Correct, you did. You omitted the quote. If you choose to add meaning, or put words in Mr. Kimmel's mouth, that is your decision.

In any case, if you think such a statement is objectionable, then you would conclude many statements made by the current president would prevent any network from putting him on air, correct?

▲

rattlesnakedave 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, when the president starts a television network, gets a broadcast license from the FCC (under which he must meet “public interest” requirements), spins up a late night program, and then begins deliberately spreading misinformation to score political points, then yes, threaten to revoke his license.

▲

suzdude 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why are you are ignoring the question? You are creating a hypothetical to ignore it.

Under your view, the networks, as they stand, should never have allowed him on the airwaves to begin with.

▲

intended 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The president of the USA is a de facto “public interest” position. The burden of acting and speaking in the public interest is the whole dang job.

▲

FireBeyond 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How’s the state of Fox’s license look to you? Or have they never ever spread misinformation for political purposes?

▲

croes 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Have they ever spread information for political purposes?

▲

nullocator 5 hours ago | parent [-]

How many examples are you looking for, and for what time period? I could probably list a few dozen examples scoped to just the last 24 hours. Looking further back this is a pretty well known example https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-t...

	▲	croes 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You do realize I questioned if Fox ever spread anything else than misinformation.