Jimmy Kimmel, the Public Interest and Free Speech
I have spent the past couple of days investigating the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! (JKL). Here’s a variety of sources that I found useful:
Trump Grieves By Talking About $200 Million Boardroom, MAGA Hits New Lows & Guillermo at the Emmys (Jimmy Kimmel)
FCC chair comments on Kimmel’s Charlie Kirk comments (Associated Press)
The FIVE FACTS you need to know about the Jimmy Kimmel cancelation situation (Chris Cillizza)
CNBC full interview with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr (CNBC’s Squawk on the Street)
I beg and plead you to start first with Kimmel’s monologue. Five minutes is enough for a complete picture. Too often, we humans rely on someone else’s summary of another’s words or actions when we can go straight to the source. In the Internet Age, there’s no excuse not to find the original.
My position is as follows: The facts we know about Charlie Kirk’s assassin strongly suggest he was not MAGA. Kimmel asserted that Trump doesn’t care about Kirk’s death, besides what political benefits he can glean from it. Trump is famous for not showing grief or anything he deems as ‘weakness’ in public. Kimmel spoke about a raw situation carelessly.
Carr’s argument is multi-pronged.
First, shows like JKL and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert are losing money for their corporations and are instead keep them afloat for political propaganda.
Second, Kimmel ‘misled’ the public about a significant fact in one of the most important political events of modern times. JKL airs on ABC, which has a public broadcasting license and has an obligation to operate in the public interest. The ‘public interest standard’ is found in the 1934 Communications Act. While the term ‘public interest’ is mentioned over 100 times in the 300 page document, it never gets a definition.
Third, local broadcasters Sinclair and Nexstar revolted against Disney and ABC. The ‘check,’ in Carr’s view, doesn’t come from the government but from local broadcasters. Nexstar is in merger talks and needs FCC approval, another concerning wrinkle.
Two things are key in my view:
1. Public interest isn’t defined in the 1934 law.
2. Carr wrote FCC chapter for the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Therefore, I conclude that Carr construes ‘public interest’ to be whatever helps conservatives and Republicans. If he puts pressure on administration-friendly content, then I will reevaluate my conclusion.
To be fair, Carr emphasized that the FCC doesn’t have nearly as much authority over cable and internet content. Plus, I had long stopped watching Kimmel and other late night hosts because of their left-leaning tilt. Still, his comments about Kimmel (on a MAGA podcast, nonetheless) were aggressive and will have far reaching consequences. I agree with political analysts Brit Hume and Bernard Goldberg that the FCC should have stayed out of the decision.
Unsurprisingly, President Trump declared victory and called for more firings on Truth Social. As per usual, Trump will push his advantage as much as he can. Perhaps his ire with Colbert and Kimmel would be excused if he exacted the same standard from his own crowd.
After the murder of Iryna Zarutska on North Carolina public transit, Fox & Friends anchor Brian Kilmeade called for the ‘involuntary lethal injection’ of homeless people who refuse treatment or services. While Kimmel was inaccurate about Kirk’s assassin, Kilmeade called for the extermination of an entire group of people. Trump has been silent.
Yes, Kilmeade is on a cable network. With that stipulation aside, how are his comments in the public interest? Iryna Zarutska’s death is a tragedy. No question and no qualifications. But to call for ‘involuntary lethal injection’? Kilmeade gave a half-hearted apology and has faced zero repercussions.
After his comments, Minneapolis and Charlotte both witnessed attacks on homeless populations. Ultimately, those shooters made their own decisions to take another’s life. Our political rhetoric has coarsened and helped lead to Kirk’s death. What role did Kilmeade’s comments play in these shootings? No motive has been given, but at the very least, his ‘callous remarks’ (his description) didn’t lower temperatures.
Free speech has its limits. They are difficult to define and require constant reworkings. But when the basis for your decisions and ‘the public interest’ boil down to my team good, other team bad, then it’s a slippery slope until free speech is gone.
Sorry, I have erred. Jon Stewart gets it. All praise our Glorious Leader!