When Local Affiliates Push Back: Kimmel, ABC, and the Power of Media Ownership

By The Daily Siren Staff

Jimmy Kimmel arrives at the 74th Primetime Emmy Awards at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles, Sept. 12, 2022. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP, File)

A Meeting Like No Other

What happens when late-night commentary crosses into territory that some local network stations find “offensive and insensitive”? That question has landed ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel in hot water, not because of a national public backlash alone, but because two powerful local ABC affiliate owners are refusing to air his show – a rare clash where bottom-line business interests, editorial voice, and community values all collide in primetime."

What We Know

• Two ABC affiliate owners, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group, publicly condemned Jimmy Kimmel’s recent comments regarding the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

• Nexstar, which owns 28 ABC affiliates and more than 200 stations across 116 U.S. markets, said it will pull Kimmel’s show starting Wednesday. Nexstar called Kimmel’s remarks “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse.”

• Sinclair, with 38 local ABC affiliates and reach into 81 markets, also responded. It demanded an apology to Kirk’s family, and suggested Kimmel make a “meaningful personal donation” to

  Turning Point USA, the organization Kirk co-founded. Sinclair also said its ABC stations will air a tribute to Kirk in Kimmel’s time slot.

Why This Matters

Affiliate Power & Local Leverage

Most viewers don’t think about the local TV station owner when they tune in to ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. But this story shines a harsh light on how much control affiliates can exert. Even though ABC (and its parent, Disney) manage the national programming, local affiliates can decide what to air—or pull. When Nexstar and Sinclair push back, it’s not a symbolic gesture; it directly affects what viewers see (or don’t see) in certain markets.

Free Speech vs. Local Standards

Kimmel’s show is entertainment + commentary. There’s a long tradition of hosts pushing boundaries, especially in late-night. But when commentary touches on current events involving polarizing figures (in this case, Charlie Kirk’s death), local sensibilities and political leanings come into play. Affiliates often serve communities with different political profiles than the national average, so tension arises over whether national hosts are aligning with or offending local audiences.

Consolidation Means Bigger Stakes

The growing influence of large media companies (like Nexstar and Sinclair) has implications. These owners own dozens or even hundreds of stations. With that scale, decisions to pull national content can ripple across large swaths of the country. They also bring in economic incentives: affiliates want to maintain viewership, ad revenue, and avoid backlash from local advertisers or local governments. Those pressures can lead to more frequent friction between local affiliate owners and network content creators.

Potential Consequences & What to Watch

• Precedent for future content pulls. If stations can successfully pressure networks to suspend or alter programming based on local objections, will we see more of this? What becomes the threshold for “offensive” or “insensitive”?

• Network response. Disney/ABC may face legal, contractual, or PR pressure. Do they fight back or acquiesce? Do they reassert control or give affiliates more leeway?

• Viewer impact. In markets where affiliates pull the show, regular viewers of Kimmel will be impacted. Either they’ll miss the show entirely or have to find alternate means (streaming, online snippets). What does this do to audience trust or loyalty? What about advertisers who expected national reach?

• Political fallout. Conservative-leaning media may view this as another example of “liberal media bias” and use it to stoke further division. On the other hand, liberal and progressive audiences may argue Kimmel has a right to criticize, especially on matters of public interest.

• Regulatory and legal dimensions. Could the FCC or state broadcast authorities come into play, especially if affiliate decisions are viewed as censorship? There might be tension between corporate speech rights and community standards, but also questions about what constitutes fair treatment when local affiliates suppress content.

Analysis: What This Reveals About Media & Culture

• Media fragmentation isn’t just about streaming. We often think of “fragmented media” in terms of Netflix vs. Disney+ vs. TikTok. But fragmentation is also geographic and political: what is acceptable in one region might not be in another. This story underscores how part of the media ecosystem is about local values versus national messaging.

• Affiliates know their audience. Nexstar and Sinclair’s statements suggest they believe certain comments can alienate large swaths of their viewers or spark backlash. Whether this is protecting community values or protecting brand/image/media business risk is a fine line—but affiliates aren’t just passive transmitters anymore. They are stakeholders in messaging, reputation, and profit.

• The tension of commentary shows. Late-night talk shows have always balanced comedy, critique, and irreverence. But as political polarization intensifies, so do the stakes. Hosts are increasingly under pressure not only from national networks, but from local partners, audience reactions, advertisers, and political actors.

What to Watch Next

1. Will more affiliates join Nexstar and Sinclair in refusing to air Kimmel’s show? Which markets will be affected?

2. Will ABC/Disney respond by changing policies or messaging? Perhaps clarify when commentary becomes cause for suspension.

3. What are the legal/contractual implications—particularly for affiliates’ rights vs. network control?

4. How audience metrics in affected markets shift—will people tune out, switch channels, stream online, or stick with substitutes?

5. Will this alter what hosts say in future, to avoid conflict? Will it lead to more self-censorship or tighter scripting of opinion segments?

The controversy around Jimmy Kimmel, Charlie Kirk, and ABC affiliates is more than late-night TV drama. It’s a micro-cosm of how media, ownership, community values, and political polarization collide in modern America. Local stations are exercising power usually associated with networks; audiences are no longer passive; opinions are rarely neutral.

In an age where content is everywhere, what matters increasingly is where, when, and by whom it's delivered. For viewers, this means that what you see depends not just on what’s aired nationally, but what your local affiliate decides you should see. And for networks, affiliate pushback might force retrospective reviews: of content policies, of host speech boundaries, and of what kind of national voice can survive local resistance.

The Daily Siren will continue covering this: which markets drop Kimmel next, how audiences react, and what this means for free speech, local media power, and the culture of broadcast.