Is Jimmy Kimmel going to stay on his late-night show? The answer is a lot more complicated than just the punchlines he delivers. A myriad of business and regulatory factors weighs heavily on this decision, rooted in the overall landscape shaped by Kimmel’s network and its major players.
With the Walt Disney Company as its owner, ABC operates in a complex environment, regularly needing government approvals for various activities, from relaunching ventures to securing new licenses. Recently, the Trump administration hasn’t held back; investigations involving Disney are underway due to accusations ranging from antitrust issues to alleged violations in programming and hiring.
Notably, Kimmel faced suspension last week following remarks suggesting that Charlie Kirk’s followers were out for political gain in the wake of the conservative activist’s tragic shooting. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr expressed his disgust at Kimmel’s comments, hinting that deeper scrutiny would be applied.
It’s important to remember that Carr’s actions come under the watchful eye of President Trump, who has historically had a tense relationship with Kimmel.
In an unexpected move, major broadcasting operations, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcasting — owner of about a quarter of ABC’s affiliates nationwide — announced they would not air Kimmel’s show, further complicating the network’s choices.
In an effort to avoid tensions with the Trump administration, Disney previously agreed to a $15 million payout in a defamation case involving ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, a lawsuits that many believed had weak grounds. Amidst that, the company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion has come under fire, leading them to adjust some of their initiatives to keep government critics at bay.
Apparently, they aimed to end any persecution by actively dismantling parts of their diversity programs, including cutting phrases related to amplifying often-overlooked voices from their annual reports. And yet, despite these efforts, accusations of favoring minority groups continued.
In April, the FCC reprimanded Disney CEO Bob Iger, asserting that claims surfaced homing in on a perceived “infection” within the company regarding minority protections, spurring even deeper investigations into their practices.
In addition, scrutiny burgeoned around Disney’s recent acquisition of a stake in streaming service FuboTV amid allegations that the Justice Department is probing potential antitrust violations related to the move.
Cases against Disney extend too far, leading them to pay out $10 million to settle allegations surrounding the data collection from minors watching their content without proper parental consent.
Compounding these issues, any expected approval from the Trump administration surrounding the ESPN’s purchase of the NFL Network hangs in the balance.
Of course, Disney has faced conservative backlash long before this latest situation arose. Florida’s GOP Governor Ron DeSantis, for instance, has been in public disputes with the company over their criticisms of legislation limiting topics discussing sexual orientation in schools.
Even Kirk has voiced disapproval; his opposition surfaced during the removal of the Splash Mountain ride references linked to the controversial film, “Song of the South,” which narrates an overly sentimental perspective on slavery.
Interestingly, companies that run ABC-affiliated stations aligning against Kimmel have valid motives for their stances. Nexstar, for instance, needs government nods to finalize its formidable $6.2 billion deal to acquire broadcast competitor Tegna.
Sinclair too faces regulatory strife, having just reached an agreement with the FCC due to discrepancies with submitted paperwork and problems surrounding children’s programming rules.
Yet amidst all this, certain advocates implore these corporate giants to rise above financial motives and advocate for freedom of expression.
Former Disney head Michael Eisner even posed a critical question via social media: “Where is the leadership when matters truly count? If top brass, including university heads, law firms, and corporate leaders, don’t stand against those wielding pressure tactics, who is left to defend free speech?”
Ironically, even unlikely voices have surfaced against the censorship claims directed at Kimmel, such as the Wall Street Journal and Bari Weiss’s site, the Free Press. Inserting conservative commentary into the mix, they as well as Republican Senator Ted Cruz labeled censorship absurd, noting the historical context of the right communities facing “cancel culture” themselves.
As a strong assertion from the Journal articulated, shifting on decisions due to political commentary poses questions about how silence will further financial professionals decisions, calling it distinctly government coercion – a clear move away from ethical practice. They posed: “When high-profile figures get dropped in response to threats from governmental leaders — how can that be classified as merely business?”
Bauder and Condon write for the Associated Press.
This article first appeared in Los Angeles Times
