ABC suspends Jimmy Kimmel Live! after affiliates’ complaints, op-ed says

ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live late Wednesday after complaints from affiliates over a Monday monologue that the New York Post op-ed describes as partisan and not notably humorous. The suspension comes amid broader scrutiny of late-night political commentary and questions about how networks balance entertainment with news.

The op-ed notes that early reporting tied the shooter to MAGA politics, a link that later evidence did not support. The shooter, identified as Tyler Robinson, was linked to messages on his cartridges that authorities described as left-wing. It also notes that while Utah is a Republican-leaning state, that does not automatically imply MAGA alignment, and some left-leaning voices circulated a MAGA narrative online even as verified facts pointed away from it.

Kimmel did not retract or apologize for his remarks on Tuesday, according to the op-ed, and his only stated justification was that he lives in a coastal political bubble detached from critics. The piece argues that this reflects a broader pattern in which elite media mix politics with entertainment and risk losing viewers as a result, contributing to a broader industry slump for some late-night programs.

Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, publicly suggested remedies for what he described as a concerted effort to lie to the American people. The op-ed treats such comments as part of a wider debate over misinformation and broadcast regulation. It notes that the FCC licenses broadcasters and has regulatory authority over content in certain contexts, though Carr is not responsible for policing individual jokes.

Within broader industry context, the piece notes that late-night shows have faced sagging ratings and shifting audience loyalties. It cites the struggles of shows hosted by Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers and notes that while Jimmy Fallon may still aim for lighter fare, the era has grown more precarious for the traditional late-night format.

Overall, the op-ed frames the incident as part of a larger clash over politics and entertainment in US media, with implications for affiliate relationships, regulatory scrutiny, and audience loyalty.