Tipsheet

On the Jimmy Kimmel 'Cancellation'

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  September 18, 2025 12:01 PM

By now, many readers are already aware of last evening's development regarding Democratic strategist and part-time comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who once lost in basketball to Ted Cruz.  Trenchant observers may be able to glean from that opening sentence that I am no fan of Kimmel's politics and schtick.  I've made that repeatedly clear.  I'd add that I'm not a fan of his show either, but I can't say that for certain because I've never had any interest in watching it.  Keep all of this in mind as this piece unfolds, including my reasoning for why I still believe this situation presents a problematic precedent that should concern Americans from across the ideological spectrum.  For context, earlier this week, Kimmel delivered another insufferable partisan sermon on his late night ABC "comedy" program.  He'd put out a relatively decent (by his standards) statement about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk last week, then proceeded to descend into ugly, conspiratorial territory within a matter of days.  

He indignantly and smarmily asserted on network television that Kirk's killer is a MAGA fanatic.  He scolded and mocked his political opponents for being dishonest on this subject, in order to score political points.  In fact, it was he who was being dishonest on the subject in question, and it was he who was trying to score cheap political points in the process.  Watch this clip, and as you do, recall that by the time this diatribe aired, it was already quite well established that the suspect in custody was a leftist:


"One of them." On Tuesday, law enforcement officials in Utah laid out even more evidence that the shooter is a left-wing radical who murdered Charlie Kirk because of his political ideas and speech. On that night's ABC episode, Kimmel did not correct the record or apologize for his deeply irresponsible and ignorant -- at best -- comments the night prior. By Wednesday, in the face of announcements from ownership of various affiliate stations that they were yanking Kimmel from their platforms over this controversy, the network decided to 'indefinitely' preempt his show with other programming. Before we get to my 'take' on this, let's address some of the eruptions of fear and fury over what has happened here. I have zero loved lost for Kimmel, whose sleazy, partisan, nasty act wore thin long ago. And I shed zero tears for him personally, especially because he's still being dishonest about what happened:


No, his comments were not taken "out of context."  That he reportedly had no plans to apologize is a big part of his problem, and our country's wider problem, frankly.  In many ways, he deserves this fate.  Others are also mischaracterizing what Kimmel said, rather than dealing with the situation honestly.  For example:


Uh, he didn't "suggest" it. He said it outright. Lying and gaslighting about his lying and gaslighting really, really does not help the chances of forging any sort of consensus over this kerfuffle, which I do fear has negative and freedom-chilling implications.  Neither do other bogus excuses.  It's all so self-discrediting.  Focusing on what matters here, rather than lionizing their fellow lefty partisan gladiator would be prudent and productive.  Many of them seem to be incapable of such things.  My initial, reflexive reaction to the Kimmel news was to rip what he did, because he deserves to be shamed for it, and then to post this:

Recommended

Office Star: Hollywood Elite Were Popping Champagne Over Charlie Kirk's Death Matt Vespa
Republicans Are Totally Not Being Cool About People Murdering Them Kurt Schlichter


"If the show is otherwise financially viable (ie not losing $40m/year), let him keep doing his thing. I’ll keep not watching," I concluded. Upon further review, I stand by it.  People are welcome to agree or disagree, but I think a mea culpa and a genuine apology were in order.  I don't think this grotesque mischaracterization, delivered smugly, of course, is worthy of Kimmel's literal or figurative cancellation.  That is, admittedly, something of a subjective judgment call, but it's where I personally land.  As I laid out earlier this week, I think our free society should tolerate odious speech up to a very high bar, without seeking drastic punishments for the speaker.  The bright line I drew in regards to the Kirk killing is celebrating and endorsing political violence.  Jimmy Kimmel has done and said a lot of gross things, on any number of subjects.  But he did manage to avoid disgracing himself that badly.  Ending his show over this, I think, is an overreaction.  If a show is pulled for low ratings, that's one thing.  If it's bleeding money, as Stephen Colbert's show has been, that's another valid reason to pull the plug.  

One even could argue, maybe persuasively, that unapologetically spreading reckless and damaging political misinformation about an assassination on national television (especially during programming that's supposed to be funny) might be legitimate grounds for benching or canning a host.  I don't fully agree, especially if a correction and apology had been forthcoming, but I'm even willing to stipulate that, for the sake of argument.  But there's another factor at play here.  "Jawboning:" 


The President of the United States has agitated for Kimmel, a relentless and obnoxious critic, to be pulled off the air. The president's FCC Commissioner has echoed these sentiments, publicly urging affiliates to drop Kimmel's show. He did so very recently. This official, in the rather recent past, seemed to be extremely and rightly skeptical of such applications of government power over speech.  What changed?  It seems the people in power changed, including him.  The Trump administration currently holds the keys to approving or rejecting a pending media merger/acquisition transaction that may be relevant in all of this, beyond the unsubtle threats about broadcast licenses.  The impacted company very much wants the deal to go through.  And said company played a major role in the (temporary?) demise of Kimmel's show.  Perhaps this angle won't prove to be accurate, but it's a reasonable concern to have, based on the circumstances and the players involved.  Technically, private corporations promoted and made this decision, but the government's meddling and leverage are pretty clear elements of this.  At the very least, it looks really bad and gratuitous.  So does this:


You may love this outcome because you love Trump and detest his critics. You may have no use for Kimmel, who is a slimy hack. I'm right there with you. But watching any president identify media enemies, then apply pressure through the power of his government to push those enemies out of on-air jobs (prompting open celebrations from the bureaucrat who did the dirty work), isn't something we should accept or embrace in this country, even if the short-term schadenfreude high feels satisfying. If this stands as a new way of doing business, when -- not if, when -- the political winds shift and there's a leftist administration in power, think of how this precedent could be abused in the opposite direction.  Our direction.  If a President AOC were to decide she despises certain conservative radio hosts, then deploys her FCC to find reasons to directly or indirectly get them suspended, fired, or boycotted out of existence, conservatives would scream bloody murder.  Rightly so.  If those conservatives are defending the current administration's Kimmel maneuvers, they won't have a leg to stand on.  Defenders of this current imbroglio might shoot back that there have been other, worse attacks on free speech in recent memory.  And they might have a point:


Fair enough; I don't disagree. But in the United States of America, we shouldn't be in a competition for which 'side' has chilled or undermined freedom the most. Rather than bickering over which abuses have been more or less audaciously freedom-threatening, we should be opposing the threatening of freedom from any of our politicians and institutions.  I'm not sure how this situation can be resolved in a positive way.  Perhaps some combination of public pressure and legal challenges will play a role.  Regardless, I'm hoping that what I view as perilous overreach will be reversed.  Not for the sake of Jimmy Kimmel, who is a profoundly unsympathetic and unrepentant ass, but for the sake of preserving a maximally free country.  Short-term power grabs have a way of boomeranging.  A 'cancellation' arms race ends badly for all of us, as maybe some left-wing proponents of the practice are finally realizing.