This week, Jimmy Kimmel found himself under pressure from the Trump FCC after his relentless late-night jabs at Trump crossed a line. Reports suggest the White House leaned on ABC to suspend Kimmel’s show — a move that isn’t just about jokes, but about sending a message: some voices are too dangerous to broadcast.
History has seen this play before. In 2009, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. Communications director Anita Dunn called the network “a wing of the Republican Party,” senior aides piled on, and the Treasury Department even tried to exclude Fox from a pool interview.
The backlash was immediate.
Jake Tapper, then ABC’s White House correspondent and now a regular target of Fox opinion hosts, pushed back forcefully during a press briefing led by Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
“It’s not the job of the White House to decide what is and isn’t a news organization,” declared Tapper. He wasn’t defending Fox’s editorial choices; he was defending the principle that no president should hand out hall passes to the press. Ironically, by taking Fox on, the Obama team only boosted the network’s ratings and outsider cred.
Fast forward to 2025, and the echoes are unmistakable. Kimmel, a comedian, not a news network, suddenly finds himself subject to similar pressure. The Trump administration and the FCC are stepping into the editorial booth, signaling which voices are acceptable and which might be silenced. And, like 2009, the attempt backfires. Kimmel’s monologues are ricocheting across social media, amplified by the very pressure intended to suppress them.
The contrast with Fox is striking. In 2009, the network understandably wrapped itself in the First Amendment, reasonably portraying itself as a victim of governmental overreach, while Tapper and other reporters defended its legitimacy. Contrast that to 2025, Fox’s primetime stars have largely cheered Kimmel’s suspension, relishing the humiliation of a liberal comedian they have long derided.
Principle has been overcome by partisanship, applied selectively when convenient.
The deeper lesson here isn’t about jokes, ratings, or even the Trump vs Kimmel storyline. It’s about consistency. It’s about whether media voices are defended because they deserve protection under the First Amendment — even when they offend you — or only when their silencing would hurt your side.
Though one can argue that times have changed rather significantly, the principles have not. Tapper understood that in 2009, while Fox itself did not. In 2025, the same lesson echoes again: governmental overreach is corrosive, whether it’s aimed at a network or a comic, and the press’s willingness to defend the vulnerable — even when it stings — defines the health of free expression.
The real divide isn’t left versus right, news versus comedy, Fox versus Kimmel. It’s between those who defend a messy, infuriating free press even when inconvenient, and those who defend it only when politically useful. And this week, that divide is front and center.
The post When the White House Censors Media, True Defenders of Free Speech Stand Out first appeared on Mediaite.
