Nexstar ABC Stations Dropping Kimmel

[mre29 1967]

38 minutes ago, Geoffrey said:

Important to note that Kimmel did NOT say that the shooter is MAGA.

 

I stand corrected.

 

[HanSolo 468]

45 minutes ago, l_miro said:

 

no. The shooter is an obvious leftist. You have to be blind, deaf, dumb and a liar to claim otherwise.

 

We can all read that savage's text and discord messages. Even me, English as third language and having failed it at 8th grade in eastern europe, can read and understand

 

also "Charlie Kirk is a Nazi" totally something something on the right would say about Kirk

 

 

 

which part of lying on TV while holding an FCC license was hard for you to comprehend? I thought we were supposed to battle misinformation and disable those people's social media and everything else

 

He is not a journalist. He stated an opinion as is his prerogative. And there is a great deal we do not know about this highly suspect case. But that is neither here nor there. The FCC making threats over content is the issue. 

[Reweivvt88 173]

7 hours ago, Georgie56 said:

The View did not talk about the Kimmel suspension on today’s episode.

Of course, because there is no way to discuss this without making Disney and ABC look like pro-MAGA censors that only care about those on the far right. 

 

In the little coverage ABC News has given the story, they act like the FCC gave them no choice. While the FCC chairperson did make a threat towards ABC, no official action was taken. I think the U.S. government is no different than the government of Russia as they have proven rules and laws don't matter to them, but in this case they never actually took action against ABC, if ABC is going to try and blame the FCC for this, they should have let the process play out and see what the FCC actually ended up doing, self censoring yourself before the authoritarian government actually gets a chance to do anything just shows how weak and spineless Disney and ABC are. It also says to viewers that they shouldn't trust anything they see on ABC News because the network has flat out admitted that they are terrified of upsetting the far right authoritarian government. CBS News proved you can't trust anything they broadcast by hiring a far right MAGA ombudsman to police coverage and ABC isn't even willing to keep an entertainment comedy show on the air, and the ABC News program where they discuss :hot topics" isn't allowed to talk about it. 

 

As I said before. U.S. media is now no different than media in China or Russia. Australia's ABC News asks tough questions to Trump, because Australia still has credible media outlets, America's ABC News "journalists" know that if they ask any questions that upset Trump, Disney will fire them. 

 

 

[Reweivvt88 173]

7 hours ago, Vlad said:

But, I do hope that the show returns, maybe some sort of apology or compromise can be done to unify the sides together. Maybe Kimmel could invite Trump on his show lol. Late night, talk shows need not be so heavily focused on the government and politics; Do some light commentary and a little political satire, but he kept going on and on all the time, it's a bit annoying find some other things to poke fun at, in my opinion. 

This is never going to happen. The only ones who should be giving an apology is Disney, ABC, Nexstar, and Sinclair. Jimmy Kimmel Live's ratings surpassed NBC's The Tonight Show because he focused on politics. It might be annoying to MAGA, but MAGA has lots of other things to watch. The country is never going to unify, the right has gone way too extreme for that to ever happen. 

[Archiva 20]

Tonight, WRIC is extending their 11pm newscast to 12:37am. A small handful of other Nexstar stations are doing the same, like WSYR and KCAU.

[Jase 1164]

4 hours ago, l_miro said:

 

local affiliates have been objecting to and refusing to air programming from the networks for as long as that relationship has existed. Many, at least the smart ones, have it written out in their contracts. 

 

WSVN would nuke FOX programming if it scraped into the newscast schedule, and still unilaterally decides to throw any sport that isn't an NFL game into whatever timeslot they can find, National Hot Rod Association being one of the more recent ones. 

And then there's WHDH, which to this day NBC blames for Jay Leno at 10pm failing, and one of the primary reasons NBC did what it did in Boston 

 

We're taking about 65+ stations, not one, two or a dozen. This is an unprecedented (and very troubling) move by Nexstar and Sinclair. They can take this newfound leverage and wield it however they like without consequence.

[NowBergen 924]

7 hours ago, Jase said:

 

We're taking about 65+ stations, not one, two or a dozen. This is an unprecedented (and very troubling) move by Nexstar and Sinclair. They can take this newfound leverage and wield it however they like without consequence.

 

Another example of why media consolidation is not always a good thing. Considering in some markets, every commercial anglo TV station is owned by Nexstar and Sinclair, the danger is even worse. There are no independent voices other than Sinclair's unabashed far right slant or Nestar's corporate direction.  Not sure how that's in the public interest.

Edited September 19, 2025 by NowBergen

[Recovering Producer 410]

8 hours ago, Archiva said:

Tonight, WRIC is extending their 11pm newscast to 12:37am. A small handful of other Nexstar stations are doing the same, like WSYR and KCAU.

 

WRIC makes some level of sense - statewide elections in just over 6 weeks, so they can use news as filler between political spots and charge news rates.

[HanSolo 468]

2 hours ago, NowBergen said:

 

Another example of why media consolidation is not always a good thing. Considering in some markets, every commercial anglo TV station is owned by Nexstar and Sinclair, the danger is even worse. There are no independent voices other than Sinclair's unabashed far right slant or Nestar's corporate direction.  Not sure how that's in the public interest.

It isn’t.
 

Political slants aside for just a moment, it’s a challenging situation. As audiences fragment, and ad dollars follow, maintaining a viable news operation with ever-less money available, particularly in smaller and middle size markets can be challenging or outright impossible. And people howl at any cost cutting measures when they themselves are not the ones faced with the budget reality. Just look at the steady drumbeat of criticisms in thread upon thread here. The sky is falling because some organization centralized a function, or standardized graphics. They outsourced some type of content or dialed back in some other way. They don’t upgrade their set enough. They didn’t do it right when they actually do. 
 

The harsh reality is there isn’t an ability to support the quantity and quality of news operations. There’s a fine argument that one company owning too many stations in a market is a problem, but that isn’t going to magically make money appear such that another owner will be able to be profitable running a news operation. That world isn’t coming back. 

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

With the demands that Sinclair is levying on Jimmy Kimmel to return to their stations, ABC needs to grow a backbone and pull ALL of their affiliations from Sinclair.  They expire in 2026, but technically what they're doing is very likely a breach of contract that should give them the right to act immediately.

 

They should have done it 20 years ago before Sinclair quadrupled in size and acquired leading stations they've driven into the ground.

 

If things continue how they are, the network/affiliation model is on a fast track to extinction.  Really the only premiere programming left is live sports and news, everything else worthwhile has migrated to streaming.

[GodfreyGR 812]

20 hours ago, Vlad said:

Late night, talk shows need not be so heavily focused on the government and politics; Do some light commentary and a little political satire, but he kept going on and on all the time, it's a bit annoying find some other things to poke fun at, in my opinion. 

This is what I have been coming back to as I think about the situation (as I desperately try to not think about it, and have tried to stay away). Johnny, Letterman, and Leno all took their political jabs when the news of the day called for it, but the timing and the joke had to be right, and both sides were fair game for a punchline as warranted. Johnny Carson also did warn about the dangers of taking political stances in the position of a late night host.

 

As I have reflected, the constant politics is why I've turned off late night shows. When Leno returned to the airwaves post 9/11, he equated The Tonight Show to a cookie and a glass of lemonade for a firefighter working a recovery shift in New York City- a break from all that is dark, dour, and negative around us. We all need a break from the constant news cycle and cesspool that has become the Facebook comments section. Kimmel used to do YouTube challenges that breathed new life into funny home videos, and Fallon with his sketch comedy- all were a nice end of the day break for many of us.

 

For the record, I do not think what Kimmel said warranted the suspension- He has said worse. However, he also celebrated the cancellation of Roseanne Barr and Tucker Carlson's shows for opinions they have spewed that were deemed offensive to their detractors. I am not here to suggest what one celebrity has said is better or worse than the other- the common denominator with each is that what was said upset a faction of the public general and lead to that celebrity being sanctioned by their respective employer.

 

The root of the issue in this thread is the quid-pro-quo at the FCC- not Kimmel, not people being upset over comments. If we really cancelled hosts for tasteless jokes, Letterman would have gotten canned for his remarks about Sarah Palin's daughter in 2009. But alas- he conceded it was a poor joke, offered an apology, and life seemed to move on. This time, however, you have the issue of Mr. Carr that has been lamented to exhaustion on this board and a station group that wants approval to continue to consume more competitors. There is your issue.

 

At the end of the day- Kimmel, and all hosts have the ability to say what they want, and it is the viewer's choice whether or not to watch- The remote is a powerful voting tool and there's plenty of tv to watch out there. But also, as viewership declines across the genre leading to lower advertising revenue, perhaps accompanying the Backstreet Boys with Fisher Price instruments or coercing viewers to pull pranks on their family might not be that bad of an idea. 

 

Laugh emoji away...

[HanSolo 468]

6 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

With the demands that Sinclair is levying on Jimmy Kimmel to return to their stations, ABC needs to grow a backbone and pull ALL of their affiliations from Sinclair.  They expire in 2026, but technically what they're doing is very likely a breach of contract that should give them the right to act immediately.

 

They should have done it 20 years ago before Sinclair quadrupled in size and acquired leading stations they've driven into the ground.

 

If things continue how they are, the network/affiliation model is on a fast track to extinction.  Really the only premiere programming left is live sports and news, everything else worthwhile has migrated to streaming.

Sinclair is secondary here. The issue is the FCC threats. Proverbially “growing a backbone” over Sinclair et al simply further increases the likelihood of the US government putting its full weight behind those threats. 

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

12 minutes ago, HanSolo said:

Sinclair is secondary here. The issue is the FCC threats. Proverbially “growing a backbone” over Sinclair et al simply further increases the likelihood of the US government putting its full weight behind those threats. 

Aside from a civil war, the best thing Americans can do right now is cancel their subscriptions en masse to these companies that are bowing down.  Make it hurt to the point that the oppressors are the ones begging for mercy.

[HanSolo 468]

At what point do you think that will ever happen that the administration will do that? 
 

The answer is never. 
 

Want to cancel? Great. Have at it. The government wins either way. 

[nickp 393]

It’s probably time for late night hosts to start a podcast and online show

[Reweivvt88 173]

17 hours ago, l_miro said:

 

local affiliates have been objecting to and refusing to air programming from the networks for as long as that relationship has existed. Many, at least the smart ones, have it written out in their contracts. 

 

WSVN would nuke FOX programming if it scraped into the newscast schedule, and still unilaterally decides to throw any sport that isn't an NFL game into whatever timeslot they can find, National Hot Rod Association being one of the more recent ones. 

And then there's WHDH, which to this day NBC blames for Jay Leno at 10pm failing, and one of the primary reasons NBC did what it did in Boston 

You are wrong about most stations still able to pre-empt programming whenever they want in their contracts. Network affiliate agreements have changed. There may be a few exceptions, but it's not the norm anymore, especially for a large group of weak underperforming stations like Sinclair. Most Sinclair stations are last place, with horrible quality newscasts. They are not a desirable station group to affiliate with. Even stations way more important than the ones owned by Sinclair and Nexstar who used to get away with airing programming at different times are now forced to air network programming at the correct time when their affiliate agreement is renewed. 

 

You are also making a ridiculous comparison. First, the examples you provided are not even true, WSVN rarely pre-empts FOX programming anymore, but pre-empting a rare sporting event once in awhile is not the same as pre-empting 5 hours of programming per week, and you are wrong about WHDH, WHDH never actually pre-empted The Jay Leno Show, they wanted to, but NBC wouldn't let them, so no NBC does not blame WHDH for Jay Leno failing, WHDH aired Jay Leno just like NBC wanted.

 

Then there is the fact that "Local" affiliates didn't object to carrying Jimmy Kimmel Live. The "local" affiliates had nothing to do with the decision. Right wing conglomerates who own the stations made the decision. It was not made at the station level at all. There is nothing normal or justifiable about what Nexstar and Sinclair did. If Disney had a backbone they would pull their affiliations from both groups, but Disney is terrified of upsetting the far right authoritarian government and evil dictator in the white house.  

[kjohnson 20]

2 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

With the demands that Sinclair is levying on Jimmy Kimmel to return to their stations, ABC needs to grow a backbone and pull ALL of their affiliations from Sinclair.  They expire in 2026, but technically what they're doing is very likely a breach of contract that should give them the right to act immediately.

 

They should have done it 20 years ago before Sinclair quadrupled in size and acquired leading stations they've driven into the ground.

 

If things continue how they are, the network/affiliation model is on a fast track to extinction.  Really the only premiere programming left is live sports and news, everything else worthwhile has migrated to streaming.

I agree. But alas, in St. Louis, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sinclair owns the ABC affiliate, and only other station in the market that could potentially take it is Nexstar, who controls KPLR. It's possible that Weigel could pick up the ABC affiliation on KNLC or Scripps on WRBU, but I'm not sure about the mechanics. 

 

The only solution is to hit back hard in 2029, and cut ownership caps..by a lot. 

[AmericanErrorist 267]

ABC will feed Celebrity Family Feud tonight instead of the JKL rerun, it was just announced. I wonder if any other group will take the Sinclair Kirk tribute instead of this.

[mre29 1967]

4 hours ago, nickp said:

It’s probably time for late night hosts to start a podcast and online show

 

Possibly soon, but not yet. Right now, it's time for ABC to grow a spine and do right by Kimmel, his staff, and his viewers.

 

[MediaZone4K 2662]

On 9/19/2025 at 10:19 AM, GodfreyGR said:

 Johnny, Letterman, and Leno all took their political jabs when the news of the day called for it, but the timing and the joke had to be right, and both sides were fair game for a punchline as warranted. Johnny Carson also did warn about the dangers of taking political stances in the position of a late night host.

 

As I have reflected, the constant politics is why I've turned off late night shows. When Leno returned to the airwaves post 9/11, he equated The Tonight Show to a cookie and a glass of lemonade for a firefighter working a recovery shift in New York City- a break from all that is dark, dour, and negative around us. We all need a break from the constant news cycle and cesspool that has become the Facebook comments section. Kimmel used to do YouTube challenges that breathed new life into funny home videos, and Fallon with his sketch comedy- all were a nice end of the day break for many of us.

 

For the record, I do not think what Kimmel said warranted the suspension- He has said worse. However, he also celebrated the cancellation of Roseanne Barr and Tucker Carlson's shows for opinions they have spewed that were deemed offensive to their detractors. I am not here to suggest what one celebrity has said is better or worse than the other- the common denominator with each is that what was said upset a faction of the public general and lead to that celebrity being sanctioned by their respective employer.

 

The root of the issue in this thread is the quid-pro-quo at the FCC- not Kimmel, not people being upset over comments. If we really cancelled hosts for tasteless jokes, Letterman would have gotten canned for his remarks about Sarah Palin's daughter in 2009. But alas- he conceded it was a poor joke, offered an apology, and life seemed to move on. This time, however, you have the issue of Mr. Carr that has been lamented to exhaustion on this board and a station group that wants approval to continue to consume more competitors. There is your issue.

 

At the end of the day- Kimmel, and all hosts have the ability to say what they want, and it is the viewer's choice whether or not to watch- The remote is a powerful voting tool and there's plenty of tv to watch out there. But also, as viewership declines across the genre leading to lower advertising revenue, perhaps accompanying the Backstreet Boys with Fisher Price instruments or coercing viewers to pull pranks on their family might not be that bad of an idea. 

 

Laugh emoji away...

I agree that late night has become too much politics, and all the hosts have the same opinions. I agree the best part of Kimmel's show is his non-political stuff. 

 

Jimmy Fallon is my favorite because he has the best politics vs fun balance, but apparently audiences want more politics because he's third in the ratings.

 

I always skip Kimmel's monologue because he's a one topic act, Donald Trump every night for the last 10 years.

 

BUT Kimmel was correct here. The right was desperate to not have Kirk's killer be one of them (a white American gun owner--per Utah's governor) and Trump seemed to mourn Kirk's death quickly as he hastily switched an interview topic to construction.

 

This is different from Roseanne and Tucker Carlson's cancellations. Roseanne made a racist/islamophobic comment and Tucker Carlson spewed false election conspiracy theories. 

 

As much as both sides have practiced cancel culture and steered into extremism, one side has been more governmentally aggressive. This particular situation is not both sided. A president and his one specific political party are utilizing the government to silence specific opposing media viewpoints. 

Edited September 22, 2025 by MediaZone4K

[Georgie56 3661]

23 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

This is different from Roseanne and Tucker Carlson's cancellations. Roseanne made a  racist/islamophobic comment and Tucker Carlson spewed false election conspiracy theories. 

 

And neither of those cancellations came from pressure from the government.

[ABC 7 Denver 1889]

1 hour ago, Georgie56 said:

 

And neither of those cancellations came from pressure from the government.

 

Or from monopolistic station groups run by Conservative CEOs.

[JRyan 694]

Here's the thing that bothers me about this story.  I frankly do not think that Jimmy Kimmel should be fired (or at least, as yet, suspended) from ABC.  For those who claim a First Amendment violation occurred in this case, that applies in the context of government interference.  Which would then beg the question of whether the FCC directly or indirectly caused Jimmy Kimmel to be suspended.  As noted in the attached video clip from YouTube, a ABC reporter (in a news report on Good Morning America) implied that it was the decision of Brendan Carr to suspend Jimmy Kimmel.  FCC chairman Brendan Carr went on podcaster Dana Loesch's program and unequivocally denied that claim not once but twice when the question was put to him.  Link to both of the aforementioned: here.

 

The strongest case that could be made at this point is not FCC interference but rather Nexstar and Sinclair deciding to violate their contracts.  I do not represent what those contracts say specifically and whether they can exercise a right to pre-empt.  I've heard antidotally that Nexstar and Sinclair stations were having complaints levied toward them by viewers after his comments.  At the end of the day, Nexstar and Sinclair (like any private broadcasting business) are largely modeled and funded on selling advertisements and if those people are complaining/threatening to pull their ad revenue, then you take the course of action that is necessary. 

 

I won't link it but it is being widely reported (particularly by CNN) that Jimmy Kimmel was planning to "double down" on his statements instead of apologizing.  Whether or not an apology is necessary is besides the point as that is subjective and generally each political camp will respond different to that.  But the fact is that ABC was not okay with him "doubling down" and, apparently, that was the final catalyst for ABC to sideline Kimmel.  I don't deny that Sinclair skewing right of center and Nexstar's proposed merger with Tegna may have been contributing factors in each of them deciding to pre-empt (notably they decided that before ABC itself sidelined Kimmel).  I just don't know as to what of those, if any, factored in.  But I can say with confidence is that this ultimately came down to a business decision by ABC due to significant headwinds by their broadcasting partners (Nexstar and Sinclair) if they did not. 

Edited September 20, 2025 by TheRyan
grammar/clarity

[atlnews2 631]

Sinclair's ABC stations didn't air the Charlie Kirk tribute tonight. Instead they stuck w/ ABC programming (Celebrity Family Feud reruns) and put the tribute on their youtube page. 

 

https://x.com/WeAreSinclair/status/1969241140219039979

 

 

Edited September 20, 2025 by atlnews2

[Reweivvt88 173]

2 hours ago, TheRyan said:

Here's the thing that bothers me about this story.  I frankly do not think that Jimmy Kimmel should be fired (or at least, as yet, suspended) from ABC.  For those who claim a First Amendment violation occurred in this case, that applies in the context of government interference.  Which would then beg the question of whether the FCC directly or indirectly caused Jimmy Kimmel to be suspended.  As noted in the attached video clip from YouTube, a ABC reporter (in a news report on Good Morning America) implied that it was the decision of Brendan Carr to suspend Jimmy Kimmel.  FCC chairman Brendan Carr went on podcaster Dana Loesch's program and unequivocally denied that claim not once but twice when the question was put to him.  Link to both of the aforementioned: here.

 

The strongest case that could be made at this point is not FCC interference but rather Nexstar and Sinclair deciding to violate their contracts.  I do not represent what those contracts say specifically and whether they can exercise a right to pre-empt.  I've heard antidotally that Nexstar and Sinclair stations were having complaints levied toward them by viewers after his comments.  At the end of the day, Nexstar and Sinclair (like any private broadcasting business) are largely modeled and funded on selling advertisements and if those people are complaining/threatening to pull their ad revenue, then you take the course of action that is necessary. 

 

I won't link it but it is being widely reported (particularly by CNN) that Jimmy Kimmel was planning to "double down" on his statements instead of apologizing.  Whether or not an apology is necessary is besides the point as that is subjective and generally each political camp will respond different to that.  But the fact is that ABC was not okay with him "doubling down" and, apparently, that was the final catalyst for ABC to sideline Kimmel.  I don't deny that Sinclair skewing right of center and Nexstar's proposed merger with Tegna may have been contributing factors in each of them deciding to pre-empt (notably they decided that before ABC itself sidelined Kimmel).  I just don't know as to what of those, if any, factored in.  But I can say with confidence is that this ultimately came down to a business decision by ABC due to significant headwinds by their broadcasting partners (Nexstar and Sinclair) if they did not. 

The ONLY thing that makes this a business decision for these companies is the fact that the United States now has a corrupt authoritarian government.

 

Nobody is reporting that advertisers were planning to pull their advertising. It's not a good business decision for Nexstar and Sinclair to anger ABC when their stations need ABC A LOT more than ABC needs them. It makes sense when you want to buy more stations than allowed and need the corrupt FCC to change the rules for you. It's not a good business decision for ABC to cancel a highly rated successful show that is impossible to replace. Jimmy Kimmel Live airing on ABC excluding Sinclair & Nexstar stations will rate higher and get more ad revenue than anything that replaces Jimmy Kimmel Live with 100% ABC network coverage. Disney is willing to ruin ABC's late night lineup and destroy the ABC brand because the alternative of the U.S. government coming after Disney's more profitable assets is a bigger risk. It also makes business sense for a broadcaster in Russia to remove a highly rated extremely popular profitable show that upsets the Russian government. Disney does business in many countries with evil authoritarian governments, and they don't broadcast shows that are critical of those Governments either, they have simply added America to the list of countries they operate where being critical of the government is not accepted.  

Edited September 20, 2025 by Reweivvt88