PBS News Hour’s weekly Friday segment with New York Times columnist David Brooks and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart focused exclusively on ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel and the idea that censorship and authoritarianism are big problems. Brooks took a sort of centrist position where he condemned Kimmel and the late night industry as a whole but denounced the suspension, while Capehart warned that authoritarianism is already here, claiming, “We’re in it.”
Moderator William Brangham cued up Brooks by wondering, “I mean, Kimmel suffered the consequences for his comments, but he's not the only one, certainly. There's — USA Today has got a ticker up. I think it's over 100 people already who have been censured or fired for their comments, some of which those comments were grotesque and horrendous, and others were kind of grounded in fact and not inappropriate. Do you think we have just lost this balance between what is truly dangerous speech and what is protected critique?”
Brooks began with the cringe-inducing fire in a crowded theater idea, but also acknowledged private companies have the right to police their employees, “Yes, we have lost the boundaries. I mean, you're not allowed to say — famously, shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't urge people to go kill somebody. Like, if it leads to violence, that should be prohibited speech, and especially if you're a private company and you care about the integrity of your institution. But that boundary has been blurred.”
He then urged PBS’s liberal audience to look at things from the conservative perspective: “Imagine you woke up and every media organization you saw preached Christian nationalism. You sent your kids to school, and they were being taught Christian nationalism. You turned on late night comedy, and it's all Christian nationalism. For conservatives, that's how it feels.”
Brooks then condemned the current state of late night comedy “And late-night comedy is the perfect example. You could be right or left. You could watch Letterman. You could watch Carson. And you could laugh. But now late night TV is — it's about laughter, but it's also about making progressives feel good about themselves, making them feel smug. And even I can't watch late night TV anymore.”
However, Brooks warned, “the difference is, you fight culture — if you don't like the progressive culture, create a conservative culture. And to his great credit — I rarely get to praise Tucker Carlson anymore — but he went on his show and said, if the Trump administration tries to damage free speech using this as a pretext, it's time for civil disobedience. And so he understands you fight cultural power with cultural — countercultural power. That's how the game plays. To use federal power is definitely breaching the line.”
Brangham didn’t seem interested in anything could be considered nuanced, “You used the term authoritarianism before, Jonathan. And do you — I mean, this has been now another one of the very successful efforts that the Trump administration has used with law firms, with universities, with media companies. Where do you see this going? Where do you see this ending?”
Capehart began lamenting, “I would like to think that there would be a media company or a band of law firms or a band of institutions of higher learning who would be willing to push back. It's not enough that Harvard is willing to push back. It's not enough that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are willing to push back.”
He added, “And I can't think of a media organization, other than The New York Times — I'm thinking of television — where they have been in the crosshairs of the president's rhetoric and have said, ‘No, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do what you want.’”
Capehart concluded by announcing the arrival of authoritarianism, “And that's why this slide, to me, it just — it picks up speed. Every week that we sit here. We're talking about yet another level deeper into what lots of academicians and others have said, you know, the march to authoritarianism. People say we're sliding into it. I say, no, we're in it.”
Some of those academics include Heather Cox Richardson, whom Brooks denounced along with Kimmel for spreading conspiracy theories about the political identity of Charlie Kirk’s murderer. However, Brooks’s centrism led him to compare those two liberal and media heroes with unspecified “MAGA people saying this is our Reichstag fire.” Meanwhile, far from authoritarianism, the most recent report strongly suggests ABC and Disney want Kimmel back, but it is Kimmel’s own pride that forbids him from admitting he did anything wrong that is keeping the suspension in place.
Here is a transcript for the September 19 show:
PBS News Hour
9/19/2025
7:38 PM ET
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Kimmel suffered the consequences for his comments, but he's not the only one, certainly. There's — USA Today has got a ticker up. I think it's over 100 people already who have been censured or fired for their comments, some of which those comments were grotesque and horrendous, and others were kind of grounded in fact and not inappropriate.
Do you think we have just lost this balance between what is truly dangerous speech and what is protected critique?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, we have lost the boundaries. I mean, you're not allowed to say — famously, shout fire in a crowded theater. You can't urge people to go kill somebody. Like, if it leads to violence, that should be prohibited speech, and especially if you're a private company and you care about the integrity of your institution.
But that boundary has been blurred. Let me try to describe what it feels like for a lot of the folks on the right. So, in their view, I would say to my Democratic friends, imagine you woke up and every media organization you saw preached Christian nationalism. You sent your kids to school, and they were being taught Christian nationalism.
You turned on late night comedy, and it's all Christian nationalism. For conservatives, that's how it feels that they—
BRANGHAM: To live in our current world.
BROOKS: Look in our current culture, and that one of the things that's happened over the last 50 years is that, as progressives who have gotten control of various cultural institutions, they have excluded a lot of conservative and working-class voices. And so a lot of people feel completely shut out. And late-night comedy is the perfect example.
You could be right or left. You could watch Letterman. You could watch Carson. And you could laugh. But now late night TV is — it's about laughter, but it's also about making progressives feel good about themselves, making them feel smug. And even I can't watch late night TV anymore.
But the difference is, you fight culture — if you don't like the progressive culture, create a conservative culture. And to his great credit — I rarely get to praise Tucker Carlson anymore — but he went on his show and said, if the Trump administration tries to damage free speech using this as a pretext, it's time for civil disobedience.
And so he understands you fight cultural power with cultural — countercultural power. That's how the game plays. To use federal power is definitely breaching the line.
BRANGHAM: You used the term authoritarianism before, Jonathan. And do you — I mean, this has been now another one of the very successful efforts that the Trump administration has used with law firms, with universities, with media companies. Where do you see this going? Where do you see this ending?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, I don't know. I would like to think that there would be a media company or a band of law firms or a band of institutions of higher learning who would be willing to push back. It's not enough that Harvard is willing to push back. It's not enough that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are willing to push back.
And I can't think of a media organization, other than The New York Times — I'm thinking of television — where they have been in the crosshairs of the president's rhetoric and have said, “No, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do what you want.”
And, again, I go back to, sometimes, I wonder, is it acquiescence? Is it obeying in advance? Or is it, “I'm kind of down with this, I'm fine with this, and I'm going to ride this wave because, with the president doing what he's doing, maybe we can get some other things that we want?”
And that's why this slide, to me, it just — it picks up speed. Every week that we sit here. We're talking about yet another level deeper into what lots of academicians and others have said, you know, the march to authoritarianism. People say we're sliding into it. I say, no, we're in it.
