Sunday Night in America, discussing Jimmy Kimmel's suspension on ABC

Below is a rewritten, extended discussion in English of Ben Domenech’s appearance on Sunday Night in America, covering his views on Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from ABC and the current political climate of mainstream media.

⸻

Ben Domenech, Editor-at-Large of The Spectator, appeared on Sunday Night in America to address the highly controversial suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! by ABC, and to reflect on the implications this incident holds for free speech, the power of political pressure, and the integrity of mainstream media. The suspension came after Jimmy Kimmel made a monologue in which he suggested that members of the MAGA movement were trying to frame the person who killed political commentator Charlie Kirk as something other than a MAGA supporter — specifically claiming that some were attempting to obscure the shooter’s political leanings. ABC, under intense scrutiny and pressure, decided to pull the show off the air indefinitely; several major affiliate broadcasters, including Nexstar and Sinclair, also refused to air the show following Kimmel’s remarks.

Domenech emphasized that this is not merely a case of a late-night host making provocative comments, but rather a junction point where regulatory power, political advocacy, corporate interests, and broadcast rights all collide. He argues that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, played a key role by condemning Kimmel’s comments and warning of regulatory consequences — including potential license revocations or fines for ABC and its affiliate stations. In Domenech’s view, that step represents a troubling precedent, because it suggests that content could be indirectly controlled through regulatory threat rather than through more transparent legal or editorial processes.

Moreover, Domenech raised concerns over what he sees as mainstream media’s weakening ability to resist political pressure. He noted that when affiliate stations or broadcasters have the power to drop content, whether because of pressure from political actors or fear of regulatory reprisals, the content creators may start self-censoring. In his analysis, allowing such pressure to define what is broadcast undermines journalistic freedom and reduces the public’s access to diverse viewpoints, especially dissenting or critical voices.

Ben Domenech also called attention to the broader political climate, pointing out that this situation sits in the context of heightened polarization, where both governments and media entities are more frequently aligning along ideological lines. The risk, he says, is that media outlets will increasingly cater to their political funders, their regulatory overseers, or their most vocal audience segments, rather than serving an independent editorial mission. He warns that we are seeing an erosion of the separation between political power and media power — a situation that, if it becomes normalized, threatens foundational ideals of free speech and open debate.

In addition, Domenech observes that the reaction from the public, from commentators, and from political leaders has been sharply divided. Some defend Kimmel’s suspension as a justifiable consequence of making false or misleading statements; others see it as government overreach and a dangerous chilling effect. Domenech sides with the latter, arguing that even if one disagrees with Kimmel’s statement, the method of enforcing consequences via regulatory threat and broadcaster black-balling is a slippery slope.

He concludes that this is more than just a story about a talk show host or a television network: it’s a test case for how free expression will survive in an era where media conglomerates are large, regulatory bodies are potent, and political pressure is intense. If mainstream media cannot maintain independence in such circumstances, then the range of permissible discourse may narrow drastically — ultimately reducing the public’s ability to hear robust debate, dissenting opinions, or satire.