What happened
Tonight, riding the BATA bus home from choir practice, an alert hit our phones: ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air because of what he said about Charlie Kirk’s shooting. My first thought? He must have said something awful.
He didn’t. Kimmel’s monologue was political commentary. He argued that parts of MAGA world were exploiting the killing and “working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk.” He also mocked Trump’s response. That is edgy late-night talk, not cheering a murder and not a racist rant.
Who pulled the plug and why it matters
Here is the chain. Nexstar, which controls a big block of ABC affiliates, said it would preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for the foreseeable future. Then ABC said the show would be pre-empted indefinitely. All of this came right after the FCC chair publicly leaned on broadcasters about Kimmel’s monologue, and Trump praised the move and called for more firings. When government pressure and affiliate pressure line up and a show disappears, that is not just “corporate PR.” That is political muscle doing what political muscle does.
This is not about liking Jimmy Kimmel
If Kimmel had praised the shooting or used open racism, I would say fire him. But he did not. He criticized the political spin around a killing. In a healthy democracy, we argue with him, mock him, or change the channel. What we should not do is normalize yanking shows because the president and his allies dislike the take.
A short record of pressure on the press
1) The litigation blitz. Trump just filed a $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times and Penguin Random House. It follows similar threats and suits against major outlets this year. Two networks have already paid to make disputes go away—ABC over a Stephanopoulos misstatement and Paramount over a “60 Minutes” interview—sending a clear message that an unflattering segment can carry an eight-figure price tag.
2) License threats—again. Trump has repeatedly urged revoking or “looking at” broadcast licenses for outlets he dislikes, dating back to 2017 and resurfacing this summer targeting ABC and NBC. Even when the legal authority is thin, stations and corporate lawyers hear the threat.
3) Retaliation by access. This year the White House cut AP’s access to key events. A federal judge ordered access restored on First Amendment grounds. Cutting access to punish coverage is textbook pressure.
4) We have seen this movie. In 2018, the administration yanked CNN’s Jim Acosta’s hard pass. A federal judge ordered it restored. The message to the press corps was clear then—and it is louder now.
5) Rhetoric designed to chill. Calling newsrooms “the enemy of the people,” promising to “open up” libel laws, and demanding license action are not random outbursts. They work together to make editors and producers think twice.
6) And now, the Kimmel case. After his monologue, a regulator publicly pressured broadcasters, an affiliate group bailed, and ABC pulled the show “indefinitely.” That is government jawboning plus corporate risk-aversion, and it should alarm anyone who cares about editorial independence.
Why this is the slippery slope I worry about
Democracies rot when powerful people treat criticism as “dangerous” and disagreement as a firing offense. Once networks start preempting shows after political pressure campaigns, the message is simple: speak at your own risk. That is not how free speech is supposed to work here.
Bottom line
This was not Kimmel praising a killing. It was Kimmel criticizing the politics around it. Pulling him for that is a step in the wrong direction. If it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us.
Notes from the edge of the system 