1. Can you point to the relevant transcript in which he does this?
2. "tended to demean the character of his political opponents" - this is the world in which we live, and quite frankly, much of it is well deserved. While he did not deserve to be assassinated, Charlie Kirk himself earned plenty of skewing. He was hardly a saint, and neither was his supporters. Also, Jimmy Kimmel Live is a freaking comedy show, not a news program or law enforcement press office. Unlike the Government, he doesn't owe his audience even the slightest semblance of impartiality.
3. Whether something is a matter of debate is often time- and circumstance-dependent. When news breaks out, it's usually accompanied by a great deal of speculation, and people make mistakes. Only in the fullness of time do the facts come out. I'm not saying it's necessarily right if Kimmel (like others) came to a conclusion before the facts were settled, but it's also not unusual, and people can and should issue corrections if they are wrong.
> Can you point to the relevant transcript in which he does this?
Yes. Someone already linked it upthread.
> Unlike the Government, he doesn't owe his audience even the slightest semblance of impartiality.
He does owe them honesty.
> When news breaks out, it's usually accompanied by a great deal of speculation, and people make mistakes. Only in the fullness of time do the facts come out.
It was immediately obvious that the facts did not support his narrative to anyone who was actually attempting to gather the facts. Furthermore, that narrative should have been heavily discounted a priori on the basis of Occam's razor: obviously it is far more likely that a politically controversial figure gets targeted by opponents than by people on the same side.
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"
Seems pretty harmless to me. The second clause of that statement is factual; that is what they were doing. They happened to be correct in the end, but the statement itself is still truthful.
> The second clause of that statement is factual; that is what they were doing.
No; to "characterize" someone as "anything other than one of" your group requires that person to be of your group. The person in question was not of their group, and everyone reasonably should have expected it to turn out that way. The clear and obvious thrust of that quote is to falsely accuse a) the murderer of being a right-winger and b) other right-wingers of lying to cover it up. That's how English works; it's how Kimmel's sycophantic audience understood it; and it's how the justifiably offended right-wingers understood it.
> to "characterize" someone as "anything other than one of" your group requires that person to be of your group.
It does not. If I declare that "zahlman's not a family member," that's a true statement. If Alice, a third party observer of the conversation, then says, dramatically, "OMG otterley says zahlman's not a family member", that's also a true statement. There was no "requirement" that you actually be a member of my family for any of this.
What you're arguing about is not the truth or falsity of a statement, but the suggestions that emanate from it. How the audience might have interpreted it is subjective. It's not objective.
I no longer believe you are arguing in good faith. You're struggling mightily to make your argument cogent, you're getting a lot of feedback that it's nonsense, and yet you just can't seem to process that.
It's at the top of the second block quote in your source. It's extremely obvious, and frankly I'm extremely irritated that multiple people are disingenously asking me to demonstrate an extremely obvious thing based on their own citations while I get downvoted.
> KIMMEL: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
That's not assigning blame for Kirk's murder. There is no way to interpret that as saying "Charlie Kirk's murderer was MAGA." It's saying that MAGA representatives were jumping to conclusions, prematurely focusing on blame assignment. To steel man your argument, you could say that it is saying the likelihood that the murderer was MAGA is greater than what the MAGA crowd is reporting. But since they were saying the exact opposite, that reduces to "there is a non-zero probability the murderer is MAGA" -- that's not an extreme position five days after the event.
Please point out where Jimmy Kimmel did that. I'll help, here's a transcript:
https://www.readtpa.com/p/read-the-jimmy-kimmel-monologue-th...