Good explainer of the business aspects of broadcast TV and how the FCC can affect it.
Colbert was a more “plausible deniability” case as there was no temporal correlation with overt interference. You can plausibly accept that was (mostly) a business decision (give or take the merger deal that needed federal approval).
And you make a fair point that stations in maga areas were going to take heat and may have needed to act individually to not risk local boycotts. It’s cancellation at a local level (much like how lefties cancelled in the last decade). It’s stupid now as it’s been stupid for the last decade, but stupid is what is expected.
Nonetheless, this is still imo an overt transgression of 1A. That the same ultimate business decision may have been made, is irrelevant. You kill a guy on his deathbed, that’s still murder. It was made now, literally immediately after a direct threat from the chair of FCC, an agency empowered by the Communications Act of Congress. If this is not flouting of 1A, I am not sure what flouting of 1 A needs to look like.
Thanks for the well written explanation of the whole matter. Licensing of individual stations, holding company profits and local audience preferences are what really matter.
I do not believe the lie Jimmy Kimmel told on air was a matter of national interest. The FCC Commissioner should have just left it to ABC and its affiliates to deal with. He might have thought he would please the President, but he just gave more ammo to the haters. President Trump should suggest he resign.
“As you know, Iger suspended the show, and he had solid reasons, lots of them, and apart from anything Carr (from the FCC) said. That said, existing FCC regulations governing ‘false information concerning a crime or catastrophe’ fully justified Carr’s warning:
The commissions prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth in section 73.1217 of the commissions rules. 47C.F.R section 73.1217. This rule prohibits broadcast licenses or permitees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if:
1. The licensee knows this information is false
2. It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and
3. Broadcast of the information does in fact directly caused substantial public harm.
-Jeff Childers
Jimmy Kimmel essentially fired himself. The FCC had nothing to do with it. However, had the FCC gotten involved, they would’ve been perfectly justified.
What did Kimmel say that was false or a hoax as opposed to an observation of reality?
What "substantial public harm" arises from observing reality?
What was false about what Kimmel said about any specific crime or catastrophe (which if I read this correctly is about active crimes and catastrophes, not after the fact - and regardless is irrelevant here)?
It’s not all that clear. Would you expect the courts to issue an order for Sinclair and Nexstar to force their stations to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel Live? To force Disney to restore the show? To award damages to Kimmel? Is that the kind government power you want? I don’t think for a moment it’s open and shut.
I disagree that it's not clear, but let's work through it:
Does the legal agreement with ABC and the stations allow stations to not show certain content at their whim? Does that agreement allow for ceasing to broadcast all ABC content if they choose to do so?
Does the government have the right to be able to threaten stations with license removal if they do not pressure networks to remove content the government disagrees with?
Government power to enforce contracts and legal precedence (the aforementioned NRA v Vullo, for example) matters, and is in fact what we should want from our government. Government should not have the power to coerce private enterprises to host or block legal content for speech with which the government disagrees.
Agreed, the FCC should stay out of politics and speech policing. (For both parties of course.) it was wrong to make any threats. I do argue it will be difficult to prove it was the FCC threats that prompted Sinclair or Nexstar to take their action, or for Disney to yank the show. Viewer complaints and ratings data suggests the decision has much deeper historical context. It’s just as convenient to claim the Trump admin jumped on the bandwagon Sinclair and Nextstar were already riding in. Perhaps Kimmel can sue Disney. And if he holds out against Iger he can pay his staff from his own pockets.
Good explainer of the business aspects of broadcast TV and how the FCC can affect it.
Colbert was a more “plausible deniability” case as there was no temporal correlation with overt interference. You can plausibly accept that was (mostly) a business decision (give or take the merger deal that needed federal approval).
And you make a fair point that stations in maga areas were going to take heat and may have needed to act individually to not risk local boycotts. It’s cancellation at a local level (much like how lefties cancelled in the last decade). It’s stupid now as it’s been stupid for the last decade, but stupid is what is expected.
Nonetheless, this is still imo an overt transgression of 1A. That the same ultimate business decision may have been made, is irrelevant. You kill a guy on his deathbed, that’s still murder. It was made now, literally immediately after a direct threat from the chair of FCC, an agency empowered by the Communications Act of Congress. If this is not flouting of 1A, I am not sure what flouting of 1 A needs to look like.
Thanks for the well written explanation of the whole matter. Licensing of individual stations, holding company profits and local audience preferences are what really matter.
I do not believe the lie Jimmy Kimmel told on air was a matter of national interest. The FCC Commissioner should have just left it to ABC and its affiliates to deal with. He might have thought he would please the President, but he just gave more ammo to the haters. President Trump should suggest he resign.
Kimmel would probably been canceled soon, depending on his contract. His viewership was slipping badly. https://www.businessinsider.com/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-fragility-late-night-tv-2025-9
The backlash from Kimmel's lies and biases has probably given ABC reasonable cause to get out of the contract relatively cheaply.
What lie?
FYI
“As you know, Iger suspended the show, and he had solid reasons, lots of them, and apart from anything Carr (from the FCC) said. That said, existing FCC regulations governing ‘false information concerning a crime or catastrophe’ fully justified Carr’s warning:
The commissions prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth in section 73.1217 of the commissions rules. 47C.F.R section 73.1217. This rule prohibits broadcast licenses or permitees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if:
1. The licensee knows this information is false
2. It is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and
3. Broadcast of the information does in fact directly caused substantial public harm.
-Jeff Childers
Jimmy Kimmel essentially fired himself. The FCC had nothing to do with it. However, had the FCC gotten involved, they would’ve been perfectly justified.
What did Kimmel say that was false or a hoax as opposed to an observation of reality?
What "substantial public harm" arises from observing reality?
What was false about what Kimmel said about any specific crime or catastrophe (which if I read this correctly is about active crimes and catastrophes, not after the fact - and regardless is irrelevant here)?
POTUS and FCC threatens the station licenses -> stations demand removal of content = coercion by proxy.
Seems like a pretty open and shut NRA v Vullo-type case. Looking forward to Kimmel's lawsuit.
You clearly did not read the this article.
You clearly did not pay attention to the sequence of events and how Trump and Carr are talking about it.
It’s not all that clear. Would you expect the courts to issue an order for Sinclair and Nexstar to force their stations to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel Live? To force Disney to restore the show? To award damages to Kimmel? Is that the kind government power you want? I don’t think for a moment it’s open and shut.
I disagree that it's not clear, but let's work through it:
Does the legal agreement with ABC and the stations allow stations to not show certain content at their whim? Does that agreement allow for ceasing to broadcast all ABC content if they choose to do so?
Does the government have the right to be able to threaten stations with license removal if they do not pressure networks to remove content the government disagrees with?
Government power to enforce contracts and legal precedence (the aforementioned NRA v Vullo, for example) matters, and is in fact what we should want from our government. Government should not have the power to coerce private enterprises to host or block legal content for speech with which the government disagrees.
Agreed, the FCC should stay out of politics and speech policing. (For both parties of course.) it was wrong to make any threats. I do argue it will be difficult to prove it was the FCC threats that prompted Sinclair or Nexstar to take their action, or for Disney to yank the show. Viewer complaints and ratings data suggests the decision has much deeper historical context. It’s just as convenient to claim the Trump admin jumped on the bandwagon Sinclair and Nextstar were already riding in. Perhaps Kimmel can sue Disney. And if he holds out against Iger he can pay his staff from his own pockets.
Well stated.