What were the ratings of Jimmy Kimmel's show before its cancellation?

1. Summary of the results

The available reporting shows several consistent factual points about Jimmy Kimmel’s ratings immediately before and during the brief period leading up to the show’s cancellation: the program’s typical audience had been in the low-to-mid single millions, the return episode after a suspension registered a large, atypical spike of roughly 6.2–6.5 million viewers, and subsequent episodes saw materially lower audiences that were reported as about 1.6–2.3 million viewers ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Multiple outlets quantify the sharp short-term decline: one account places Tuesday’s return at roughly 6.3–6.5 million and Thursday at 2.3 million, a ~64% drop in total viewers with an even larger fall in the 25–54 demo ^{[3] [4]}. Historical context cited across pieces shows a long-running downward trajectory compared with earlier years — headlines and reporting reference averages near 2.4 million in 2015 versus ~1.6 million in 2025 for typical episodes — underlining that the return-night spike was anomalous relative to the program’s recent baseline ^{[3] [1]}. Reporting also notes the return episode was characterized as the program’s highest-performing regularly scheduled installment in over a decade, a distinction that emphasizes the spike’s outlier status and the inability of subsequent broadcasts to sustain that audience ^[1]. These core numeric claims recur across the set of analyses provided, with consistent counts for the spike and the subsequent decline, though specific baselines (1.6 vs 1.77 vs 2.4 million) vary by outlet and time window ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Key contextual items are underreported or differ across sources and would change interpretation: first, whether the 6.2–6.5 million figure represents total viewers for a single episode with heavy news interest or includes streaming/clip views is not uniformly specified; some stories label the episode the highest in over a decade without clarifying measurement methodology ^{[1] [2]}. Second, longer-term rating trends and audience measurement windows — quarterly averages, season averages, or year-to-date figures — are inconsistently cited, producing the divergent baseline numbers (1.6, 1.77, 2.4 million) seen in reporting ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Third, demographic breakdowns matter: several pieces emphasize the 25–54 demo’s steeper decline (a reported 73% drop between specific nights), which matters more to advertisers than total viewers, but not all reports provide that split ^{[3] [4]}. Fourth, editorial and corporate actions around the suspension and cancellation — including ABC’s stated reasons, regulatory or affiliate pressures, and any advertiser responses — are referenced in some coverage but not linked directly to rating figures, leaving open alternative explanations for cancellation beyond raw viewership numbers ^{[5] [6]}. Finally, political reactions and statements by public figures accusing management of firing over “bad ratings” introduce partisan interpretation that reporters do not uniformly verify with network data ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing risk centers on selective use of peaks and troughs to tell a particular narrative: citing the large 6.2–6.5 million spike alone can imply a thriving show, while citing the 2.3 million number alone implies failure; pairing them without clarifying the spike was an outlier may mislead readers about the program’s true baseline ^{[1] [2]}. Political actors and commentators who claim the host was “fired because he had bad ratings” benefit from emphasizing long-term decline figures while downplaying the anomalous spike and the role of network decisions, regulatory pressures, or advertiser reactions; that framing supports a partisan narrative about incompetence or industry retribution ^{[7] [5]}. Conversely, advocates who point to the return-night 6+ million figure to argue the show retained mass appeal may be exaggerating sustained strength by ignoring rapid subsequent drops noted in multiple sources ^{[1] [4]}. Measurement and methodology ambiguity — whether numbers include streaming, out-of-home viewing, or delayed viewing — can advantage parties seeking to inflate or deflate perceived audience size; without consistent metric definitions across reports, selective quoting can produce misleading impressions ^{[2] [3]}.