Jimmy Kimmel is BACK and You Can Blame Trump for It!
(00:00.686)
Kimmel returns. Yeah, I want to bet I don’t gamble but it was a gentleman’s Gentlemen’s bet and I took the under. I took the under and when Jimmy Kimmel would be back on air and you know some people would speak, oh it’s gonna be some time, no way. I’m like no, no. He’ll be back lickety split. Why do I bring this up? I don’t watch Jimmy Kimmel’s program.
We did cover this last week on the program and exactly what we pretty much told you happened Jimmy Kimmel will is this well, he’s basically the story has become him
I watch the news. I mean, that’s all anybody’s talking about. Are you seeing many videos out there? I’m you got a little bit from the Charlie Kirk Memorial Service this past weekend, but not the points that Charlie made on various different campuses around the country that, you know, debating people, all of that stuff, which could be out and about. No, it’s all about Kimmel. It’s all about
Disney, it’s all about Bob Iger, it’s all about celebrities upset about what happened to Jimmy Kimmel. We told you, we told you this was a colossal, colossal own goal, self-inflicted wound by the Trump administration. Brendan Carr screwed up royally, royally. Jimmy Kimmel,
would have, he would have censored himself, not censored, wrong word. He would have canceled himself simply by his words. You didn’t have to do a thing. He actually had two senators, had Rand Paul at Ted Cruz, Dave McCormick actually going after Carr using his position to steer editorial decisions of private companies. And again, it’s
(02:16.416)
a serious breach of free speech principles. 1962, this is from Reason today. This is what happens when the various different acronym agencies out there, they talk about their duty to promote the public interest.
on television. Now I want everybody to think about that for a second. is again, is part of problem. What is public interest?
One could argue, let’s say after September 11, 2001, it would be in the public interest, this is according to some government official, that we would stifle any sort of dissent when it came to the actions of the government and what they wanted to do, whether it would be bomb Afghanistan from the Stone Age to the Stone Age.
or you know, eventually let’s just go blow up the Middle East.
Right? That’s, you know, again, it’s up to the FCC. The FCC is under what branch of government? The executive branch of government. So in essence, the FCC, the public interest aligns with the party that is in power as far as the executive branch of government is concerned. That’s a problem.
(03:52.802)
That’s a big problem. And this is something that libertarians have been warning about some time, broad interpretations of various different dictats from acronym agencies or even Congress themselves. 1962, Ayn Rand penned a warning about the public interest standard, which then FCC chair, Newton Minow,
was citing as justification for pressuring television companies to create more educational programming. Menno famously railed against the supposedly vast wasteland of shoddy television shows and claimed that the FCC’s charter empowered him to push for editorial changes to the medium that would align with his view of the public interest. Again, his view. His view. Using the same exact standard.
Biden’s President or Kamala Harris, whoever it may be, and it’s their view that the public interest would serve in pushing a green agenda. Rand states, must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more, I’m sorry, excuse me, I’m wrong, so Minow said, you must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives.
It’s not enough to cater to the nation’s whims, you must also serve the nation’s needs. Minow repeatedly claimed that he was not in favor of government censorship and he was not trying to tell broadcasters what they could and could not say. Rather, he charged them to make nebulous and ill-defined improvements to the product that he believed would be better appreciated by the American public, the public interest. Again, you wanna go run a network, go run a frickin’ network.
That’s not your job at the FCC. Rand’s essay, Have Gun, Will Nudge, was published in the Objectivist Newsletter. Makes clear her disdain not just for abject censorship, but also for reality in which the FCC chair makes vague statements regarding the actions that private actors should or should not take.
(06:16.032)
It is true, as Mr. Minow assures us, that he does not propose to establish censorship. What he proposes is much worse. Censorship, she writes, in its old-fashioned meaning is a government edict that forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas, such, for instance, as sex, religion, or criticism of government officials. An edict enforced
by the government’s scrutiny of all forms of communication prior to their public release. But for stifling the freedom of men’s minds, the modern method is much more potent. It rests on the power of non-objective law. It neither forbids nor permits anything. It never defines or specifies. It merely delivers men’s lives, fortunes, careers, ambitions into the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat.
who can reward or punish at whim. It spares the bureaucrat the troublesome necessity of committing himself to rigid rules and it places upon the victims the burden of discovering how to please him or her with a fluid unknowable as their only guide. Again, the column goes on, but she’s not wrong. She’s not wrong. And sure enough,
Where are we at today? Again, I don’t know, one of the networks, guess Sinclair and their affiliates, they’re saying they’re not gonna run Jimmy Kimmel, make no bones about it. His YouTubes will be blowing up.
(08:05.388)
His YouTubes will be blowing up. I think I said it last week on the program. If someone is burying themselves with utter stupidity and lies, why would you step in and stop them?
(08:24.29)
Just ask it. Watch talk on wallstreet.com.
