What did jimmy kimmel say on the late night show that got it suspended?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show was suspended due to comments he made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. The suspension occurred after Kimmel made remarks that were deemed insensitive regarding Kirk's killing ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

The suspension involved multiple stakeholders and regulatory pressure. FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened regulatory action against ABC and Disney if Kimmel was not reprimanded for his comments about Charlie Kirk's suspected killer ^[2]. This regulatory pressure appears to have been a significant factor in ABC's decision to suspend the show.

ABC eventually lifted the suspension after having "thoughtful conversations" with Kimmel ^[1]. However, the controversy extended beyond ABC's corporate decision. TV station owners Sinclair and Nexstar initially decided not to air the show even after ABC lifted the suspension, but later reversed their decision and chose to reinstate Kimmel on their ABC affiliate stations ^{[4] [5]}.

When Kimmel returned to television, his comeback episode drew record ratings with 6.26 million viewers, despite some ABC stations still not airing the show ^[6]. Upon his return, Kimmel addressed the backlash directly, stating that "it was never his intention to make light of the murder" and emphasized that "our government cannot be allowed to control what we do and do not say on television" ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the broader political and regulatory implications of this incident. The controversy appears to have been fueled by political pressure and a desire to silence critics of the Trump administration ^[5], suggesting this wasn't merely about inappropriate comments but potentially about political censorship.

The incident has significant implications for freedom of speech and the role of government in regulating media content ^[7]. The involvement of the FCC and the threat of regulatory action represents a concerning precedent for government interference in entertainment programming.

The analyses reveal that various politicians and media personalities reacted to the suspension ^[7], indicating this became a broader political flashpoint rather than just a network disciplinary action. The fact that some ABC affiliate stations continued to refuse airing the show even after ABC's corporate decision demonstrates how the controversy created divisions within the broadcasting network itself ^[6].

The suspension brought record viewership upon Kimmel's return, which suggests public interest in the controversy may have actually benefited the show's ratings despite the initial backlash ^[6]. This raises questions about whether the suspension was ultimately counterproductive for those seeking to limit Kimmel's platform.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question is framed in a way that assumes the suspension was definitively caused by something Kimmel said, without acknowledging the complex political and regulatory pressures involved. The question implies a simple cause-and-effect relationship when the reality involves multiple stakeholders including the FCC, ABC corporate, affiliate station owners, and various political figures ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

The phrasing "got it suspended" suggests Kimmel's comments alone were responsible, when the analyses indicate that regulatory threats from government officials like FCC Chair Brendan Carr played a crucial role in pressuring the network ^[2]. This omits the significant government pressure aspect of the story.

Additionally, the question doesn't acknowledge that this incident represents a broader debate about freedom of speech and government control over media content ^{[3] [7]}. By focusing solely on what Kimmel said, it misses the larger constitutional and regulatory issues at stake.

The question also fails to mention that the suspension was temporary and that Kimmel ultimately returned with record ratings, making it seem like a permanent consequence rather than a brief controversy that may have ultimately increased his visibility and audience ^{[6] [3]}.