that as what Nullius wrote or meant. I have read that thread a few times, over a few days, so I could sleep on how to respond, or maybe represent what he wrote. In my interpretation:
(A) I imagine someone killing Charlie Kirk — for beliefs and nonviolent activism — because a killer sees Kirk as an “anti-trans” “fascist”.
(B) I imagine someone killing Nullius in Verba — for beliefs and nonviolent activism — because a killer sees Nullius as a “baby-killer” for escorting women to abortion clinics.
I see A&B share an equivalence, or a symmetry. Someone might dispute my analytical technique (of forming A&B), or my claim (of equivalence, or symmetry). Disagreement would be fine with me, because there is more than one way to see a situation. But I did not see that thread engage how I believe Nullius saw things. He might be gone because of that.
He might indeed. I don’t know what to do about that.