Jimmy Kimmel returned to the airwaves Tuesday night just days after being “indefinitely” suspended. The late-night host was contrite and conciliatory, and used his show to express sympathy for the family of slain conservative Charlie Kirk. And yet, for the keener-eyed followers of the news cycle, one might wonder how such a phoenix-like return was possible when last week’s headlines were dominated by stories of President Donald Trump’s “crackdown” on free speech.
What follows is a selection of top stories from the nation’s largest purveyors of news:
From The New York Times:
“ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Off Air for Charlie Kirk Comments After F.C.C. Pressure”
“Trump Administration Wields Its Full Toolbox to Bring Media to Heel”
From CNN:
“ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from Trump’s FCC chair”
“What Kimmel shows: Trump is unapologetically embracing the heavy hand of government”
And the list goes on. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find an outlet on the left that did not directly implicate Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr and President Trump in Kimmel’s short-lived downfall.
To be clear, it was not just those on the political left that lamented the possible First Amendment incursion. The top podcaster in the world, Joe Rogan, said:
“First of all, I definitely don’t think that the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. Now, if … the problem is, the companies, if they’re being pressured by the government, so if that’s real, and if people on the right are like, ‘Yeah, go get them,’ oh my God, you’re crazy. You’re crazy for supporting this, because this will be used on you.”
Senator Ted Cruz received rare praise from the left (and elements on the right) when he weighed in saying that FCC involvement in the matter was like something out of the movie “Goodfellas.” “If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’ — that will end up bad for conservatives,” Cruz warned.
Carr pushed back at claims that the FCC was getting into the censorship business, saying:
“The reality is there’s a lot of Democrats out there that are engaged in a campaign of projection and distortion. And distortion is they’re completely misrepresenting the work of the FCC and what we’ve been doing.”
While it could be argued that Carr’s public statements regarding Kimmel’s comments on the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk applied pressure that is contrary to the First Amendment, the choice to pull the show was clearly a business decision. If it weren’t, ABC would not have aired the broadcast Tuesday night.
FCC rules state that “The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial ‘public harm’ if aired.” Claiming that the alleged assassin was a “MAGA Republican” when all the information at the time suggested the opposite would certainly seem to fall under the category of “false information.” Which then brings us to the point about whether such a narrative would run afoul of causing “public harm.”
As Liberty Nation News reported at the time:
“It’s no secret that the country is a tinderbox – Exhibit A: Charlie Kirk was murdered. Over the last five years, we have seen groups react to the killing of individuals with rioting or worse. Granted, almost all of this has come from adherents to the left, but this speaks still to the very real possibility of potential ‘public harm.’”
Carr said before Kimmel’s suspension that “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” It is within the FCC’s remit to demand corrections or other actions that would mitigate potential harms – and that seems to be precisely what happened.
Kimmel said in his Tuesday monologue that it was not his “intention to blame any specific group for the actions.” He continued, “It was a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make, but I understand that, to some, it felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both, and for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you’re upset. If the situation was reversed, there’s a good chance I would have felt the same way.”
The mea culpa monologue appears to have satisfied FCC directives that “false information” be remedied. However, it has presently not been enough to mollify the broadcast networks that carry the show. Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Nexstar Media Group are – as of now – still refusing to carry the show, representing a significant blow to the ABC ledger, and latest reports suggest that discussions are ongoing.
These companies can pick and choose which content they carry and are entirely free to ditch a slot that they feel does not represent their customers’ interests. And this, not FCC pressure, nor Donald Trump’s clear dislike for Kimmel, appears to be the driving force behind taking him off the air.
If President Trump were truly the “dictator” so many have accused him of being, Kimmel would not be back on the airwaves. But in terms of reputational damage, a significant portion of the population will continue to believe that ABC won a decisive victory against the administration in bringing its late-night host back into the fold. As Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”