Nexstar ABC Stations Dropping Kimmel

[mre29 1967]

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz doesn't like what Carr did...but not for the obvious First Amendment reason.

 

Ted Cruz Compares FCC Chairman’s Jimmy Kimmel Comment To ‘Goodfellas,’ Calls It “Dangerous” To Use Government To Force Late-Night Host Off Air

 

Quote

Cruz said that, in his comments about Kimmel earlier this week, Carr “threatens explicitly. ‘We’re going to cancel ABC license. We’re going to take him off the air so ABC cannot broadcast anymore.’ And I got to say he threatens it, he says, ‘We can do this the easy way, but we can do this the hard way.’ And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.'”

[...]
Cruz is the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the FCC. He warned that Democrats could wield their own power over the airwaves if they return to the White House.

 

Later...

 

Quote

Cruz said that he thought that Kimmel’s remark “slandered Charlie Kirk and his family,” as many on the right have claimed the late-night host was pegging the suspect as part of the MAGA movement. But Cruz said that the remedy should be a defamation lawsuit and “let that process play out.”

 

Cruz apparently thinks Kimmel slandered Kirk and his family by saying the suspect was part of MAGA? I'm pretty sure that's not how slander works. I mean, it's like saying that someone slandered JFK and the Kennedy clan with a statement that was entirely about Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

[NowBergen 924]

7 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. 

There was another report issued last night that dealt with the censorship issue and in light of some more recent supreme court rulings. The fact Carr was openly advocating for the action - on several interviews,  resulting in  soft coercion either direct/indirect pressuring Nexstar and perhaps Sinclair to take their action, or for ABC to self censor beyond normal standards and practices, would still be considered a violation of first amendment rights.  What has been overlooked when Kimmel realized that what he said (which seems more about not fitting a particular desired narrative) did issue an apology on X.  

 

What adds insult to this is Sinclair's demand Kimmel donate to TPUSA, an organization that based on public records had $85M in revenue.  Carr's statement "there is an easy way or a hard way to do this" can be interpreted as a direct threat to ABC.  In the meantime you have the regime leader continuing to threaten any critical coverage with censorship and license revocation (not withstanding that he does not understand what elements of broadcasting are actually licensed, the process needed and history of how rare license revocation is).  A sound bite on the news this morning is his complaining that news media (except Fox propaganda) turn even good news about him into bad. His very fragile ego is not of anyone's concern.  If that was the case he should never be in public office.  Every president has been criticized and mocked for many decades.  The press must look at all aspects and short term and long term impacts in reporting the news. The issue however, is no longer just Kimmel.  It is direct and implied threats to censorship and losing first amendment protections for news organizations, media, and even individuals for something the regime leader does not like.  That is scary and why you find MAGA republican like Ted Cruz even concerned, not to say others in the MAGA media universe.

 

An interesting tidbit on the news this morning, which again does not fit in the desired narrative and will cause anger.  So far, all the forensic analysis of the alleged shooter's computers, other electronic devices, papers etc find no link to far left groups. 

[Georgie56 3661]

After yesterday’s developments, I think ABC brings back Kimmel, but he hangs it up and this season ends up being his last. He’s been talking about retirement, and this is a good exit point for him.
 

 

[AmericanErrorist 267]

Let us make one thing clear: Carr can directly threaten the licenses of the ABC Owned Television Stations. That's scary enough.

[GraphicsMan 345]

Man this makes me so mad. I got off of social media because of this. 

[Georgie56 3661]

Looks like Disney has a tough decision here.

 

 

[AmericanErrorist 267]

2 hours ago, Georgie56 said:

Looks like Disney has a tough decision here.

 

 

The article is almost entirely speculation that Trump will interfere in the ESPN-NFL Network merger.

[atlnews2 631]

47 minutes ago, AmericanErrorist said:

The article is almost entirely speculation that Trump will interfere in the ESPN-NFL Network merger.

lets face it. He’ll try to interfere even if Disney fires Kimmel. Trump is a bully who likes to bully just because he can. You can be his biggest ass kisser and he’ll still treat you like shit 

[MediaZone4K 2661]

18 hours ago, AmericanErrorist said:

The article is almost entirely speculation that Trump will interfere in the ESPN-NFL Network merger.

Christ. Why does everyone just so happen to have a merger deal going on now???

 

 Is the timing coincidence, or were some companies waiting for a conservative administration hoping they'd get laxed monopoly policies?

Edited September 21, 2025 by MediaZone4K

[mre29 1967]

2 minutes ago, MediaZone4K said:

Christ. Why does everyone just so happen to have a merger deal going on now???

 

 Is the timing coincidence, or were some companies waiting for a conservative administration hoping they get laxed monopoly policies?

 

Definitely the latter for Nexstar, Sinclair, and probably Gray.

 

5 hours ago, AmericanErrorist said:

Let us make one thing clear: Carr can directly threaten the licenses of the ABC Owned Television Stations. That's scary enough.

 

Another reason for networks to rethink the affiliate model, I guess.

 

[NowBergen 924]

1 hour ago, AmericanErrorist said:

The article is almost entirely speculation that Trump will interfere in the ESPN-NFL Network merger.

 

He also has a grudge against the NFL.  He wanted to be an owner, settled for the Generals in the second class original USFL, then when a deal was made he was not offered to bring the team to the NFL or become an NFL owner.

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

I'm trying to catch up on this situation...

 

Sinclair and Trump are on the same... all talk and no action.

 

I have to wonder did they just chicken out, or did ABC threaten them with legal action for preempting their programming? 

 

If anything this should be the final straw for Sinclair, and if they lose the ABC affiliate base, the walls will start crumbling from within.

[MediaZone4K 2661]

17 hours ago, mre29 said:

 

Another reason for networks to rethink the affiliate model, I guess.

 

Out of genuine curiosity, what would be the alternative?

[MD TV 389]

At last check, the special that was going to air Friday night only has ~27,000 views on YouTube.

 

No wonder Sinclair reversed course at the last minute.

[AmericanErrorist 267]

14 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

I have to wonder did they just chicken out, or did ABC threaten them with legal action for preempting their programming? 

ABC doesn't care about Celebrity Family Feud, a timeslot filler while they figure the Kimmel situation out. As seen above, a few other stations had already pre-empted it with more local news without consequence.

[atlnews2 631]

2 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

Out of genuine curiosity, what would be the alternative?

scenario 1: make ABC a streaming only service housed in Disney+. It's been suggested in some circles that this is where all the networks are heading anyway at some point

 

scenario 2: if deregulation actually happens and ownership caps abolished, adopt the Canadian model. Own your own stations in every market 

Edited September 21, 2025 by atlnews2

[GoldenShine_10 263]

51 minutes ago, atlnews2 said:

scenario 1: make ABC a streaming only service housed in Disney+. It's been suggested in some circles that this is where all the networks are heading anyway at some point

 

scenario 2: if deregulation actually happens and ownership caps abolished, adopt the Canadian model. Own your own stations in every market 

 

Then we could see companies like Nexstar and Gray acquire the networks...

[Georgie56 3661]

According to Bloomberg, it’s mostly Nexstar and Sinclair as the roadblocks.

 

 

[MidwestTV 1358]

I can't help but wonder if Sinclair and Nexstar feel like they may have been dumb to pick such a public fight and are digging in for the sake of optics. Didn't Sinclair already pull back on mandating a Kirk memorial special on air?

 

I also refuse to believe that no GM from any station in either company hasn't told their superiors about the public backlash too. Stations for sure have been getting a lot of emails from viewers saying they're boycotting them because of what the parent company did, ABC affiliate or not (my guess is it's worse for Fox affiliates). Is it having a quantifiable effect on viewership? Not sure, but it seems impossible something like that would happen and the company not know.

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

Back in the day, you would have a general manager of a small station in a deep south market who would pull the plug on a show like "NYPD Blue". Probably most of the viewers would have obliged and the show found its way on another station with the network's blessing.

 

Now when you have the CEO of a mega broadcaster making the same decision, It's a much bigger problem because it has a serious effect on the program's reach. 

 

If the company is going to be in an impediment to carrying its programming based on their decisions, then the network is well within its right to terminate any contracts and move elsewhere. 

 

If it were to happen to Nexstar, they've played hardball and lost a few times before they grew into a mega company.  The most apparent was when they lost a bunch of FOX affiliates in 2011.  Then when they lost CBS on WJMN.

 

If these shenanigans continue, expect to find network affiliates in weird places when they have to shack up on somebody else's subchannel.

[NowBergen 924]

5 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Back in the day, you would have a general manager of a small station in a deep south market who would pull the plug on a show like "NYPD Blue". Probably most of the viewers would have obliged and the show found its way on another station with the network's blessing.

 

Now when you have the CEO of a mega broadcaster making the same decision, It's a much bigger problem because it has a serious effect on the program's reach. 

 

If the company is going to be in an impediment to carrying its programming based on their decisions, then the network is well within its right to terminate any contracts and move elsewhere. 

 

If it were to happen to Nexstar, they've played hardball and lost a few times before they grew into a mega company.  The most apparent was when they lost a bunch of FOX affiliates in 2011.  Then when they lost CBS on WJMN.

 

If these shenanigans continue, expect to find network affiliates in weird places when they have to shack up on somebody else's subchannel.

Although that may be a possibility there are some markets where Nexstar and Sinclair control every commercial TV station in a market. And that possibility is about to get worse if the Tegna purchase is approved.

[NYTV 138]

9 hours ago, MidwestTV said:

I can't help but wonder if Sinclair and Nexstar feel like they may have been dumb to pick such a public fight and are digging in for the sake of optics. Didn't Sinclair already pull back on mandating a Kirk memorial special on air?

 

I also refuse to believe that no GM from any station in either company hasn't told their superiors about the public backlash too. Stations for sure have been getting a lot of emails from viewers saying they're boycotting them because of what the parent company did, ABC affiliate or not (my guess is it's worse for Fox affiliates). Is it having a quantifiable effect on viewership? Not sure, but it seems impossible something like that would happen and the company not know.

I think Sinclair and Nextstar may try to have their cake and eat it too, not realizing they could be in serious trouble down the road. Perhaps when the Tegna-owned ABC affiliate in Sacramento got shot at, may have them rethinking their strategies.

[MediaZone4K 2661]

21 hours ago, atlnews2 said:

scenario 1: make ABC a streaming only service housed in Disney+. It's been suggested in some circles that this is where all the networks are heading anyway at some point

 

scenario 2: if deregulation actually happens and ownership caps abolished, adopt the Canadian model. Own your own stations in every market 

scenario two would be interesting... the possibility of the networks owning an O&O in every market.

[Glimmer 340]

The View FINALLY talking about the Kimmel

mess in depth on today’s show 

[atlnews2 631]

21 hours ago, GoldenShine_10 said:

 

Then we could see companies like Nexstar and Gray acquire the networks...

 Gray, Sinclair, Nexstar, etc don't have the money to acquire a major network.