California state Sen. Scott Wiener has demanded government action against Sinclair Broadcast Group, which continues to preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on its ABC-affiliated stations. His demand comes after Sinclair refused to air the late-night show following Kimmel’s monologue about Charlie Kirk, which alleged the conservative commentator’s alleged assassin was a MAGA supporter. Meanwhile, FCC Chair Brendan Carr has rebuked Wiener, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy for using government power to stifle opposition while claiming to champion free speech. Carr defended Sinclair’s decision to block Kimmel’s show, emphasizing that local TV stations, not national programmers like Disney, should have a say in programming decisions that serve their communities’ interests. The dispute has sparked wider debate about media consolidation, free speech, and the role of government in regulating corporate influence over public discourse.
Sinclair’s ongoing refusal to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has drawn sharp criticism from progressive lawmakers, who condemn the media giant for censorship. The company’s decision follows Disney’s reinstatement of the show after a temporary suspension, which was triggered by Kimmel’s controversial remarks about Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative figure. Sinclair, which operates numerous ABC affiliate stations, announced its preemptive decision after Disney lifted its suspension of the show, stating that it would replace Kimmel’s program with news content. Nexstar Media Group, which also owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, has similarly decided to continue preempting the show, underscoring a broader movement among local TV stations to resist certain programming choices.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr has publicly taken a stance in favor of Sinclair’s actions, characterizing them as a form of resistance to what he perceives as undue influence from national media conglomerates. Carr criticized Democratic lawmakers, including Wiener, for their apparent double standard, accusing them of both promoting free speech while simultaneously leveraging government power to suppress views they disagree with. “Projection because Democrats are the ones that spent years illegally weaponizing government to silence dissent,” Carr wrote in a post on X, asserting that the Democratic Party has a history of using its control over government to silence dissenting voices. He argued that the current situation reflects a distortion of the true cause of Kimmel’s suspension, which he blamed on Disney and local TV stations rather than the White House or any other entity.
Wiener responded to Carr’s criticism by accusing Trump and his allies of persistently pressuring media outlets to align with their political agenda. In a post on X, Wiener pointed out that he was not the only politician to criticize the FCC for what he described as its “mob shakedown” tactics. His comments have drawn further attention to the growing political polarization over media influence and the balance between corporate power and public interest. The situation has also sparked backlash from conservative voices, including Sen. Ted Cruz, who has criticized the FCC for its handling of the Kimmel suspension, likening it to a form of censorship.
The controversy highlights deeper tensions surrounding media consolidation, corporate responsibility, and the role of government in regulating programming. As the debate intensifies, it remains to be seen how lawmakers, regulators, and media companies will navigate these complicated issues. With Sinclair and other local TV stations continuing to resist certain programming choices, the broader implications for media diversity, free expression, and political discourse remain a subject of intense scrutiny.