One of the hopes that emerged upon the death of Charlie Kirk was that American society could improve its manner of discourse, aiming for a return to a time when we could disagree without the hostility that springs to life so instantly today.
That path requires two things: a broad commitment to improve the tone of what we say and a reckoning for those who choose to remain mired in familiar hatred. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s momentary banishment from ABC is a significant chapter in the dawn of that reckoning, and it is a welcome sign that basic standards of decency are making a comeback.
In assessing this moment, it is vital to sweep away false narratives that have been offered by factions who are not celebrating. First, there is no free speech issue here. Contrary to the panic evident across some media landscapes Wednesday night, this was not the authoritarian Trump administration pulling the plug on a critic. It was a network seeking to stop the bleeding as TV stations across America stood poised to preempt Kimmel for his egregious lie about the motivation of Kirk’s killer on Kimmel’s Sept. 15 show.
Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from ABC is not ‘cancel culture’
Second, it is not “cancel culture.” A particularly dumb strain of analysis cries hypocrisy that conservatives lamenting the silencing of their voices are now gleeful that Kimmel has been sidelined. Genuine cancel culture — the wanton attempt to muzzle voices because some people’s feathers are ruffled — is wrong no matter which side is the target. The popular cancellation method of the modern moment involves mob-driven witch hunts seeking to mute people by cherry-picking and weaponizing old and often irrelevant quotes.
That Is a far cry from a righteous public recoil on the occasion of a genuinely execrable diatribe. Kimmel stood before his audience as Erika Kirk prepared to bury her dead husband and blamed conservatives for the murder.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend,” he said. “With the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
With ample evidence of a killer turned sharply leftward by both personal relationships and online addictions steeped in hatred of conservatives, Kimmel nonetheless chose to smear millions of Americans with the familiar loathing that has poisoned his so-called comedy for years.
In the America that we had become, all we could do when faced with such savagery was shrug and chalk it up to those lefty late-night voices and the dark environment they have chosen to occupy. But no more.
Real people who have had it up to their eyeballs with vilification disguised as comedy made clear to waves of TV stations that the free ride is over. Across the heartland of America, station ownership groups such as Nexstar and Sinclair expressed their intention to preempt Kimmel until he atoned in some form.
How ABC reporter gushed over Kirk suspect’s text messages
ABC, dreading the prospect of numerous affiliates following suit, suspended Kimmel to stop the bleeding and get ahead of the crisis. Do not imagine for one moment that the network suddenly sprouted a conscience and realized that these viewers were correct. This is, after all, the same network where reporter Matt Gutman infected his coverage of the horrific text messages of the shooter to his roommate by growing mushy at the portions of them that contained terms of endearment, calling them “very touching in a way that many of us didn’t expect.”
What viewers truly didn’t expect was a reporter growing misty-eyed in an attempt to humanize a monster. Again, in the America we had become, there would be little recourse. This is just part of reporting, we would be told. But Gutman or his bosses realized that a new day has dawned, and he issued a statement of “regret” that his words did not make clear his condemnation of “this horrific crime.”
That’s better than nothing, and it invites the question: Will Jimmy Kimmel cobble together something resembling contrition for his latest cruel insult? I am a big believer in accepting apologies, but there is no universe in which this one will come off as sincere. It would be an empty gesture designed to save what’s left of his sliver of the dying landscape of late-night talk shows.
If he returns, contrary to the gasps of his cable news fan base, he will be welcome to resume making jokes about President Donald Trump or anyone else he pleases. But further lies offered in stark seriousness may bring further consequences.
A final word about those consequences. They should always come from the marketplace, in the form of viewers expressing themselves to stations and their owners, rather than from government. Much has been made of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr floating license revocation as a punishment for utterances that run afoul of the regulatory standard of “operating in the public interest.”
I don’t believe one license would have been yanked in the Kimmel drama. This is vintage Trump-style posturing that in this case could have found an actual basis in the ancient language that gives government certain powers over broadcast content. This administration that so wisely seeks to dismantle some entire government departments should move toward amending the Communications Act of 1934 to take politicians out of the relationship between broadcasters and audiences.
The “Kimmel moment” is singularly satisfying because it involves the ivory towers of TV ownership actually hearing and reacting to the justified revulsion of millions of Americans. Future examples of public outcry should be weighed in the same private sector environment.
Mark Davis hosts a morning radio show in Dallas-Fort Worth on 660-AM and at 660amtheanswer.com. Follow him on X: @markdavis.
Mark Davis
Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us!
We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.
• Letters should be no more than 150 words.
• Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.
• Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.
You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:
• Email [email protected] (preferred).
• Fill out this online form.
Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.yahoo.com ’
