Is it true that Jimmy Kimmel's show has bad ratings and is losing money

1. Summary of the results

The claim that Jimmy Kimmel's show has bad ratings and is losing money is contradicted by multiple sources reporting record-breaking viewership numbers. According to the analyses, Jimmy Kimmel's return to ABC after a brief suspension resulted in 6.26 million viewers, which represents the show's highest ratings in over a decade ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This viewership figure is particularly significant when compared to the show's typical average of 1.42 million viewers ^[1].

The ratings success extends beyond just total viewership numbers. Sources indicate that Kimmel achieved a 0.87 rating among adults 18-49 years old, which is described as the show's highest regularly scheduled episode in over 10 years ^{[2] [3]}. Furthermore, his show leads among the three major shows on broadcast TV that air in his 11:35 p.m. timeslot in the key 18-49-year-old demographic ^[3].

The ratings momentum appears to have continued beyond just the initial return episode. Sources report that Kimmel's ratings bonanza continues with his follow-up episodes, and his emotional Tuesday night monologue was closing in on 20 million views on YouTube ^{[4] [5]}. This digital engagement demonstrates strong audience interest across multiple platforms.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement fails to acknowledge the controversial circumstances surrounding Kimmel's recent ratings surge. The high viewership numbers are directly connected to his return from a brief suspension, which created significant public interest and media attention ^{[6] [7]}. This context is crucial because it suggests the ratings spike may be related to the controversy rather than the show's typical performance.

There are financial complications that the original statement doesn't address. While the show itself may be performing well in terms of ratings, Disney faced significant financial consequences during the suspension period. Sources indicate that Disney's stock price dropped, resulting in a loss of approximately $4.4 billion due to investor concerns about the suspension and subsequent reinstatement ^[8]. Additionally, preemptions by Nexstar and Sinclair stations represent a financial hit for Disney ^[5], suggesting that while ratings are strong, there are still monetary challenges.

The timing and context of these ratings are essential missing elements. The record-breaking numbers appear to be directly tied to the post-suspension comeback episode, which naturally generates higher interest than regular programming. This suggests the ratings may not be sustainable at these levels once the controversy subsides.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to contain outdated or inaccurate information about Jimmy Kimmel's current ratings performance. Given that multiple sources consistently report record-breaking viewership numbers and the highest ratings in over a decade ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}, the claim about "bad ratings" is demonstrably false based on recent data.

The statement may reflect selective reporting or reliance on older data that doesn't account for the recent ratings surge following Kimmel's return from suspension. This type of misinformation could stem from sources that either haven't updated their information or are deliberately ignoring recent positive developments.

Regarding the financial claims, while Disney did experience stock price volatility and some financial hits related to the suspension controversy ^{[8] [5]}, the current evidence suggests the show itself is performing exceptionally well in terms of audience engagement. The distinction between corporate financial impacts and show-specific performance is crucial and appears to be conflated in the original statement.

The timing of this misinformation is particularly significant, as it directly contradicts multiple credible sources reporting on Kimmel's recent success. This suggests either deliberate bias against the show or failure to verify current information before making claims about its performance. The consistent reporting across multiple outlets about the ratings success makes the original statement's accuracy highly questionable.