Debunking the "Easy Way or Hard Way" Lie
a refresher on the rules for public airways
The following comment was left on an Instagram post I made that clarified what falls under the protection of the First Amendment and what does not. Those specifics seem to be lost on a lot of people these days.
Events on the subject of free speech are unfolding rapidly. My primary commentary is happening on Instagram with recaps appearing here with a slight delay.
So begins my response. Spelling isn’t my strength, but last I checked, well is spelled with only two ‘l’s. It’s that snottiness that says, no, you’re not willing to discuss this as grown adults. You can tell from the rest of the message that “welllll” is intended to be dismissive.
First question to the person who left this comment — have you watched the actual interview in which FCC Chairman Brenden Carr made these comments? Here’s the link cued to the start of the conversation at the hour and 27 minute mark so that you don’t even have to do the leg work to track it down.
Like clockwork, this is an out of context quote. Your willingness to believe it also demonstrates how little you understand the role and function of the FCC or the responsibilities of the individual stations who hold FCC TV licenses.
What follows is a breakdown of Benny Johnson’s interview with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on September 17th that sparked the “easy way or hard way” lie (as I will be calling it) as well as Carr’s appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box the following day.
Interestingly, upon viewing Carr’s comments in full, a case can be made that when Carr said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he was actually referring to the workload for himself and his FCC team.
This grand deception wouldn’t be as detrimental if it weren’t being paired with the mountain of lies about Charlie Kirk’s beliefs and character along with the astronomical rise in death threats to commentators on the Right. With added context, not a single quote of Charlie’s paints him as a racist, homophobe, transphobe, and whatever else is being said about him. There’s not one ounce of truth. Not one.
Take any one of these aspects alone, and it’s atrocious, but this specific constellation is highly dangerous. It intentionally stokes a powder keg.
You need to put this into the appropriate perspective that all of these intentional lies are the direct fallout from the assassination of Charlie Kirk and are an overt scare tactic to terrify and silence anyone who shares his views or those of other voices on the Right.
Understand this. If Kimmel had been on cable, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The rules of cable are different than those of the public airways funded by taxpayer dollars. It is the explicit job of the FCC to regulate those transmissions. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is “responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations.” Their involvement with Kimmel, ABC, and Disney is directly related to that duty. Kimmel’s comments violated ABC’s commitment to the public.
The reason any amount of FCC involvement seems so odd to many is that the communications law and regulations haven’t been enforced for quite some time. Carr address this directly. We’ll get to that. That said, it still wasn’t FCC pressure that prompted ABC to pull Kimmel from the air.
TV stations, owned by independent companies, obtain licenses from the FCC. A fixed number of TV allotments exist. National programmers, such as Disney and Comcast, create and produce television shows that are distributed to the stations.
Programmers do not directly have to abide by any FCC regulations, with the exception of the overlap where Disney and Comcast own some local stations. That said, they can be investigated by the FCC at the behest of the license holders.
In order to maintain an FCC TV license that has been allotted to the station, that company needs to adhere to the FCC regulations. If it fails to do so, the license can be revoked. As Carr states in his interview with Benny Johnson, “It’s the licensed TV stations that have the public interest standard.” What Kimmel said in his monologue goes against public interest that was aired on public airways. Herein lies the problem.
The clips to accompany all of these quotes can be found in my FCC “Threat” Highlight on Instagram, or you could watch the full interviews for additional context.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, head of the agency that oversees all of the regulations, breaks down the intricacies —
Yeah, the right way to sort of explain [broadcast privileges] to people so they understand it in the media landscape, as relevant here, there’s two main buckets of actors.
One, you’ve got what we call national programmers. So that’s what Comcast is, Comcast NBC. That’s what Disney is, Disney ABC. They’re the ones that effectively create and produce these shows. They then provide those shows to individually licensed TV stations. And those TV stations are in the main owned by independent companies, independent from Comcast and Disney. But Disney and Comcast both own some televisions themselves.
So start from the idea that you have national programmers that create the show, including the Kimmel show, and then they’re given to and distributed over licensed TV stations. It’s the licensed TV stations that have the public interest standard, including those TV stations that Comcast and Disney own. So FCC regulatory action focuses on those individual stations.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025
The process is similar to obtaining a liquor license. Typically a limited number exist for a given geographic area. A bar purchases one when it is up for grabs, applies for one, or maintains one that has already been granted to them.
As long as the establishment is coloring inside the lines, there is no reason to review their activities. However, if a bar begins to serve under age individuals, the likelihood is high that their liquor license will be reviewed and revoked.
You could also think of this like driving. Once you obtain a license, there are certain restrictions on how you can operate a motor vehicle. If you’re swerving all over the road, it is the responsibility of the police to pull you over. Should they discover that you were driving under the influence, your license will be revoked.
Kimmel is behind the wheel of the swerving 18-wheeler that is Disney ABC. But here’s the thing. FCC oversight still isn’t the reason he was yanked off the air!
Before I go deeper with the ins and outs of FCC enforcement, I want to address the specific quote that is being taken out of context. The entirety of what FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said was, “I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Here’s the full sentiment —
I’ve been very clear from the moment that I have become Chairman of the FCC. I want to reinvigorate the public interest. What people don’t understand is that the broadcasters, and you’ve gotten this right, are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we’ve been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we’ve seen.
But frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025 (bold added for emphasis)
Carr says this because what would ensue from a licensed TV station urging the FCC to take regulatory action (which has happened) is an FCC investigation process with numerous steps that occur over a lengthy period of time (months to years).
Based on the entirety of Carr’s interview, I actually think that Carr’s comment is essentially him saying, please don’t make this a headache that it doesn’t need to be — Disney, clean up the mess you know exists at ABC. To my ears “the hard way” refers to the mountain of paperwork and ongoing investigation that would ensue due to regulatory action needing to take place.
A case can be made that when stating “the easy way or the hard way,” he was actually referencing his own workload and that of the FCC.
The TV stations run the risk of having their licenses revoked for airing material such as Kimmel’s opening. They have a responsibility to their communities and the public interest.
What Kimmel said was a flat out lie, and he knew it. Everyone else on the show knew it or should have known it. Information disproving Kimmel’s so-called joke that the shooter was MAGA was publicly available three days prior to his intentionally misleading opening comments.
That makes what was aired an explicit Hoax or at minimum a Broadcast News Distortion, both of which have FCC rules prohibiting them. How do we know? Because Utah Governor Spencer Cox made a public statement in a September 12th press conference in which he referenced the inscriptions on the rifle casings when the FBI took alleged assassin Tyler Robinson into custody.
Investigators noted inscriptions that had been engraved on casings found with the rifle. Inscriptions on a fired casing read, “Notices,” “bulges OWO.” What’s this? Inscriptions on the three unfired casings read, “Hey fascist!” “Catch.” “Up arrow symbol,” “right arrow,” “and symbol” and “three down arrow symbols.” A second unfired casing read, “Oh Bella Ciao,” “Bella ciao,” “Bella ciao ciao ciao,” and a third unfired casing read, “If you read this, you are gay LMAO.”
Carr explains why Kimmel’s lie violates FCC rules and standards —
One thing that we’re trying to do is to empower those local stations to serve their own communities. And the public interest means you can’t be running a narrow, partisan circus and still meeting your public interest obligations. It means you can’t be engaging in a pattern of news distortion. We have a rule on the book that interprets a public interest standard that says news distortion is something that is prohibited. Likewise, we have a rule that addresses broadcast hoaxes.
And so again, over the years, the FCC has stepped back from enforcing it. And I don’t think it’s been to the benefit of anybody. Just look at the credibility of these legacy media. It’s absolutely through the floor. They used to be able to say at least they were more trustworthy than Congress, but now they’re even less trustworthy than Congress.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025
Bear in mind how many hoaxes have existed in recent years where regulation was not enforced by the FCC, namely under the Biden administration. What Carr lists is only a fraction of what we’ve seen perpetrated by the three major broadcasters — ABC, NBC, CBS. Need a refresher, Carr highlights only a handful —
And again, to your point, I mean, step back for a second. If the public interest means anything, if we’re going to enforce this thing, I mean, just look at the number of hoaxes that have been run on the American people with the aid of a lot of these broadcasters.
You’ve got the whips at the border story. You’ve got Covington Catholic. You’ve got Jussie Smollett. You’ve got Hunter Biden’s laptop. You’ve got Joe Biden is sharp as a tack. You’ve got fake stories about hospitals being overrun by Ivermectin overdoses and therefore people dying of gunshots. Mostly peaceful protest. I mean, the list goes on and on and on.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025
This is where I think people are understandably confused, omitting the folks who are intentionally lying. Kimmel’s words were knowingly false, but the responsibility of airing or not airing them falls on the broadcast licensees.
Ostensibly the stations have been under the thumb of the broadcasters in recent years because the FCC under the Biden administration was unwilling to enforce the rules on the books. Carr opines that it’s “past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney.” These matters shouldn’t need to escalate to the FCC. Car stresses this point repeatedly —
I think as a business matter for them, something has to change. And at the FCC, you know, we need to reinvigorate this. So again, there’s actions that we can take on licensed broadcasters. And frankly, I think that it’s really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, “Listen, we are going to preempt. We are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we, we licensed broadcaster, are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.
So, I think again Disney needs to see some change here, but the individual licensed stations that are taking their content — it’s time for them to step up and say this garbage, to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future, isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities. But this sort of status quo is obviously not acceptable where we are.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025
Inevitably someone will argue that Kimmel’s words did not “directly cause substantial public harm” and that they would not “begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public” as stated in the FCC Hoax rule.
Considering the exponential uptick in active death threats against commentators on the Right, I would say that’s mincing words over the term immediately. Additionally, an argument can absolutely be made that by increasing the tension and division of the American populous and emboldening those who wish to inflict physical injury on others that Kimmel’s comments did indeed create “substantial public harm.” At the very least, this point is debatable.
There is a high bar for what legally constitutes a “True Threat,” rightfully so as to protect our First Amendment rights. Intent, credibility, and resulting fear are the three main components used in the determination. Specificity has always played a major factor in determining the categorization of the words.
Most threatening speech is deemed “political hyperbole.”
My point is that I would love to see a legal challenge that asserts that the constellation of threats in the current political climate, with verifiable political assassinations, crosses the line into criminal speech.
Lose the court case? Great. Appeal. Appeal, appeal, appeal. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court. We are being bludgeoned into a perpetual state of terror where voices on the Right are meant to be in constant fear for their lives in an active attempt to silence them.
We’re witnessing death by a thousand cuts so no one can be held accountable. To this I ask, how many murders and assassinations are acceptable before we reevaluate the consequences of dismissing this language as mere hyperbole?
When does the tangential dotted line connecting speaker to assassin become unquestioningly etched in blood eradicating doubt that supposed “political hyperbole” sparked the killer to action? Instead accountability is being passed around like a hot potato with further language fanning the flames of existing violence.
These statutes were challenged in 2003 as they related to cross burnings and the intent to intimidate in the VIRGINIA v. BLACK ET AL. Virginia Supreme Court case. Because of the longstanding history of the Ku Klux Klan using cross burning as a tool of intimidation coupled with threats and murder of blacks and those who opposed the KKK’s views, it was ruled that cross burning constituted a “True Threat.”
Section 4 of the ruling states, “Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning’s long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence.”
How many people have to die before we reevaluate the threats of the Radical Left the same way we did those of the Radical Right?
Knowing that the connections of the people who read this are vast, if anyone has the ability to introduce me to Tim Pool and his team, I would love to lay out for him what I just articulated regarding VIRGINIA v. BLACK ET AL. He is in the position to champion this challenge to existing statutes due to the volume of overt and implicit death threats he is receiving. What’s more, he has the courage to do something to change this. His badass legal team is a major asset too. Until then, I pray that he, along with everyone else who is facing this deluge of hate, remains safe.
Bearing all of that in mind, even if an FCC TV license isn’t revoked for a station broadcasting hostile lies like Kimmel’s across public airways, there can be hefty monetary penalties. It’s in the best interest of the TV stations and media conglomerates that own them to avoid this.
You may have heard mention of Sinclair. They are the nation’s largest ABC affiliate group, a media company that “owns, operates and/or provides services to 178 television stations in 81 markets affiliated with all major broadcast networks,” according to a press release on their website. They have been incredibly vocal about how “inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country” Kimmel’s opening was.
Sinclair is the reason that Jimmy Kimmel Live! suspended production.
Get it? Even if the FCC were involved, that would not have resulted in Kimmel being pulled from air the same night. That decision came from ABC and Disney, their parent company, being pressured by Sinclair and other media outlets like them. Those local television stations do not want to be slapped with fines and certainly do not want to lose their broadcast licenses.
Know this. If you’re hearing any news outlet run with the “easy way or hard way” lie, that organization has zero journalistic integrity. The press release I just shared is part of the first result to be returned by a simple Google search. To say this is an easily debunked lie is a vast understatement.
What I didn’t realize until watching Benny Johnson interview FCC Chairman Brendan Carr was that Disney is already under investigation by the FCC “for their DEI practices for potentially violating the FCC’s equal employment opportunity rules,” per Carr. It’s only logical that Disney would not want to pile onto that. This information hadn’t been shared publicly until this interview. It definitely adds to the growing list of reasons that Disney and ABC were so quick to act in removing Kimmel from air.
Carr shares —
Disney’s got a lot of trouble. I mean, look, we’ve launched — I don’t know if we’ve talked about this publicly yet, but we have launched and are continuing to run a investigation into Disney for their DEI practices for potentially violating the FCC’s equal employment opportunity rules.
We’ve issued Disney a letter of inquiry on that. We’ve received some documents from them. Again, we haven’t talked, I don’t think, publicly about that before, but that is a very active investigation that’s underway into Disney on that conduct.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on The Benny Show | September 17, 2025
That wraps up the most pressing aspects of the thirteen minute long interview of FCC Chairman Carr on The Benny Show. I explicitly mention the length because anyone who is perpetuating the “easy way or hard way” lie has no excuse if they haven’t managed to carve out the time to watch the “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” quote in its full context.
Next, let’s address the fifteen minute interview in which the hosts of CNBC’s Squawk Box perpetuate this lie despite inviting Carr on air.
The interview opens with host David Faber saying the following —
Of course, another story this morning that we mentioned a number of times is Disney, which owns ABC. Not that large or important part of the overall company. Nonetheless, it did pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air yesterday, the late-night show. This follows comments by the show’s hosts about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Now, those comments did prompt a regulatory threat by FCC Chair Brendan Carr.
Right off the bat, notice two manipulations of language that show that this is biased reporting. First, they refer to “the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.” Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face. Assassination carries the weight of killing for political reasons.
Second, he refers to the “regulatory threat by FCC Chair Brendan Carr.” One could just as easily say comments or remarks while introducing Carr for the interview. That would have started the conversation on a level playing field. This introduction is intentionally biased. While infuriating, this is allowed. They’re on cable.
It’s also a load of crap that Squawk Box is doing this interview with all of the background noise and that when Carr comes on air they’re not muting their mics to hear him clearly. Again, INTENTIONAL. You’re CNBC. You have the technology. This also demonstrates the lack of respect for Carr and his position as FCC Chairman.
I cannot express the uncontrollable laughter that ensued when I heard host David Faber say, “I would take issue, perhaps, with your contention, somehow, that these companies are keeping these broadcasts on the air not because they’re profitable, but for another reason… you know they must be still making money in some way. You really believe that it’s simply a partisan move on their part to maintain these broadcasts?”
In case you think I’m taking his words out of context —
And you mentioned obviously Nexstar and Sinclair, and they clearly played a role in the decision by Bob Iger and Dana Walden at Disney to suspend Kimmel. We don’t know for how long, by the way. But I would take issue, perhaps, with your contention, somehow, that these companies are keeping these broadcasts on the air not because they’re profitable, but for another reason.
I mean, I follow these companies closely, as you well know, and have for years. And I can tell you, their leaders are very focused on making sure that every opportunity they have to create profits is one that they take. So, you know they must be still making money in some way. You really believe that it’s simply a partisan move on their part to maintain these broadcasts?
These late night talk shows are loosing $30-40-50 MILLION a year. Nobody has hard numbers, but they know it’s in the ballpark. They would make more money showing reruns of the original Star Trek or hosting their own Puppy Bowl.
Cutting off USAID money means these programmers no longer receive funding to keep this crap on the air. The money to push the agenda has quickly disappeared.
Kimmel’s contract wasn’t being renewed starting in 2026 because his numbers were down so terribly.
Carr responds to Faber’s inept question —
I think you can certainly make that argument. Just look at Colbert, right? The reporting that came out after Colbert was canceled is that his show was losing $50 million a year. Why were they losing $50 million?
And again, I think a lot of commentary on late night has shifted dramatically over the last ten years. It used to be that they would go for laugh lines, and it’s shifted to going for applause lines. They went from being court jesters that made fun of everybody, as should happen. You should parody everybody. Trust me, I’m getting my fair share of parodies. That’s fine. But they started replacing that and becoming court clerics, enforcing a very narrow worldview. And I think that just tanked the business model.
— FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on Squawk Box | September 18, 2025
Hollywood Life shared figures that appear accurate based on what I’ve seen circulating elsewhere. I’m using their numbers because they include the most historic data of anything I’ve found. If you have access to the raw Nielsen data for Jimmy Kimmel Live!, please send it my way. They report that —
Kimmel’s ratings decreased since 2015, according to multiple outlets and Nielsen data. Ten years ago, Kimmel had an average of 2.4 million viewers. Since 2015, that viewership has gradually declined through 2025.
During the second quarter of 2025, Kimmel averaged around 220,000 adults aged 18 to 49 years old, per data from Nielsen. The show averaged 1.8 million viewers in Q1 and 1.77 million viewers during Q2, per Forbes and USTVDB.
In 2015, Kimmel had 2.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen data. The following is a list of Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s ratings year after year from 2015 to 2021, according to Nielsen data, Forbes and Fox News:
2015 — 2.4 million
2016 — 2.2 million
2017 — 2.2 million
2018 — 2.1 million
2019 — 1.9 million
2020 — 1.8 million
2021 — 1.5 million
It’s too early to determine the total viewership for Jimmy Kimmel Live! in 2025.
By comparison, other late-night TV shows have also seen a decline in viewership largely due to the public’s new reliance on streaming platforms and social media.
— “‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ Ratings: Were They Low in Recent Years?” by Elisabeth McGowan for Hollywood Life | September 20, 2025
Forbes reports —
Jimmy Kimmel Ratings Over The Years Have Fallen
So it’s no surprise that Jimmy Kimmel ratings have dropped. During second quarter, he averaged 1.77 million total viewers (his strength has always been 18-49s). That’s down quite a bit from 2015, when Colbert joined the late-night lineup and Nielsen says Kimmel averaged 2.4 million total viewers.
— “Jimmy Kimmel Ratings Over The Years: He Was No. 1 With Young Adults” by Toni Fitzgerald for Forbes | September 19, 2025
According to FandomWire, Kimmel had the lowest ratings of the three main late night hosts.
Surely it must be because of streaming, you say. That’s the claim that David Faber made while interviewing FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on Squawk Box, saying, “YouTube viewership is apparently quite high.” Upon hearing this, I immediately went to YouTube.
David Faber: I want to come back to where we started the conversation. And Jimmy Kimmel and your contention perhaps, that these shows do lose money. And we just did a quick look. I mean, the show is supposed to be profitable, Chairman, not necessarily on advertising revenue, as you note, given ratings, but affiliate revenue, carriage deals, YouTube viewership is apparently quite high. You know, again, I guess I just push back on the idea that these companies are keeping these shows on the air to score political points somehow, as opposed to because they think they actually make the money.
Brendan Carr: Look, we know for sure, with more data coming out on Colbert that they were losing money. Happy to take a look more at Kimmel. Obviously, the ratings are where they are. They’ve been going through the floor.
But again, this is a decision for local broadcast TV stations to make. Are they going to lose their own advertisers because people don’t want to be associated with that Kimmel programming? Again, we’re talking about varied parts of the country with different values.
And I’m pleased that Nexstar and Sinclair are looking to their viewers and saying, “Our viewers don’t want this. And so we’re not going to run it anymore. So even if it is profitable, if the viewers don’t want it, you know, that’s the ultimate judgment there.
— Squawk Box | September 18, 2025 (bold added for emphasis)
Jimmy Kimmel Live! has 20.8 million subscribers on YouTube. At first blush that seems impressive. Some of his recent videos have 3.7 and 1.2 million views. Don’t let those numbers deceive you. Could it be that this recent controversy has driven up the viewership for the recent videos? No! How dare you insert logic into the equation. I jest. That’s exactly what has happened.
Scroll back even a month and you’ll see that the videos average somewhere around 50-300 thousand views. There are occasional outliers to this which is more a reflection of the guest than Kimmel himself or the show.
Let’s do a bit of math. Take the average of those views as 175,000. Even if we were to be generous and go a little higher it really wouldn’t matter. Kimmel’s viewership average is 0.84% of his subscriber base and disregards that fact that non-subscribers also watch these clips. That’s abysmal.
So no, he’s not knocking it out of the park on YouTube. As for streaming, those numbers are included in the Nielsen ratings. Actually, YouTube is as well so the whole argument that Kimmel makes up for his viewership on other platforms is utter hooey. Next claim, please.
David Faber: No, the ratings, but ratings have come down across the board as a result of, of course, people just don’t watch nearly like they did. I mean, I can go back, and so can my colleagues. Too, remembering though the times of Johnny Carson. Now again, to that point, Chairman, I mean, you know, the administration in power was typically the subject of most of his jokes, as would seem to be the case now. I mean, these are comedians we’re talking about. This is not the news.
Brendan Carr: Well, look, I can tell you Jimmy Kimmel is no Johnny Carson.
And the issue that arose here, where lots and lots of people were upset, was not a joke. It was not, you know, making fun or pillorying me or the administration or the president. It was appearing to directly mislead the American public about a significant fact that was probably one of the most significant political events we’ve had in a long time, certainly the most significant political assassination we’ve seen in a long time.
David Faber: I don’t think anybody is going to try and defend what Kimmel said.
Yes, I yelled BULLSHIT at the screen multiple times when Faber blatantly lied on air saying, “I don’t think anybody is going to try and defend what Kimmel said.” I’m not sure I even want to apologize for my profanity here. It’s appropriately fitting. That is exactly what is happening.
As for the reference to Johnny Carson, Carr is right, “Jimmy Kimmel is no Johnny Carson.”
I’ll close with this. Carr has no interest in government overreach. He wants the broadcast stations to take responsibility for their own content. He says as much when Jim Cramer asks, “Not sure I want to do this or not, but should the government have someone who reviews the writers before the host says something?”
Carr is quick with a definitive, “No.”
That’s just as telling as the question from Cramer revealing how he thinks.
Jim Cramer: Paccar, not sure I want to do this or not, but should the government have someone who reviews the writers before the host says something?
Brendan Carr: No.
Jim Cramer: How would you be sure that the host is saying something that you would think is okay?
Brendan Carr: That’s not my responsibility; that’s not up to me. The way this works is that the local broadcast station is supposed to be responsible for the content; so the check on that content is not the government. It’s not me here at the FCC; it’s your local TV station in Provo, Utah. It’s your local TV station in Scranton. It’s on them.
Under the law, they’re responsible for the content. They’re responsible for judging whether they think it’s in the The needs of their local communities are not for me to decide, but I’m very pleased that they feel empowered to stand up to Disney and Comcast in the appropriate cases.
In less than 24 hours, I compiled all of this research complete with primary sources as a one-man-band with an internet connection and a laptop. While I’m imbued with “talent on loan from God” as Rush Limbaugh would say, I have not pulled off a jaw dropping feat. What I’ve provided should be the bare minimum for journalistic integrity. It’s not.
What I believe to be the true wellspring of anger for many on the Left is that the rules are starting to be enforced again which is taking away all the ways in which the game was rigged.
For the record, after completing the research to debunk the “easy way or hard way” lie, I’m embracing the nomenclature the Left has foisted on me. I’ll take up the mantle of “the Right” since that’s where they’ve placed me.
As I’ve said before, I’m not the one who drew a line in the sand stating, “You’re either with us or against us.” I’m on the side of the Constitution and factual truth. Play by those rules, and I don’t care who you are or what you call me.
More to follow. This manufactured controversy keeps going.
