Kimmel's Comments Weren't What MAGA Critics Say They Were
Briefly

Kimmel's Comments Weren't What MAGA Critics Say They Were
"There are many, many important questions to ask about ABC's indefinite "suspension" of the late-night show hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, which is being celebrated in MAGA-land as an important landmark on the road to a purged and intimidated entertainment industry. It draws attention to the FCC as an instrument for state-sponsored censorship, and the dubious ethics of media moguls eager to curry favor with the Trump administration and avoid trouble."
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was, uh, grieving on Friday − the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this."
"At this point, Kimmel showed a clip of Trump being asked about his personal reaction to the loss of Kirk, wherein the president immediately shifted to boasts about the progress of his White House ballroom addition. The comic continued: Yes, he's at the fourth stage of grief: construction. Demolition, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend; this is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, OK? And it didn't just happen once."
ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show following on-air comments criticizing responses to an assassination and mocking the president's reaction. Kimmel accused the MAGA movement of trying to distance the killer from their ranks while scoring political points, and criticized the White House for swiftly praising construction over grief. The suspension highlights concerns that the FCC can be used as an instrument of state-backed censorship and that media executives may self-censor to curry favor with the administration. The incident raises questions about protecting free expression in entertainment and the need for stronger, practical responses from progressives and free-speech advocates.
Read at Intelligencer
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]