adminABC has suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night program after his on-air comments about the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk drew fierce criticism and led station owners to pull the show. The move followed a cascade of condemnation from broadcasters and public officials upset by Kimmel’s characterization of the killing and its political context. For many conservatives this was not a surprise — it was long past time that a host who routinely weaponized his platform faced consequences for flagrantly one-sided attacks.
Station groups Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would stop airing Kimmel’s show, while FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly denounced the remarks and warned of repercussions, turning a media flap into a full-blown institutional rebuke. This isn’t merely a ratings matter; it’s a clear sign that even establishment outlets and owners are tired of partisan moralizing from late-night stages. If networks want to keep their audiences, they will have to choose between elite outrage and steady, mainstream viewers who expect fairness and decency.
Conservative commentators like Matt Walsh quickly pointed out the obvious: Kimmel has long celebrated the cancellation of conservative figures while he himself escaped accountability for years. That hypocrisy stung because it revealed a double standard — one set of rules for the media class and another for everyone else. Calls for accountability now ring hollow unless they apply equally to the left’s favorite personalities.
Look at the record: Kimmel has repeatedly cheered when figures on the right were punished, and he has had his own history of controversial gags and mean-spirited commentary that rarely earned him comparable pushback. Conservatives have watched friends lose livelihoods over far smaller infractions while late-night hosts wield immunity. If the public is going to tolerate media personalities, it should be on the basis of professionalism, not partisan bullying disguised as comedy.
That said, the involvement of government officials in pressuring networks raises real First Amendment concerns and fuels a dangerous precedent where federal pressure can translate into private censorship. Several public figures and civil liberties advocates have warned that allowing political pressure to dictate programming opens the door to retaliation the next time the political winds shift. Americans of all political stripes should be wary of government coercion of the press, even while demanding accountability from media institutions themselves.
The sensible conservative response is simple: insist on fairness and follow the market rather than reflexively celebrating censorship. If audiences feel a host crosses a line, they can vote with their eyeballs and their subscriptions; if networks tolerate repeated partisan grandstanding, viewers can and should take their business elsewhere. This moment should be a lesson to the media elite — you either treat the rules as universal, or you lose the trust of the very Americans who keep your industry afloat.
