Media Research Center comedy cop Alex Christy continued his rage at Jimmy Kimmel for not being a right-winger like him in a June 2 post:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel’s sense of dread that former reality TV personality and current GOP candidate to be mayor of Los Angeles may advance to the general election heightened on Monday as Kimmel once again pleaded with people to vote for literally anybody else.
Kimmel began, “And then we have a guy named Spencer Pratt running for mayor, unfortunately the Spencer Pratt from the reality shows. After tomorrow, Spencer Pratt will either be one of two candidates for mayor or a carrot on the next season of The Masked Singer. We’ll see. Right now the polling shows that he’s in a very tight race with Karen Bass and Nithya Raman. How that’s possible, no idea. I get why people are mad, but has anyone ever made a good decision when they’re mad?”
Perhaps it’s possible because Bass is the incompetent incumbent people are mad at and Raman is the radical DSA type who people would reasonably assume would be even worse than Bass.
As it was, Kimmel proceeded to answer his own question, “Ask any divorce lawyer, mad is the difference between an amicable separation and your Rivian ending up in the pool, okay? Any CEO will tell you how they became successful. Not one of them says, ‘Well, it all started when I keyed my boss’s car.’ Getting that—all getting mad gets you is duct taped to an airplane seat.
[…]While Kimmel keeps claiming that he understands why people are angry, he hasn’t given them a realistic alternative. The guy from the billboard ads is not running, the “normal” Democratic incumbent is viewed as incompetent, and the alternative Democrat is a radical socialist.
Christy offered no proof that Bass — who ended up winning the primary — is “incompetent.” And Pratt didn’t place in the top two advancing to the general election, so it seems that Kimmel may have been right.
Christy continued his bitterness that Kimmel won an award in another post that day:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel accepted his Peabody Award on Sunday with a speech that highlighted how he and the Peabody jurors still have no idea why he was suspended in September, but he nevertheless cited his suspension as proof America has “gone to shit” under President Trump.
Kimmel began his acceptance speech by rattling off a bunch of his nicknames for Trump and unintentionally highlighting how the Peabody Awards are, for the most part, just another example of liberals patting other liberals on the back:
[…]The good news for Kimmel is that he wasn’t given the award for telling jokes about Trump. He was given the award for getting himself suspended. However, Kimmel got the reason for his suspension all wrong as he continued, “Then I experienced something that surprised me even more. I watched as millions of people, even some from across the aisle, objected. They spoke up, they marched, they canceled their subscriptions to Star Wars because they refuse to allow our freedoms to be bulldozed like the East Wing of the White House. They send a message, you send a message that we do care and that we will stand up and that we will not stand by when comedy and journalism and dissent are censored.”
Kimmel was suspended not for a joke about Trump, but for a straight-up statement condemning conservatives for insisting that Charlie Kirk’s assassin wasn’t a right-winger because left-wing sections of the internet were running wild with conspiracy theories that he was. Kimmel, who claims everything he says goes through a rigorous fact-checking process, didn’t mention that. There was no satire, no punchline, or anything that could resemble a joke. There wasn’t even anything related to Trump. Furthermore, Kimmel’s ABC bosses suspended him because he did not believe he did anything wrong, so his initial instinct was to go back on the air and enflame an already volatile situation by attacking his critics.
Yes, Christy is still mad that Kimmel said something that ran counter to his right-wing ideology.
Christy lashed out further over Kimmel’s Peabody Award in a June 3 post:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel attacked critics—specifically Fox News host Laura Ingraham and contributor Raymond Arroyo—on Tuesday who do not think his fart jokes should have led him to winning a Peabody Award. Kimmel had no compelling comeback but did suggest that if they are concerned about undignified behavior, they start with President Trump.
After discussing some of Trump’s recent social media postings, Kimmel declared, “I think Captain Cankle-roo might be upset because our show won a Peabody award on Sunday night. I wasn’t going to mention this. Thank you. Because I’m not him, but we won a Peabody on Sunday. And it wasn’t a FIFA Peabody. It was a real one.”
Kimmel then introduced a clip of Ingraham and Arroyo discussing the award by adding, “And while we have received a lot of nice feedback on it, the fact that we got it seems to have upset both the president and his nut-lickers at Fox News.”
[…]Kimmel reacted by essentially telling the duo to take their concerns elsewhere, “Sounds like—I don’t know. Sounds like a couple of people who never won a Peabody Award, to me. But they’re probably right. I mean, jokes like that are undignified. They’re not appropriate when discussing, especially, this president of the United States. He’s an elegant man who would never stoop so low as to say something crude like that himself.”
Christy lashed out even more at the Peabody jurors:
What Kimmel didn’t say is that he won the award because the Peabody jurors believe the narrative that Kimmel’s September suspension made him a free speech martyr. So, while Kimmel technically was not honored for telling fart jokes, Arroyo’s concern about the jurors’ inappropriate judgment of what constitutes “stories that defend the public interest” is a valid one. Kimmel’s statement about conservatives responding to left-wing conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk’s assassin and the left’s unwillingness to acknowledge what Kimmel actually said do not defend the public interest.
Christy did not explain how, exactly, his friends at Fox News could be considered to have the “public interest” in mind.