Never heard of him before. Thanks for sharing.

Government licensing of radio spectrum preceded the FCC and was in response to the RF chaos that hampered the rescue operation after the sinking of the Titanic[1].

[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/radio-act-of-1912/

You are spreading misinformation. The FCC existed before Coughlin. Furthermore, the FCC declined to take action on Coughlin despite all the pressure it got from the public. Instead, it was the National Association of Broadcasters that forced him off the air.

This is incredibly hyperbolic and misleading. The Communications Act of 1934 was passed for a variety of very necessary reasons at the time, the most important being making sure broadcasters didn't hijack each other's signals.

Coughlin's show coincided with the creation of the FCC and they never really tangled. His show was pulled off the network a full 5 years after the FCC was established. FCC regulation may have had a part in that, but there is no reason to believe he in particular was targeted and certainly not that the law was passed to target him.

He wouldn't be reinstated if it was censorship. The government didn't back down, just Disney did. This just shows Disney wasn't forced to remove him as some thought, they cancelled his show willingly so could take it back.

I believe statements directed at Donald's emotional reaction to the incident were the most impactful to any direct reaction from the White House.

"reneged"

I mostly agree, but the conditions that would upset Trump still exist; more so, in fact, because of the outsized attention this got for Kimmel. And yet here he comes anyways!

It's worth remembering that Disney is a mega-corporation and all their calculus is like this. They aren't "on our side" (or, for that matter, particularly against LGBTQIA+ interests); they're on the side with money. A company that size doesn't have morals; it has assets and liabilities.

That's why the Disney+ boycott / cancellation response mattered: it forced them to put losing their ABC network affiliate broadcast rights from the government on the T-sheet against losing their expensive bet on Disney+ (and all the consolidation power and direct-feedline money that brings in). If the viewers hadn't acted to put something on the other side of the T-sheet, it'd be an easy choice for the company.

He's still under contract with ABC too so he's not got an easy way out

Good last line. Yep, I immediately thought of all the behind the camera people it takes to run a show like that.

Conan O'brien also notably ensured his entire team was account for during the whole Tonight Show debacle, and onward.

I think that last line is getting to the point more than most of the discussion I see.

The host of the show doesn’t really decide what he’s going to say. He reads the script the writers deliver (with his approval, I’m sure). He’s the talking head of a production team.

Jimmy Kimmel the person didn’t get taken off the air. Jimmy Kimmel the show did.

That makes it relatively easy to go back on the air, if they simply give new direction (constraints) to the writing team that satisfy the network.

If I were to guess, I doubt Jimmy Kimmel the person cares what the team is or is not allowed to write in the script.

Dupe is flagged.

The political right in this country would love for Disney to be boycotted - just saying.

  When Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr suggested Jimmy Kimmel should be suspended and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” ABC and its local affiliates were listening.


  On Wednesday afternoon, Carr tapped into preexisting MAGA media anger about a Monday night Kimmel monologue and used a right-wing podcaster’s platform to blast Kimmel and pressure ABC’s parent company Disney. 

Disney is a friend. You want to hurt them just enough to make a point but not enough to seriously hurt a actual ally.

Disney content, financially motivated or not, is some of the most left friendly media there is.

If the president didn't say or tweet every thought that came into his head, he would probably be more successful at implementing even more of his authoritarian goals.

> Disney was really in a pickle here

Disney made a preschool-level bad choice. Grade schoolers have figured out that capitulating to a bully is how you signal you want more bulling.

Disney also had examples of law firms and universities that bent the knee to the whitehouse - and how that turned out for them. The reward for tanking their reputations was more whitehouse demands.

Ironically the FCC will be approving the Nexstar waiver after finding that the merger will not impact the national conversation by having one group own too many stations/have too much power.

Sinclair blocking Kimmel's show was the first thought on my mind when I saw this headline.

If Disney had any sense at all, they would have realized back when Sinclair was first forcing all their affiliates to air right-wing propaganda,* that their association with Sinclair is an existential threat.

Back then, they should have started dropping their affiliation with Sinclar one tower at a time, as they secure alternative broadcast arrangements in each area. Starting to do it now is better late than never, but I bet Disney execs are too clueless and spineless to stand up to Sinclair is any real way at all, in part because it will cost them a few $$$.

* https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/sinclair.kerry/

But can Disney do anything about the censoring by Nextstar and Sinclair?

Carr needs to leave. It isn't his job to police the political airwaves.

One of the highest priorities for the HN algorithm is to promote good interactions and discourage bad interactions. The logic is if you have a lot of people bickering with each other, regardless of the topic, it normalizes bad behavior. HN is trying to sustain itself as a forum with great discussions, so it very intentionally downranks anything that looks to the algorithm like it has people bickering with each other (eg. Up vote/down vote wars as a proxy for disagreement). Yes, this means many important topics move off the homepage because there is lots of disagreement within them. Encouraging good discussions is consciously viewed as more important than any individual topic.

Just bookmark https://news.ycombinator.com/active and you will see the actual, real frontpage.

People like curiosity, not vitriol.

It set off the flamewar detector. That's pretty standard (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

You left out the part where a government official all but demanded they do what they did.

More accurately,

now we have another take on the story, this time the crafted PR spin from Disney retconned for damage control.

Even if a man is dying of cancer that does not justify the government murdering him.

The Trump appointed FCC head, who is currently evaluating multiple multi-billion dollar requests, said about Kimmel 'we can do this the hard way or we can do this the easy way'.

Land of the free, home of the brave? Ring a bell?

> How does the FCC even matter anymore when people are increasingly getting their content via streaming?

"The ability of the FCC to regulate internet content and platforms depends on statutory authority. In holding the forums on captioning of online video content, the FCC could look to the language of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, which included language that asked the FCC to look at the accessibility of video content used on internet platforms. In other areas, the FCC’s jurisdiction is not as clear, but calls arise regularly for the FCC to act to regulate content that, as we have written in other contexts, looks more and more like broadcast content and competes directly with that content.

Calls for the FCC to regulate internet content and the companies that provide that content are certain to multiply. In another of our weekly summaries of regulatory actions of interest to broadcasters, we noted recent meetings with FCC Commissioners’ offices by representatives of the TV affiliates organizations, in which they asked that the FCC consider regulation of linear programming services delivered through internet platforms in the same way that they regulate cable and satellite multichannel video providers, including the possibility of adopting a system of must-carry and retransmission consent. This is not at all a new idea, having been raised in 2014 in an FCC proceeding that asked for public comment on the question of whether to subject online video providers to MVPD regulation – a proceeding that never resulted in any action" [1].

[1] https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2022/05/articles/does-the-f...

Because they still have leverage over local stations and in turn those stats have leverage over ABC/Disney.

I suspect the vast majority of customers before and after this whole thing aren't participating in a boycott either way.

I took it as more of a ridicule of Trump than Disney.