By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ABC has indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show due to his comments regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk, which prompted Nexstar Communications Group, operator of 23 ABC affiliates, to pull the show from their stations. Kimmel’s comments on Monday and Tuesday nights, which were critical of responses to the killing, were deemed “offensive and insensitive” by Nexstar. There was no immediate comment from Kimmel or ABC regarding the suspension.
Read the original article here
ABC suspends Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show indefinitely over his remarks about Charlie Kirk’s death, and it’s a lot to unpack. It’s wild how quickly things escalated. First, we need to clarify, it wasn’t even about mocking Charlie Kirk’s death directly. Kimmel’s “crime,” if you can even call it that, was questioning the immediate rush to judgment by the right-wing, who were already trying to capitalize politically on the tragedy. Kimmel pointed out, from what I understand, that the shooter’s connections seemed to be deeply rooted in the MAGA community, which made their reactions even more suspicious.
The situation smells of political pressure, and it’s hard not to see a direct correlation to the Trump administration’s approach to media. The FCC, under Trump, apparently issued threats to ABC and Disney. At the same time, the former president has initiated lawsuits against media outlets for their negative coverage. It’s a chilling reminder of how easily the First Amendment can be eroded when the government weaponizes its power to silence dissent. We’re watching a case of censorship disguised as corporate decisions.
The contrast with other situations is striking. We see figures like Brian Kilmeade, who has made some truly appalling remarks about homelessness (suggesting they should be killed), still on the air, while Kimmel faces indefinite suspension for what was, essentially, a call for reasoned analysis. This kind of selective enforcement is a huge red flag. It screams of a system where the powerful set the rules, and those who disagree pay the price.
Here’s where it gets even more concerning: the whole “cancel culture” game. The same folks who, for years, have railed against “cancel culture” are now actively participating in it. It’s a blatant display of hypocrisy, especially when you consider the content of Kimmel’s remarks. He wasn’t celebrating Kirk’s death. He was criticizing the immediate political maneuvering that followed.
It’s also worth remembering that the context here is crucial. We’re talking about late-night television. Kimmel’s job is to offer satirical commentary, and in this instance, he was pointing out the hypocrisy he saw. This is a pretty standard, if occasionally pointed, critique from a comedian.
The specific comments that got Kimmel into trouble show that he stated, “The MAGA Gang (is) 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,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.” It’s difficult to justify an indefinite suspension based on that. It’s a commentary on the reaction to the death, not a celebration of it.
What’s even more disturbing is the possibility of corporate corruption. Reports indicate that ABC’s largest distributor, Nexstar, may have been involved. Nexstar is currently trying to acquire a rival distributor for billions, while also petitioning the FCC to change rules regarding ownership in broadcast markets. The timing of this, and the perceived threat from the FCC’s actions, raises questions about potential collusion and the manipulation of media landscapes.
The implications of this are far-reaching. We’re seeing a direct assault on free speech, especially when the intimidation comes from the government itself. The speed with which America seems to be heading towards authoritarianism is frightening.
This entire situation shows a disturbing pattern of silencing critical voices. It is not about defending a specific person or political ideology. The issue at hand is the right to express viewpoints without fear of retribution. It is a warning about the lengths to which those in power will go to control the narrative, even if it means sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
This is why so many people are reacting so strongly. It goes beyond political preferences; it touches on the very foundation of a democratic society. Without a free press, without the ability to criticize those in power without fear, we risk losing everything. It’s time to protect the legacy of free speech, or we risk losing it altogether.