In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.

Should the nation suddenly find itself mired in a serious and lasting civil conflict, it will be in large part because both sides are determined to keep the other from speaking freely.

The extent to which government pressure caused ABC’s decision last week to pull its late-night show Jimmy Kimmel Live! remains unclear. The backlash from Kimmel’s monologue on the Monday broadcast, during which the host deliberately misled his audience about the political orientation of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, may well have subsumed the show without government intervention.

KIMMEL CANCELLATION ISN’T ‘CANCEL CULTURE.’ IT’S CONSEQUENCE CULTURE

But Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr intervened in any event, threatening the use of regulatory action, a practice known as “jaw-boning,” if action wasn’t taken to remove Kimmel. Speaking on right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson’s show, Carr warned ABC, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” 

The comment justifiably raised alarm among free speech advocates who viewed it as a government effort to silence opinions it doesn’t like. This included Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who characterized Carr’s comment as sounding as if it had been spoken by “a mafioso.”

Hours later, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, leading many to believe that Carr’s “threat” had directly influenced the network’s decision. 

The television executives responsible for the decision denied this, however. Andrew Alford of Nexstar, which owns a large number of ABC affiliates, said the decision to pull Kimmel was based solely on Kimmel’s false characterization about Robinson.

“Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” he said in a statement.

Critics from across the political spectrum........

© Washington Examiner