Trump's War on the First Amendment

[Res Ipsa]

Here is what Sincair said on the 17th:

We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr’s remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.

Unless there were other remarks, I'm guessing the remarks they appreciate were Carr's remarks that ABC affiliates (like Sinclair) could "do this the easy way or the hard way," and that if they didn't find ways to "take actions on Kimmel," the FCC would be doing some "additional work."

Sinclair can back-peddle now to try to reclaim potential lost ad revenue in the metropolitan markets that they operate, but I think the plain reading of their prior statement is that they were listening to the threat from Carr (who was toeing Trump's line) and not only choosing to do things "the easy way," but kissing the federal ring as well.

Nice catch, Steuss. Boycotts of advertisers on Sinclair stations were already cranking up, and I suspect that profit override principle.

[Markk]

Do you fill out and submit monthly reports showing profit percentages, either in the red and black, and sit down with the CFO and/or VP to discuss how to improve profits? You have no idea, once again what you are even talking about, and again stuck your foot in your mouth. I am a senior manager in a corporation, what position do you hold on the corporate ladder for the corporation you work for, and what interaction do you have with the managers in that corporation?

But anyways....

Yeah, irrelevant. Try again.

Lol, Kish all I am asking you do is back up your assertion/s. You said I don't understand the corporate world, and I will admit I am a very small fish in that arena, however I I am in it. So given your statements and confidence of it, I am asking you your experience in the corporate world, and because of that.... how you know that Disney/ABC and Kimmel are lying when they both claim it was Disney/ABC that made the call to suspend him.

There is no need to call me names, just back up your assertions.

[Kishkumen]

Lol, Kish all I am asking you do is back up your assertion/s. You said I don't understand the corporate world, and I will admit I am a very small fish in that arena, however I I am in it. So given your statements and confidence of it, I am asking you your experience in the corporate world, and because of that.... how you know that Disney/ABC and Kimmel are lying when they both claim it was Disney/ABC that made the call to suspend him.

There is no need to call me names, just back up your assertions.

Yeah, the topic is the rhetoric of corporate messaging, dingus. Telling me about your experience filling out corporate paperwork is irrelevant.

Dude, this is not that difficult.

[Markk]

Lol, Kish all I am asking you do is back up your assertion/s. You said I don't understand the corporate world, and I will admit I am a very small fish in that arena, however I I am in it. So given your statements and confidence of it, I am asking you your experience in the corporate world, and because of that.... how you know that Disney/ABC and Kimmel are lying when they both claim it was Disney/ABC that made the call to suspend him.

There is no need to call me names, just back up your assertions.

Yeah, the topic is the rhetoric of corporate messaging, dingus. Telling me about your experience filling out corporate paperwork is irrelevant.

Dude, this is not that difficult.

You are just avoiding backing up your assertions, with any evidence. My asking you if you are actually involved in the corporate world, with having to justify your existence as an employee, by actually participating in the corporate world that you are somehow claiming to have a understanding of, which you obviously do not.

Back to the questions at hand....how do you know, and what evidence do you have that both ABC/Disney and Kimmel, are lying about why Kimmel was suspended, and now, having the suspension lifted.

You asserted corporation lie, which is true, but I think we agree they also tell the truth...so where is you evidence to your assertion? If you have it and are correct, I can admit that. If you don't have the evidence just admit your OP was a emotional rant.

[Kishkumen]

You are just avoiding backing up your assertions, with any evidence.

No, I'm not.

[Whiskey]

Yeah, the topic is the rhetoric of corporate messaging, dingus. Telling me about your experience filling out corporate paperwork is irrelevant.

Dude, this is not that difficult.

You are just avoiding backing up your assertions, with any evidence. My asking you if you are actually involved in the corporate world, with having to justify your existence as an employee, by actually participating in the corporate world that you are somehow claiming to have a understanding of, which you obviously do not.

Back to the questions at hand....how do you know, and what evidence do you have that both ABC/Disney and Kimmel, are lying about why Kimmel was suspended, and now, having the suspension lifted.

You asserted corporation lie, which is true, but I think we agree they also tell the truth...so where is you evidence to your assertion? If you have it and are correct, I can admit that. If you don't have the evidence just admit your OP was a emotional rant.

There is a massive disconnect here where conclusions and assertions not based on fact are canonized and lionized. The move is always the same: be the first through the gate with BS and then act as if any counter or friction is either noise or a personal attack. Once the initial claim is planted, the rest of the conversation is expected to orbit around it as though it were proven fact.

That is not discussion, that is stage-setting. And it is exactly the pattern with Kish. He declares something without evidence and then insists that any challenge is just disruption of the real conversation, which conveniently means everyone is expected to affirm what he already wants to be true. It is like Kish hiking up the back trails of El Cap, pointing down at the climbers on the wall, and declaring them wrong and wrong-headed regardless of their intent, their chosen route, or the fact that they are the ones actually on the rock doing the work, all while he never tied into a rope himself.

[Kishkumen]

There is a massive disconnect here where conclusions and assertions not based on fact are canonized and lionized. The move is always the same: be the first through the gate with BS and then act as if any counter or friction is either noise or a personal attack. Once the initial claim is planted, the rest of the conversation is expected to orbit around it as though it were proven fact.

That is not discussion, that is stage-setting. And it is exactly the pattern with Kish. He declares something without evidence and then insists that any challenge is just disruption of the real conversation, which conveniently means everyone is expected to affirm what he already wants to be true. It is like Kish hiking up the back trails of El Cap, pointing down at the climbers on the wall, and declaring them wrong and wrong-headed regardless of their intent, their chosen route, or the fact that they are the ones actually on the rock doing the work, all while he never tied into a rope himself.

What am I supposed to do with a person who responds to my post about corporate rhetoric with a question of what kinds of corporate forms and filings I have submitted?

It is in no way relevant. Academia has for some time been infected with the fuzzy messaging of the corporate world. Anyone who is involved in middle to upper management or academia can spot this opaque nonsense pretty easily. It has nothing to do with a lot of the nuts and bolts stuff that Markk shot back with.

There is a great Weird Al song "Mission Statement" that gets at the general problem quite well. That is at least somewhere in the ballpark of what I was talking about.

Sure, you can try to blame me for the fact that Markk was not even talking about the same thing. Good luck.

[Whiskey]

There is a massive disconnect here where conclusions and assertions not based on fact are canonized and lionized. The move is always the same: be the first through the gate with BS and then act as if any counter or friction is either noise or a personal attack. Once the initial claim is planted, the rest of the conversation is expected to orbit around it as though it were proven fact.

That is not discussion, that is stage-setting. And it is exactly the pattern with Kish. He declares something without evidence and then insists that any challenge is just disruption of the real conversation, which conveniently means everyone is expected to affirm what he already wants to be true. It is like Kish hiking up the back trails of El Cap, pointing down at the climbers on the wall, and declaring them wrong and wrong-headed regardless of their intent, their chosen route, or the fact that they are the ones actually on the rock doing the work, all while he never tied into a rope himself.

What am I supposed to do with a person who responds to my post about corporate rhetoric with a question of what kinds of corporate forms and filings I have submitted?

It is in no way relevant. Academia has for some time been infected with the fuzzy messaging of the corporate world. Anyone who is involved in middle to upper management or academia can spot this opaque nonsense pretty easily. It has nothing to do with a lot of the nuts and bolts stuff that Markk shot back with.

There is a great Weird Al song "Mission Statement" that gets at the general problem quite well. That is at least somewhere in the ballpark of what I was talking about.

Sure, you can try to blame me for the fact that Markk was not even talking about the same thing. Good luck.

I will clarify two points.... and you tell me if you want to continue or let it die.

My issue is not whether you know corporate crap from working at the university or not. For all I know, your wife is in house counsel to a fortune 50 company and you have been immersed in this for decades.

My issues are:

what you pretend to know about Markk's expertise, and
how in the everloving hell would you have inside information to know what Disney was doing/saying?

It seems, the conclusions were based more on what you wanted to be true and not what information you actually had. Because, the information CLEARLY contradicted the conclusion which was then twisted to mean the conclusion was even more right.

This is my point with the El Cap reference. You took the fast route to the top and have declared all challenges as _________________.

[Res Ipsa]

There is a massive disconnect here where conclusions and assertions not based on fact are canonized and lionized. The move is always the same: be the first through the gate with BS and then act as if any counter or friction is either noise or a personal attack. Once the initial claim is planted, the rest of the conversation is expected to orbit around it as though it were proven fact.

That is not discussion, that is stage-setting. And it is exactly the pattern with Kish. He declares something without evidence and then insists that any challenge is just disruption of the real conversation, which conveniently means everyone is expected to affirm what he already wants to be true. It is like Kish hiking up the back trails of El Cap, pointing down at the climbers on the wall, and declaring them wrong and wrong-headed regardless of their intent, their chosen route, or the fact that they are the ones actually on the rock doing the work, all while he never tied into a rope himself.

What am I supposed to do with a person who responds to my post about corporate rhetoric with a question of what kinds of corporate forms and filings I have submitted?

It is in no way relevant. Academia has for some time been infected with the fuzzy messaging of the corporate world. Anyone who is involved in middle to upper management or academia can spot this opaque nonsense pretty easily. It has nothing to do with a lot of the nuts and bolts stuff that Markk shot back with.

There is a great Weird Al song "Mission Statement" that gets at the general problem quite well. That is at least somewhere in the ballpark of what I was talking about.

Sure, you can try to blame me for the fact that Markk was not even talking about the same thing. Good luck.

Markk is making a trivial point to avoid having to discuss the role of the Trump regime in Kimmel's firing. The FCC chairman called for action to be taken against Kimmel, suggesting firing or suspension by ABC. He threatened FCC action against ABC and the owners of local stations affiliated with ABC. Many of those stations were owned by Nexstar, which plans a merger that will have to be approved by the FCC. It was only after these threats by the FCC chair that local stations and ABC took Kimmel off the air. The FCC chair's statement that ABC and owners of local stations could "do this the hard way or the easy way" reflects the mob mentality of the regime.

[Kishkumen]

My issue is not whether you know corporate crap from working at the university or not. For all I know, your wife is in house counsel to a fortune 50 company and you have been immersed in this for decades.

I suppose you are free to choose to believe that academia has not been imitating corporate rhetoric for some time. I have seen it mostly in working with administrators in the university, while my spouse has seen it mostly in her contacts across the university and business world. We have often commented over the years to each other without any reference to any silly online arguments. It is just part of our lived experience.

My issues are:

what you pretend to know about Markk's expertise,

I can only go by the fact that his response to me seemed irrelevant to the point I was making. Markk has never struck me to be the corporate type in the way he presents himself. A person can work for a corporation and not be a creature of its administrative messaging rhetorical habits.

how in the everloving hell would you have inside information to know what Disney was doing/saying?

Is it that hard to guess? Disney has no reason to cop to the fact that they were being manipulated by Brendan Carr. In fact, they have every reason not to admit it. The best thing a corporation can do in this situation is to maintain the fiction that they made their own moves for their own reasons. But corporations very infrequently do anything but operate according to their financial interest in the moment. To have the hassle of the FCC on your back is something they will avoid. The only reason they relented from their position is that they saw a big drop in their stock.

But since about the year 2000, corporations have tended to impersonate good citizens making ethical choices. I just think that this is bogus.

Maybe we can agree that it is all about the money and move on.