During a recent podcast, Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, voiced his displeasure regarding comments made by Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel’s remarks had touched on Tyler Robinson, who is accused of shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk, as well as President Trump’s MAGA political movement. Carr outlined the potential avenues for action he envisioned.
He famously stated, ‘We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.’
By the end of that very day, ABC had seemingly chosen the ‘easy way’ by taking action on his behalf.
ABC offered no public explanation for its decision to suspend ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ indefinitely. However, the chain of events leading up to this move was starkly clear, echoing a disturbing pattern.
Carr, whose position grants him significant influence over local broadcast licenses, urged ABC affiliates to ‘push back.’ Swiftly, one prominent owner of affiliate groups – notably, a company with an upcoming acquisition deal requiring FCC approval – complied by announcing its intent to pre-empt Kimmel’s program.
And so, by Wednesday evening, Jimmy Kimmel’s show was off the air.
So, what exactly did Kimmel say that led to his show’s suspension? In his Monday night monologue, he stated, ‘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.’
One might describe Kimmel’s perspective as provocative, harsh, biased, or simply inaccurate. (Prosecutors revealed that Robinson had expressed ‘hatred’ for Kirk in private messages, though without specifying the exact reasons; his mother, however, informed authorities that her son had become increasingly supportive of LGBTQ+ rights.)
However, if comedians were expected to adhere to strict journalistic impartiality, late-night television would be nothing but a blank screen. Regarding Kimmel’s comment about ‘scoring political points,’ it’s worth noting that since Kirk’s tragic shooting, President Trump and his administration have actively targeted liberal organizations, attempting to link them to political violence. Interestingly, after Kirk’s death, Kimmel also shared on social media, ‘Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human?’
Regardless of whether one agrees with Kimmel’s specific remarks, a clear pattern emerges: the Trump administration has consistently employed various tactics to control news and entertainment media. These tactics include launching lawsuits, initiating investigations, and threatening financial repercussions. (For instance, Mr. Trump recently filed a lawsuit against The New York Times over its reporting that challenged his claims of business success.)
These tactics have frequently proven effective. ABC previously settled a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration regarding its news coverage. Similarly, Paramount settled a suit concerning ’60 Minutes’ while simultaneously pursuing approval for a multi-billion-dollar merger. While Paramount and CBS publicly attributed the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late-night show to business decisions, Mr. Trump nonetheless celebrated the removal of his vocal critic, just as he did with Kimmel. He even urged NBC to take similar action against Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.
Throughout this period, the demands for apologies, financial compensation, removals, and concessions have only grown more intense. A clear message has been delivered: crossing the president and his allies can come at a steep price.
Evidently, few in the media and Hollywood are willing to bear such costs. With so many others acquiescing and offering concessions, the incentive to speak out diminishes. The prevailing sentiment seems to be one of caution: avoid provoking critics, refrain from rash statements.
Perhaps, it’s safer to simply say nothing at all.
The animated series ‘South Park’ brilliantly captured this phenomenon in a season premiere where even Jesus Christ felt the Trump administration’s pressure, asking, ‘You really want to end up like Colbert?’ Furthermore, reruns of its second episode, which satirized Kirk’s politics weeks before his death, were removed from Comedy Central following the assassination, though they are still available on Paramount+. (It’s worth noting that Kirk himself had, prior to his death, described the spoof as ‘kind of funny.’)
While the actions of Mr. Trump and his allies may not exactly mirror the media control tactics employed by Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, or Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, the underlying principle is similar. Some regimes opt for overt suppression, while others achieve their aims through more subtle means. Each suppression of public discourse, however, inevitably creates its own distinct chilling effect.
Indeed, the chilling effect is palpable. During his Emmy acceptance speech for HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight With John Oliver,’ writer Daniel O’Brien remarked, ‘We are honored to share it with all writers of late-night political comedy while that’s still a type of show that’s allowed to exist.’ Following Kimmel’s suspension, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut publicly denounced the situation as part of ‘the systematic destruction of free speech.’
It might appear overly dramatic to lament censorship in the context of late-night shows, which are, at their core, entertainment ventures designed for profit rather than news dissemination. Yet, comedy occupies a unique space, reaching audiences who might otherwise disengage from traditional news sources.
Indeed, leaders worldwide recognize comedy’s power: Russia’s satirical puppet show ‘Kukly’ vanished from television under pressure from Vladimir Putin’s government, and Chinese censors famously prohibited online memes comparing President Xi Jinping to Winnie-the-Pooh. Throughout his political career, Mr. Trump’s social media presence has often resembled a running commentary from the Muppets’ Statler and Waldorf, consistently criticizing his satirists.
The health of a democracy can be gauged by its citizens’ liberty to openly satirize their leaders. This isn’t merely about legal protections, but also about the financial, cultural, and logistical space for such expression. In practical terms, free speech on television can only flourish if media companies demonstrate the courage to resist political and financial coercion.
Certainly, neither Kimmel nor Stephen Colbert are facing imprisonment. They will likely be personally unaffected. However, a media landscape where comedians are silenced from satirizing political factions by corporate decree is no more truly free than one where such expression is legally prohibited. The First Amendment doesn’t need to be formally abolished if those who control the platforms can be compelled to act as if it has been.
America may not be a de facto autocracy, but it increasingly resembles one in its television portrayals.