It has been with expected amusement that we sit back today and watch the mewling and the gnashing of teeth from many media figures over the Jimmy Kimmel suspension by ABC. It is all hysterics, steeped in hypocrisy, and rooted entirely in partisan reactionary emotions. If Trump can in any way be impugned on a matter, then loud opposition arrives by rote, and the Kimmel melodrama fits that script perfectly.
There is a very simple way to see just how vacant all of their howling is today: By showing them applauding prior examples of “censorship.” (Their definition.)
[snip]
It was a few years ago, in his original incarnation at the network, before he returned as a pariah last fall, when he was openly pushing to have not a media figure muzzled, but an entire network silenced. The man who openly despises Fox News was campaigning to have cable systems drop the network from their channel packages.
On the subject of Fox News, some time ago, the network fired Tucker Carlson for – get this — his on-air commentary. Do you recall all of the media rising up to complain about this free speech violation? Yeah, neither do we. We do, however, recall quite a bit of cheering from the collective press. Chris Hayes, for one, is a voice decrying Kimmel being hit with the MUTE button, yet when Tucker was bounced, he was lecturing on how comments made on the air have these repercussions.
David French is another with a limited ability to recall his shifting foundational standards. He comes out and, of course, condemns this week’s version of cancel culture, because it involves Donald Trump.
But years back, he had no such condemnation when the very same network canceled one of its stars over comments made. No, at that time, it involved Roseanne Barr, who was viewed as a Trump backer. So you can imagine Mr. French’s bifurcated stance on a cancellation.
Broadcaster David Pakman was also upset about the Kimmel suspension being a case of authoritarianism leading to censorship. However, his position was refuted as ABC was defended by a contradictory opinion delivered by…uh, himself.
What is lost on these deep thinkers is that in the cases of Carano and Barr, they faced punishment from the same company over comments they made on social media, while Kimmel spoke his blatant misinformation on the airwaves. If you were to defend someone having the freedom to express themselves without reprisals, it would seem logical that a personal social media account would be MORE fitting. These hypocrites were just fine chasing off those who were open on their personal feed, but are raging that Kimmel is facing accountability for what he said while on the air at ABC.
[snip]
Despite all of these contradictions, there remains one biggest hypocrite of all of them: Jimmy Kimmel himself. The man who is being held up today as some sort of First Amendment martyr is the polar opposite of a free speech advocate. When Roseanne was fired, Kimmel was not out there defending her right to post a joke on her social media. He used it for his monologue.
[snip]
All of this adds up to one conclusion. The approach to free expression and the protections afforded to those in the media are completely dependent on which side of the political aisle you reside. It becomes a case of not defending the right to freedom of expression, but first analyzing who is using that right before making a decision on whether that right should be permitted or not.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
* Original Article:
https://redstate.com/bradslager/2025/09/19/the-kimmel-kontradiction-the-figures-today-wailing-about-the-1st-amendment-who-cheered-censorship-n2194134
