No Spin News - Weekend Edition - September 20, 2025

Summary

---

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis

Episode: No Spin News - Weekend Edition - September 20, 2025
Host: Bill O’Reilly
Date: September 20, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this Weekend Edition, Bill O’Reilly tackles recent developments surrounding the FBI’s conduct in a Utah homicide investigation, reactions and media narratives following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the radicalization and polarization on social media, the integrity and dynamics of corporate media outlets, and issues of free speech and media censorship in the U.S. Guests provide legal, psychological, and media analysis, contributing to a multi-layered exploration of justice, motive, and the fraught state of American discourse.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The FBI’s Investigation in Utah

(00:35-07:13)

• Bill O’Reilly interviews Brett Tallman (former U.S. Attorney, Utah) on the FBI’s role in a prominent homicide investigation, addressing reports of internal dissent and their veracity.

  • Transparency vs. Procedure:
    Tallman dismisses claims of FBI missteps, attributing criticisms to anonymous sources and minor communication errors by the FBI director.

    • Quote (Brett Tallman, 01:00):
      “It is unusual to see the director of the FBI willing to give, you know, real time information as he gets it. I think he's probably learned a bit from this and may hold his cards a little closer.”

  • FBI's Performance:
    Both Tallman and O’Reilly affirm the FBI acted promptly and efficiently, especially with DNA evidence processing.

    • Quote (Tallman, 03:33):
      “The FBI has been an absolutely terrific partner.”

  • Utah’s Legal and Cultural Context: Discussion covers the state’s death penalty, the difficulty of mounting an insanity defense, and confidence in Utah’s capacity for a fair trial.

    • Quote (Tallman, 05:00):
      “The insanity plea is very difficult in Utah. In essence, they're going to have to show an incapacity to appreciate right versus wrong.”

  • Speculation on Motives and Social Dimensions:
    O’Reilly asks if issues surrounding the alleged perpetrator’s living situation and gender identity might be injected, but Tallman notes there’s no current evidence to that effect.

2. Media Response and Polarization Post-Assassination

(07:33-15:24)

• Stephen King’s Controversial Tweet:
  O’Reilly criticizes the author for spreading false claims about the victim (Charlie Kirk) and reflects on the lack of humanity in polarized reactions.

  • Quote (O’Reilly, 09:38):
    “You need to go and see a therapist...To say something like that when it's not true, you took it off some crazy Internet site. That's not responsible. It's not humane.”

• Forensic Psychologist Dr. Chris Mon Hundy’s Analysis
  Discusses the validation of extreme views on social media and how this catalyzes radicalization on both sides, but cautions these groups are small in percentage.

  • Quote (Mon Hundy, 10:54):
    “People seek [validation] and it’s an unfortunate thing because at the end of the day, we have to find our humanity here.”

  • O’Reilly introduces his own thesis:

    • Quote (O’Reilly, 12:52):
      “About 15% of human beings around the world are evil...But what I find now is a lot of people turn away from evil.”
    • Mon Hundy agrees that powerlessness and social withdrawal allow for evil to expand unchallenged.

3. The State of U.S. Media: Tone, Bias, Economics, and Speech

(15:28-34:46)

A. Mainstream Media Coverage and Political Bias

With Tim Graham, News Busters
(15:28-24:29)

• Examines how ABC’s Martha Raddatz and other corporate press outlets frame Republican responses versus Democratic actions in the wake of the Kirk assassination.

  • Quote (Tim Graham, 16:31):
    “It would seem to me in an instance like this, when a man who pretty much looks like a leftist shoots Charlie Kirk, nobody's going to think that was caused by the tone of the Republicans. So why isn't the tone of the left the real question?”

• Discussion of editorial bias, declining ratings, and the economics driving legacy news organizations.

  • Quote (Graham, 18:29):
    “They've tried very hard to actually suggest that you can't identify the leanings of the killer, despite the fact that they can clearly see...”
  • O’Reilly underscores the near-extinction of traditional journalism:
    “Journalism is almost dead in America...It's agenda driven almost everywhere.” (19:39)

B. Late-Night TV, Censorship & the First Amendment

With Bernard Goldberg, Media Analyst
(24:33-34:46)

• The Kimmel Firing and Freedom of Speech:
  O’Reilly and Goldberg analyze media and political narratives after Kimmel’s sacking, highlighting the difference between private company actions and government infringements on speech.

  • Quote (Goldberg, 27:03):
    “Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have any First Amendment right, any free speech right to say what he wants. Only the government can tell you...ABC Disney could have fired Jimmy Kimmel because they didn't like the color of his tie.”

• Government Pressure and Danger of Censorship:
  Goldberg warns about the slippery slope if the government pressures networks to act, which could set a precedent for silencing dissent from any side. - Quote (Goldberg, 28:17):
  “The government can't coerce ABC Disney to do the government's job...that's a kind of coercion that tiptoes into First Amendment issues.”

  • Both agree media exclusion of conservative or non-liberal voices is widespread, though it’s legal, not necessarily right.
    • Quote (O’Reilly, 32:00):
      “I'd like to see the Supreme Court hear it because it is such a threat to the nation...You cannot have any dissent and that's what the networks imposed.”

• Market Response and Future of Broadcasting:
  O’Reilly proposes that the market, not regulators, should handle bias, predicting cable news will follow network TV into obsolescence as viewership erodes. - Quote (O’Reilly, 33:53):
  “Let the marketplace rather than the FCC...take care of stuff like this.”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time (MM:SS) | Topic/Segment | |------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:35–07:13 | FBI investigation and Utah's legal handling – with Brett Tallman | | 07:33–10:32 | Stephen King's tweet and the psychology of polarizing discourse | | 10:32–15:24 | Radicalization, social withdrawal, and enabling evil – Dr. Mon Hundy | | 15:28–24:29 | Media bias, coverage of political violence, decline of legacy news – Tim Graham | | 24:33–34:46 | TV firings, free speech, coercion, Fairness Doctrine – Bernie Goldberg |

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the FBI/Utah Investigation:

  • “The DNA evidence...they found. They also have been analyzing other evidence quickly, putting it as a top priority.” (Tallman, 02:27)
  • “The insanity plea is very difficult in Utah...plenty of social media, plenty of other witnesses that are going to come forward.” (Tallman, 05:00)

• On Extreme Discourse and Social Media:

  • “At the end of the day, we have to find our humanity here...It’s not okay to celebrate; it’s something to mourn.” (Dr. Mon Hundy, 10:54–11:39)
  • “About 15% of human beings around the world are evil...a lot of people turn away from evil.” (O’Reilly, 12:52–13:38)

• On Media Coverage and Bias:

  • “When a man who pretty much looks like a leftist shoots Charlie Kirk, nobody’s going to think that was caused by the tone of the Republicans. So why isn’t the tone of the left the real question?” (Tim Graham, 16:31)
  • “Journalism is almost dead in America...it’s agenda driven almost everywhere now.” (O’Reilly, 19:39)

• On Free Speech and TV Industry Turmoil:

  • “Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t have any First Amendment right...ABC Disney could have fired Jimmy Kimmel because they didn’t like the color of his tie.” (Bernie Goldberg, 27:03)
  • “You cannot have any dissent and that’s what the networks imposed...there’s a glimmer of hope.” (O’Reilly, 32:00–32:52)
  • “Let the marketplace rather than the FCC...take care of stuff like this.” (O’Reilly, 33:53)

---

Tone and Language

The episode is marked by O’Reilly’s signature directness and skepticism, with assertive, often acerbic exchanges and a focus on “just the facts.” Guests share analytical, if sometimes opinionated, insights without hyperbolic speculation. There is a prevailing concern about media bias and the erosion of shared civic norms, with a mix of legal, psychological, and cultural perspectives.

---

Summary for Listeners

This episode provides listeners with a tightly argued, multi-guest analysis of law enforcement efficacy in high-stakes cases, the dangers of social and media radicalization, and the complex, often fraught state of American journalism and broadcast media. The episode’s rich dialogue offers insight into the need for institutional fairness, media accountability, and civic courage in the face of political extremism.

The interplay between O’Reilly and his guests underscores a central point: solutions to America’s divisions and media failings will not come from official edicts or institutional censorship but from a revitalized commitment to open debate, critical scrutiny, and resilient discourse.

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Joining us now from South Dakota is a former U.S. attorney for the state of Utah who knows the system inside it out. Brett Tallman, Cash Patel, head of the FBI. There's a report on Fox News today that the Trump administration is turning against him. Do you have any idea why? What, what is causing that?

[C]

Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe, I think what, that, you know, the articles I've seen, they're sourcing individuals within the FBI who were anonymous in their comments. I think it comes as a result of him perhaps jumping the gun too soon, wanting to have transparency and then, you know, let people know what was going on on the ground in the investigation. Perhaps a little too early. He, he indicated that there was a, you know, an individual in custody. That was not the case at that moment. When he sent that out, he had to, you know, backtrack on that. Look, I think this is, you know, it is unusual to see the director of the FBI willing to give, you know, real time information as he gets it. I think he's probably learned a bit from this and may hold his cards a little closer to confirm.

[B]

I mean, what's the big deal? So he made a mistake. So what?

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

I mean, look, I'm not sticking up a Cash Patel. We've been trying to get him on a program for six months. He's given me the big middle finger, so I have no reason. And, and I'll be honest, he didn't want to answer my questions. I mean, is that's the last thing on earth he wants to do. Okay. Okay. So I'm not a big fan of Cash Patel at this point in history, but I don't see what the FBI who's assisting the state of Utah in this investigation, I don't see what they did wrong. Did they do anything wrong that you saw?

[C]

No, I didn't do. And I think, you know, that's a fair point by, by you who, you know, he hasn't come on the show. I'd love for him to come on the show. I think you should answer those some questions that you have for him and I'll tell him that when I talk to him. But I think, look, they The DNA evidence. They, they did that very quickly that they, they found. They also have been analyzing other evidence quickly, putting it as a top priority. They're doing what they need to do and keep in mind they are going to lead the investigation into whether or not there were co conspirators and if there are, then they will be the point of the spear.

[B]

That's a conspiracy, Right? Right. And Mangino hinted at that today. But again, we're not going to get out of what we know and speculate because that's what all the others do. It's a total waste of everybody's time.

[C]

That's right.

[B]

But just bear with me for one more on this, Patel and then I want to get into the state of Utah right now. From my vantage point, I have seen nothing the FBI has done wrong in this investigation. Am I missing something?

[C]

No. In fact, my comments from my friends in law enforcement in Utah, in Utah county that are involved in this have indicated the FBI has been an absolutely terrific partner.

[B]

I'm glad to hear that. State of Utah, Conservative state. Not crazy, but small state. Death penalty is there. Can't remember when the last time it was used in Utah. Can you remember the last time death penalty was used?

[C]

Gary Gilmore was executed.

[B]

Wow.

[C]

Yep. I believe Gary Gilmore was the last execution by firing squad, which is still legal in Utah but very unlikely in this case.

[B]

It is no soft on crime stuff like Chicago and New York City and la. You don't see that, right?

[C]

That's right.

[B]

All right. Mormon based. All right. Which means Christian tenets from the Mormon point of view. So this guy goes through the system, his lawyers are going to plead, you know, he's insane. You know that that's the only way they can go to try to save his. But from the execution. But I have confidence that the state of Utah will be able to try this case in a fair way. I haven't. Again, it's like the FBI haven't seen any evidence where you're handing it over to people who don't know what they're doing. You know, way better than I do.

[C]

Though they do know what they're doing. They've handled their fair share of very difficult homicide. One thing you know, for folks at home to understand, the insanity plea is very difficult in Utah. In essence, they're going to have to show that he has an incapacity to appreciate right versus wrong. That's going to be a very difficult burden in this case because there's plenty of social media, there's plenty of other witnesses that are going to come forward. And his, his effort to actually hide and conceal after the murder is evidence, the best evidence for knowing. Right.

[B]

It's not going to work. He's going to get the death penalty, but it'll take forever. Last question. A trans business. Does that have anything to do with this case? Do you feel that that's going to be injected because he's apparently this guy, the alleged shooter was living with a guy who was trying to be a girl or something. Anything there?

[C]

I've not seen anything that suggests that it's a part of the evidence building against, you know, the individual in question here, Tyler Robinson. But I, I do know if there is a conspiracy, if there is an individual, his partner and roommate is involved in it, then it will be injected into it. Because it certainly may be the motivation. It may be what the evidence, you know, that gets presented by a prosecutor to say this was an effort, the motivation behind, you know, this was the justification for his action. So I guess it's too early to tell at this point.

[B]

You bring up an interesting question. Does the prosecutor have to give a motive or just show that he did it?

[C]

No, you're usually there does have to be a motive to get juries, but in this case, I think. I don't think they're going to need a motive because it's so apparent, you know, an assassination is so different than any other homicide. So I think they'll be very, you know, probably relieved that they just.

[B]

It might happen. I mean, certainly the news media wants. Desperately wants it, but the prosecution is not going to have to convince the jury.

[C]

That's right.

[B]

The assassin legislation's own family will be enough to do that. That's right, because he was radicalized. All right, Brett, as always, you really deliver very good pithy analysis, and we appreciate it very much. Thank you.

[A]

You're listening to the no Spa news weekend edition.

[B]

Stephen King. Now, I'm. I'm picking on him. I'm sorry to do it. I don't know him. I know he is a very ardent far left person, always has been. He's a gazillionaire. Doesn't need any money, doesn't need to sell books. Certainly his craziness is going to hurt his book sales. So apparently what he did was right after people were expressing grief for Charlie Kirk's death, he said, well, Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays to death. Just saying. This is Stephen King. Let's face it, the US economy is under stress, national debt rising, trade, war shaking the markets. And meanwhile, China is Dumping the dollar and stockpiling gold. That's why I protected my savings with physical gold and silver through the only dealer I trust, American Hartford Gold. And you can do this. Get precious metals delivered to your door or place in a tax Advantage Gold IRA. They'll even help you roll over your existing IRA or 401k tax and penalty free. With billions in precious metals delivered, thousands of five star reviews and an A from the Better Business Bureau. You can trust American Hartford Gold as I do. Please call 866-326-5576 or text Bill to 998-899. Again, that's 866-326-5576, or text Bill to 998-899. Why would you do that? You know why. And number one, it's not true. And King's apologized, but it's way too late. Stevie baby, you know you need to go and see a therapist. And I'm saying that for your own good, because to say something like that when it's not true, you took it off some crazy Internet site. That's not responsible. It's not humane. My God. Joining us now from Arcadia, California is a forensic psychologist and I. I asked for Dr. Chris Mon Hundy. I hope I'm saying your name right. Doctor, come on in. And. And I set you up with King. I don't understand it. I mean, I'm sure you do because you've seen this kind of stuff, but why would you inject yourself into a horrible situation like this and try to justify some kind of an assassination by saying something bad about the victim? Is this common or what's your take on it?

[D]

Well, I think there's a lot of people on social media, you know, having all kinds of strong and strident opinions about this and other things. And that's part of the place where people go on deep dives and get reinforcement for becoming more extreme in their views on all sides of.

[B]

But why do they want to become more stream? Why?

[D]

Well, I think that there's a lot of validation in the virtual world. I think that people seek it and it's an unfortunate thing because at the end of the day, we have to find our humanity here. Kind of what you've been talking about. We need to find our humanity here and draw a line in the sand and say, no, this isn't okay to celebrate. It's something to mourn. There are multiple layers of loss and grief to be had here for what this terrible incident represents. So it's not the right response. I believe the Right. Response is to be respectful and to be very clear that this behavior is not acceptable by anyone.

[B]

What percentage of the population do you believe is radicalized? Both sides? What percent?

[D]

I'm not sure what the percent would be, Bill. I don't know that I have a hard number on that. I'd say it's single percentages would be my. My academic educated guess would be, would be single percentage of people that would, you know, have any kind of identification with this and those that be willing to do anything, you know, a fraction of that percentage.

[B]

But it's being spurred on by the social media cauldron of hate. Right. So it's elevated now.

[D]

In years past, you know, you have these kinds of ideas and you seek validation for them.

[B]

You didn't have a forum, there's nobody to go. Yeah, there wasn't a let's kill everybody club, except for the Ku Klux Klan and Neo Nazi groups and things like that. But my estimation, based on my research of 50 years in the arena, about 15% of human beings around the world are evil. That's why I wrote Confronting Evil. 15, 1 5. All right. Now, there's obviously degrees. You read Dante's Divine Comedy and the Nine Circles of Hell, there's obviously degrees of evil. But what I find now in American society is that a lot of people turn away from evil. So it's easy to build a bubble around your life now, and you don't want to deal with. I don't want to deal with this south side of Chicago gang thing. I don't want to deal with this migrant criminal thing. I'm going to just turn away from it. And in the book Confronting Evil, when the population turns away, then evil rises in a very dramatic way and terrible things happen. Are you seeing that?

[D]

I think that I'm seeing a couple things. One is exactly what preceded this discussion, which is validation in the virtual world for things that people wouldn't get validated for before, which, you know, reinforces it. And I do think that when people become so overwhelmed and feel helpless and turn away, it does prevent the boundary setting that needs to take place for some of these ideas and some of these things that occur.

[B]

So, yeah, let me give you a very concrete example. The drug cartels run Mexico, and they run Mexico because everybody's afraid of them. Nobody wants to confront them, including the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum. So they've been able to amass an evil empire which kills millions of people all over the world because people just don't want to take them on And I'm seeing more and more of that people just shrinking inside themselves and their own little virtual world and saying, ah, hell with it, I'm not going to put myself at risk.

[D]

I think that's growing fear and powerlessness, I would agree, are the byproduct of these kinds of things. And many people, they can't handle it. And then they just turn off. It's too much with the day to day that they have to manage their own lives. And that translates into helplessness, powerlessness. And then what do you do? You stay and you face it, or are you just too overwhelmed and you got to turn away? And I think, I think you're right, Bill. I think a lot of people do turn away.

[B]

And there you go. And that's all evil needs is arise. Dr. Thanks very much. Appreciate your expertise.

[A]

This is the no Spin News Weekend edition.

[B]

There's no question that in this country, even though the far left now is muted and close, cautious, that sentiment still exists. The hatred of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly, whoever you want to do still exists. It may be quiet now, but it ain't got. Joining us from Herndon, Virginia, Tim Graham, executive editor of News Busters, conservative group that monitors the corporate media. So the Washington examiner excoriated Martha Raddatz, ABC correspondent, does a Sunday program, said that she was baiting Republican guests on Sunday to try to condemn President Trump for saying that he was going to look into radical left intrusion into the hate speech area. True. Did Ms. Raddatz do that?

[E]

Yes. I mean, that seemed to be the dominant question was let's bring on Republicans and question the tone of the Republicans of the president. It would seem to me in an instance like this, when a man who pretty much looks like a leftist shoots Charlie Kirk, nobody's going to think that was caused by the tone of the Republicans. So why isn't the tone of the left the real question? Because they never want to question the left. They always want to suggest that Donald Trump's the only person that said something that was too rough for their sensibilities. And, you know, I wanted all the Republican guests to basically say, so you're telling me ABC News or CNN or PBS has never been harsh in their tone? We've all seen the news media describe Republicans and the president as fascist. They make comparisons to Hitler. The Democrats routinely suggested that electing the Republicans was an existential threat to democracy. And I think we can obviously ask the question that when you use this kind of language, we could call it insightful. We all understand that When Donald Trump called them fake news, Jim Acosta went running around saying he's trying to get us killed.

[B]

What about the situation that corporate media is starting to feel the heat. Do you believe that's true? Are they starting to retreat from their embrace of the progressive movement?

[E]

I'm not sure I see that. I think that they did greet this horrible crime with the horror that they should have.

[F]

However.

[E]

Yes. What we've seen over the last few days is they've tried very hard to actually suggest that you can't identify the leanings of the killer, despite the fact that they can clearly see that the bullet casing said, catch this.

[B]

Who did that? Who is diminishing the political leanings of the alleged assassin. Who did that?

[E]

Well, in general, one of the ones is MSNBC on Morning Joe. I mean, John Lemire. And then they've also tried to suggest, well, it doesn't help to search for a motive. Like it's not helpful. And it just seems to me that's.

[B]

Who did that, who didn't want the motive.

[E]

That's Lemire. And Juliet Khayyam was on CNN saying that it wasn't.

[B]

They said that. Okay. Yeah, well, they'll hide behind. Look, I don't want to. By searching for a motive this soon, a week after the assassination, you're stirring it up. You're stirring up the hatred. Is there any validity to that point of view?

[E]

Well, I think. No. I think at a crime scene, you want to know the motivation of the shooter. I don't think that's out of the question. I don't think we would have looked at the assassination of Reagan or the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the assassination of Martin Luther King and said, let's not question why this was done. I think that's where journalism begins.

[B]

No, you got to get a full story. And I understand that. But journalism is almost dead in America. I think you know that better than anybody. And I'm not being facetious. As Joe Biden would say, it's almost dead because it's agenda driven almost everywhere. Now, this is what you will say. I was doing an interview today for Confronting Evil. And the interviewer said, how does that work? And I said, there's a meeting every morning, an editorial meeting every morning for all of the newspapers and television news operations separately, of course. And the meeting may start at 8 or 8:30 or 9. And in that meeting, the editorial posture of the newspaper or television station will be put forth to the producers of the programs. They will know what management wants to get out there. And that happens every day. And you go against that orthodoxy, you're not going to work there very much longer. But I want to get specific now. I think ms, whatever it is, is through the fact that they're not tethered to NBC News anymore. The resources are less. I don't know anybody takes them seriously. Even the progressives know it's propaganda. I, I think they're done. Do you agree with that?

[E]

Well, we'll see. I mean, they still have better ratings right now than CNN does. And again, yeah, CNN's ratings are terrible.

[B]

Yeah. But CNN's got a overseas component that provides money into that organization that makes it viable. Ms. Hasn't had that. So when you're, when you're dealing with under a million viewers in prime time, as both agencies have now, they're below a million, you get. It's a hard way to make money if you're just selling to the US audience. But editorially speaking, I think Ms. Is on its way out. Yes. No, you don't know what I don't know.

[E]

But yes, we obviously know the economics are not good. We can look at, for example, CBS deciding to cancel Colbert. That is at least half or 75% or 90% an economic decision and not a political decision.

[B]

Can I disagree with you there? Can I disagree? That decision was made solely so the federal government would allow Skydance to buy Paramount. Cbs, that's why that decision was made. Had nothing to do with money, had nothing to do with anything other than somebody in the federal government. I think I know who it is, but I can't say for sure. Said to cbs, you know, if Colbert is on the unemployment line, got a much better chance to sell this thing. I think that's what happened there. Cnn, you mentioned. I watched a little bit of it in my preparation of my interview with John Malone, which I hope is going to be next week. And to his credit, his people shot me down, but he overrode them. Malone. And Malone is one of the architects of cnn. CNN is very scared. Those talent, that talent out there, they're almost visibly frightened. Yes, no, maybe. What do you say?

[E]

Yeah, and I think one of the things you're going to see, and again, part of it is, yes, most people, most independents now are like, this is not a news product. You're watching basically the, the television equipment of liberal talk radio.

[B]

But you can make the same case.

[E]

Not what they're getting.

[B]

You can make the same case for sn, fnc. It's just a MAGA operation. I mean, I don't know that to be true. I think that Fox a much better talent than the other two, which drives viewers who see it. But you can make an argument that Fox just wants to promote MAGA stuff and help Donald Trump. You could make that argument correct.

[D]

Sure.

[E]

And I think. But because these conservative outlets are less common, they're going to have a larger audience. They obviously have shown over many years now that Fox is going to have better numbers than CNN or MSNBC because you have fewer options to watch.

[B]

No, that's true. Newsmax is not at the ratings level yet to make an impact. And Fox is identified now with the MAGA movement and Donald Trump. All right, Tim, keep an eye on. If you see anything really egregious, let us know. We're not witch hunters here, as you know. But we do want to report the story because I do believe that Charlie Kirk's legacy going forward, part of it is going to be the disintegration of the progressive lefts in the media. I think that's going to be attached, could be wrong. Thanks again for helping us out, Tim.

[A]

You're listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Now you can argue Kimmel's talent level all day long, but the reason he got fired was a rebellion in the media. Okay, let's bring in our pal Bernie. Goldberg is a big media guy, as everybody knows, comes up to North Carolina, bernardgoldberg.com where Bernie has analysis every day. I read it, okay? I don't listen to Bernie, of course I don't. But I actually read it because it's entertaining. And once in a while I make some good points. Now I'm going to play you a sound bite, Goldberg, but I want to set it up. So after Kimmel's firing was announced, CNN went wild. I didn't monitor msnbc, but they couldn't have gone more wild than cnn. Freedom of speech. Freedom of speech. Under assault. Under assault. Under assault. And what CNN does every day, not just in this story, is they book people who are going to say what CBS, what CNN wants them to say. They don't book O'Reilly, don't book Goldberg. They don't book any dissent. There's no discussion. There's no debate. So they bring in a guy named Jamie Raskin, one of the biggest Trump haters in the country, a congressman from Maryland, and Kaitlan Collins, their anchor who's gone very far left in the last year or so. All right? She baits Raskin the way they always do every night.

[D]

Roll it.

[B]

Well, it's absolute corruption of government, and it's absolute violation of the free speech rights of the people and of the media. And this is really taking us back to the days of King George where it was a crime to insult the President. They didn't like what Jimmy Kimmel said about Donald Trump. Okay, so that's ridiculous because as I pointed out, conservative traditional pundits or politicians can't get on any of the three networks. So this is, I think that might be a danger of freedom of speech. What do you think, Goldberg? Where am I going wrong here?

[F]

Well, I'm shocked, Bill. Actually, you made sense today. Let me start out. And congratulations on the book, by the way. That's a very big deal. Congrats on that.

[B]

Thank you.

[F]

Let me start out with the simple stuff. Despite what people on CNN were saying almost all night yesterday, Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have any First Amendment right, any free speech right to say what he wants. Only the government can tell you has has an obligation not to tell you what to say or not to say. ABC Disney could have fired Jimmy Kimmel because they didn't like the color of his tie or because they didn't like what he said about the quote, unquote, Maga Gang. So that's fine. And if he, and if that's all there was to the story, he said it, he's paying a price. That's the way it goes. But I disagree with you slightly, Bill, or at least I want to open the door to another idea here. The government can't use coercion to do the job. Well, let me put it this way. The government can't coerce ABC Disney to do the government's job. And if Brendan Carr says, you know, we could do this the easy way or the hard way, or you could either fire Kimmel or you're going to have trouble with the fcc. That's a kind of coercion that tiptoes into First Amendment issues. I think it's a gray area. But I think it could be a First Amendment issue when the government uses coercion to get a private company to do what it can't do. Let me say one other thing if I might, Bill. Conservatives, Trump, people who like Donald Trump should not be celebrating this because sooner or later there's going to be a Democratic president and maybe a progressive Democratic president, maybe somebody like aoc and don't say, AOC will never be president. It's impossible. It's not impossible. And we don't want that person saying, I don't like what they're saying about Me, I don't like what they're saying about me on this media outlet or that media outlet. And I'm going to shut it down because I don't like any criticism. We would. We conservatives would yell bloody murder about that, and rightly so. So before we get too happy about Jimmy Kimmel's demise, think about that.

[B]

All right? But it's already happened, as I pointed out. It's already happened for almost 10 years since Trump got into the political marketplace. The networks have shut down all conservative and traditional opinion. So it's already happened. So you don't need AOC to do it. The networks did it by themselves for whatever agenda reason they wanted. So that's where Carr should have gone. So the mistake that Carr made and the president himself was zeroing in on Colbert and Kimmel, that they're part of the problem. But the big problem is the censorship exclusion that the corporations absolutely imposed.

[F]

You're absolutely right in what you said factually. But private companies are allowed to be unfair. Private companies are not.

[B]

If you're licensed by the fcc, you can't run a propaganda channel in this country. You can't. You'll lose your license. They look the other way under Biden, under Obama, because they were cheering on the networks. Obama and Biden. But you cannot do it because there is a Fairness Doctrine, Goldberg, and you know it. You worked for CBS for like, 85 years since Rutherford behaves. You know what the Fairness Doctrine was, and you know who did this to the Fairness Doctrine? Dan Rather. Cronkite actually obeyed it. Rather gave it the middle finger.

[F]

I want to be very clear about this, because I don't want any of the people listening to us thinking I'm defending the exclusion of any opinion that doesn't jibe with the opinion that they want. Because you're absolutely right. They're unfair that way. But I would argue. I'm not. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I know a little about this stuff. But I want to be clear that while it's wrong, it may be legal, it's wrong to keep people. It's wrong to say we don't want conservative voices because we don't like conservative voices. It's wrong when they do it in news and it's wrong when they do it in entertainment. But. But it may not be illegal. That's my point, Bill.

[B]

I'd like to see the Supreme Court hear it because it is such a threat to the nation. This is exactly what Beijing and Moscow are doing right this second. You cannot have any dissent and that's what the networks imposed. And most people didn't even understand it or don't even understand it now. I mean, if I want to go on Good Morning America where I was plenty of times, they will not book me. Neither will it Today show, neither will Jane Pauley at Sunday MORNING cbs. Now, I cracked through, I don't know whether you notice this, not with Major Garrett at CBS this week. And I was on CBS for the first time in 10 years because they sold to Skydance and Skydance apparently doesn't want the exclusionary censorship of non liberal voices. So there's a glimmer of hope.

[F]

Bill, I want to be very clear that when I say a progressive president would shut down, I know progressives in real life, they would shut down conservative speech in a second.

[B]

Sure.

[F]

And what I'm, what I'm, and you're saying they've already done it. I get it. I get it. But, but you don't want to cheer the demise of Jimmy Kimmel because the other side will do it if they could and make it even worse than it is now.

[B]

I got it. I got it.

[F]

Shut down.

[B]

Last question. I think there's a rebellion now, a television rebellion, because the 77 million people who voted for Donald Trump are walking away from the networks and the networks, you know, and I know the ratings are abysmal, all right, they're horrible across the board. It's the last days of Pompeii over there and cable is going to follow him right over the cliff. All right.

[F]

Because Bill, that's why I, and you're absolutely right. And that's why I would prefer Brendan Carr stay the hell out of this and let the, the marketplace make the decision. Let people say, you know, I heard Jimmy Kimmel say something the other night that I found offensive. I'm not tuning into that crap anymore. Let the marketplace rather than the fcc, instead of the FCC using its clout, let the American people and capitalism and the marketplace use its clout to take care of stuff like this.

[B]

Well, I think it's happened simultaneously now, that's for sure. All right. BernardGoldberg.com so you do me a personal favor. If you visited Goldberg there, it's a very good website. Appreciate it, Bernie. We'll talk again soon. Thank you.

[A]

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no spin news, visit billoriley.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.