American Politics

I guess the flip side of the problem is that any real debate has been sidelined by a vocal minority (this thread is a microcosm of that) - and that's also bad.

There's definitely an extent to which a new generation can react against the defining characteristics of the one that went before - Andrew Doyle (in The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World) suggests this may be a way that we pull away from the more extreme social justice/witch hunts we're seeing lately.

But that could be a case of addressing the symptom rather than the cause. If a new generation rebels against, say, the idea that men can enter women's sports or that wearing blackface 15 years ago is somehow horribly offensive, the question is whether they'll just find other things horribly offensive and go after them Salem Witch-style, or whether they'll moderate their views overall. They're two very different things of course.

I do increasingly think that social media needs to be burned and destroyed though. And "Oh you can't regulate the internet" - but then I think we saw with Trump's TikTok ban that you can. And yes, I'm sure there's ways and means around those bans, but if banning X, Tumblr, TikTok or whatever ones are best gone after means interaction decreases by a significant amount, then that's got to be a win. And if some influencers or content creators lose their jobs, well in the greater scheme of things, so what?



(And yes, I'm aware of the Simpsons meme on the irony of appearing on social media in order to decry it, so don't bother pointing that out)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

None of that is what I asked about. How do you feel about the government regulator threatening the license of a broadcaster for nakedly political reasons?

Some of it is bunk too, e.g., Colbert was the highest rated show in his time-slot last year.

---

How would you say Colberts ratings were against the likes of Jay Leno ( not to mention Johnny Carson )

These guys have gone very party political ( maybe to make headlines ) because virtually no one was watching their shows !

Is it Ok for chat show hosts to be party political ?

Surely, if they have gone very biased to one party ( political side ) then it is the job of the regulator, to regulate ~ ~ It is actually very surprising that, these totally biased chat show hosts got away with so much for so long !

And let's be honest about it, their party political musings ain't exactly helping the American Democrat party because virtually no-one is watching these very boring shows ! !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neish

He lost approx 10-12% viewers over summer months when traditionally TV rating drop due to holidays and longer bright hours. Trump has lost 15-20% on his approval ratings since his inauguration

---

There is virtually no-one watching these shows at any time ~ ~ Which probably explains why they are doing the controversial political stuff i.e. To get mentioned in the media.

When virtually nobody is watching their shows they have to stir up stuff in the media ~ ~ This time Jimmy Kimmel went too far and has correctly being sacked for it. I am sure his bosses are glad to see the back of him. It will be telling that Jimmy Kimmel will almost certainly disappear from public view, with-out a big network to push him. I have seem more talented stones ! ! !

Not at all. It’s bullsh*t. How would you react if they silenced Joe Rogan (I don’t know if that’s a good comparison)?

On the other hand, news media fully has a responsibility to remain unbiased and report facts. That has disappeared in the USA and has crept elsewhere.

Anyway, back on point, with the exception of news media, anyone can say whatever the fck they want without breaking the law. Whether it’s funny or not is for individuals/viewers to decide. Not some bullsh*t regulator. I could take or leave Kimmel, I like Fallon and despised Colbert. But - back to principles - give me the smart and irreverent humour of someone like Ricky Gervais any day of the week and keep letting him do his thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Not at all. It’s bullsh*t. How would you react if they silenced Joe Rogan (I don’t know if that’s a good comparison)?

On the other hand, news media fully has a responsibility to remain unbiased and report facts. That has disappeared in the USA and has crept elsewhere.

Anyway, back on point, with the exception of news media, anyone can say whatever the fck they want without breaking the law. Whether it’s funny or not is for individuals/viewers to decide. Not some bullsh*t regulator. I could take or leave Kimmel, I like Fallon and despised Colbert. But - back to principles - give me the smart and irreverent humour of someone like Ricky Gervais any day of the week and keep letting him do his thing.

---

Surely, there is nothing stopping Jimmy Kimmel doing his own podcast ?

Let's see how Jimmy Kimmel gets on without a big network behind him ? !

Interestingly, it was Barack Obama that took a law off the books requiring media ( I assume national media ) to Not mislead the American People. Strange things can come from strange places in American Politics ~ ~ American Politics is very dark behind the scenes, regardless of the Soap-Opera played front of house !

The whole point of the Kimmell thing is not whether hes good or bad, whether you like him or not. Its that Trump has said, that these TV stations cant keep their license to operate if they allow hosts to criticize him. I posted the recording of it on previous page, so this is not just some theory. It's the leader of the country strong arming the media.

I read something last night that Disney, who own ABC are trying to buy Fubo TV and need the Trump admistration to approve the deal because of anti competition laws etc, and that's why they caved so quickly on Kimmell.