> This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Disney needs to see some change here, but the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this, you know, garbage to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities.
—Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC
If ABC wanted to cancel Kimmel over his comments, that’s fine. But the FCC should not be exerting this type of pressure. That’s a 1st amendment violation.
It’s also why we should not have an FCC policing content to begin with. If they want to regulate airwave broadcasts such that 2 stations aren’t trying to broadcast over each other, I can kind of get that. But they should not be playing morality police.
I’ve seen a lot of people say they love Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, but when was the last time you stayed up to watch it on broadcast TV? Or do you just watch clips of it it on youtube? Running a “live” broadcast production like that is expensive, and the fact is people just aren’t watching it in that format, so it does not justify the costs.
>So why not just say it’s because of money? Why use Charlie Kirk comments as an excuse?
Money.
Jimmy Kimmel’s contract likely has a morality / moral character clause that allows for early termination “for cause”. Whereas the show not performing as well as it used to is likely not a valid termination “for cause” and they’d have to pay him out some form of severance. The Charlie Kirk comments are a convenient excuse that may save them millions of dollars in contractual obligations.
But that still does not make the thinly veiled threats from the FCC acceptable.
1 Comment
> This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Disney needs to see some change here, but the individual licensed stations that are taking their content, it’s time for them to step up and say this, you know, garbage to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future isn’t something that we think serves the needs of our local communities.
—Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC
If ABC wanted to cancel Kimmel over his comments, that’s fine. But the FCC should not be exerting this type of pressure. That’s a 1st amendment violation.
It’s also why we should not have an FCC policing content to begin with. If they want to regulate airwave broadcasts such that 2 stations aren’t trying to broadcast over each other, I can kind of get that. But they should not be playing morality police.
And maybe they wanted to fire him anyway. The fact is late night TV shows have been on the decline. Viewership is down across the genre. Revenue is down as well. [It’s been a downward trend.](https://latenighter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ratings3b-1024×640.png.webp)
I’ve seen a lot of people say they love Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, but when was the last time you stayed up to watch it on broadcast TV? Or do you just watch clips of it it on youtube? Running a “live” broadcast production like that is expensive, and the fact is people just aren’t watching it in that format, so it does not justify the costs.
>So why not just say it’s because of money? Why use Charlie Kirk comments as an excuse?
Money.
Jimmy Kimmel’s contract likely has a morality / moral character clause that allows for early termination “for cause”. Whereas the show not performing as well as it used to is likely not a valid termination “for cause” and they’d have to pay him out some form of severance. The Charlie Kirk comments are a convenient excuse that may save them millions of dollars in contractual obligations.
But that still does not make the thinly veiled threats from the FCC acceptable.