They canceled Jimmy Kimmel. The apparent reason was this passage (at 2:02), where Mr Kimmel said during a show monologue:
“The MAGA Gang (is) 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. In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”
I talked about this issue in a previous blog-post. And I think Mr Kimmel made a valid point. I would call it a form of Sensationalism, that seems to be going on a lot. Like the headline of this blog-post, totally scandalous how they treat him, and all that – and with this, I perhaps draw a reader in, to be outraged together about it.
And if I were about to fill two hours of a stream, with no care about doing preparation nor about like journalistic standards, it might quickly turn to speculations, like: “You know, when Jimmy said it, that was after Mr Trump said the thing on Fox about California. And the chair of the FCC threatened to take action because of what Jimmy said, who happens to be in California. So, could it be, that the witch-hunt of Jimmy Kimmel is politically motivated, to cleanse California of everyone Mr Trump doesn’t deem worthy of existence? Crazy, right? And have you heard of Herschel Grynszpan? He killed a German diplomat in 1938, and the Nazis used it as pretext to launch pogroms.”
Or if I were be looking to score a specific point with the main audience of Jimmy Kimmel, I might be like: “Let’s rename something after Jimmy, to remind us of what he stood for, such as (insert agenda point, even something such as that Jimmy would have wanted us to purchase a new TV, link below).”
But do I actually care? Well, I don’t think that Jimmy Kimmel and Co. will necessarily join the masses of the homeless in California. I mean, if someone of the staff had perhaps relatively little salary, with which they were barely able to make mortgage payments, that may get tough. But a loss of job, happens, as I also know from own experience. So, it is not like I am grieving for them.
On the other hand, generally, for what sounds like a political critique to me, to receive such repercussion, that seems to be quite lacking a civil discourse. Such as asking, whether it would honor Mr Kirk’s legacy, to go hard in on everyone deemed a political activist not in line with what a sort of U.S. politburo deems to be in order. Mr Kirk may have been more of a showman, than an academician. But he seemed to enjoy to talk as he deemed fit to, and as far as that went, similar would be e.g.:
“Mr Trump is just a quota guy. Republicans were like: Oh, who we gonna nominate for President. He has to be white. Let’s switch on the TV, and look at Donald, he is white…ish. And that’s how he got the job, for being a white guy, but he doesn’t have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.”
and so on. And it is hypocritical, when a double standard is used. Like, when the standard in U.S. is, that everyone can call everyone else a retard, even based on some racial categorization from the 19th century, then that is the standard. And quite weird to say: “But how dare this Kimmel say such a thing!”, isn’t it?