Tangle - ABC temporarily suspends Jimmy Kimmel's show.

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

On Wednesday, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show indefinitely in response to comments the host made in his comedy monologue, which discussed the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the political ideology of his suspected shooter. Kimmel’s remarks prompted significant backlash from the right and drew a rebuke from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, who suggested his agency could take regulatory action against ABC. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Ari Weitzman and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast and place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about Jimmy Kimmel's suspension from ABC. We're going to break down exactly what happened, how the FCC chairman Brendan Carr was involved, share some views from the left and the right, and that as always, my take. Before you jump in, I want to remind folks that on Friday, we shared and responded to a lot of reader and listener criticism of our coverage of Charlie Kirk's assassination. As always, we enjoy amplifying our audience's perspectives as ways to add viewpoint diversity to our coverage. And we appreciate all the respectful and thoughtful disagreement. If you want to check that episode out, you can scroll back a couple of days in our feed,

or you can go to readtangle.com and check out the article on our website. All right, with that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main topic, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Hope you all had a wonderful weekend. I am currently looking out over beautiful Lake Champlain here in Vermont and spending some time with the rest of the team, getting to know each other, doing some bonding, doing some future planning.

It's been a really lovely time and super grateful to be with the rest of the team. Thanks to those of you who wrote in telling me how you've been inspired or how you've inspired others, I wanted to share a couple of those responses quickly. Nikki writes in to say that she reaches a lot of you. out to friends by sending a random cheerful text to spark some conversation. Mary stated that she shares the books that she's been reading on Instagram in an effort to encourage others to share in the joy of reading, and that's been going pretty well. People come up to her and let her know how much that means to them. And I wanted to highlight a particular story. Laura wrote in to tell us

about her friend Kristen that deeply inspires her. Kristen's two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Junie passed away from sudden unexpected death in childhood. Kristen wanted to honor Junie's memory and the deep care that Junie had for others. So she started by printing out Junie cards, which people would leave when they do random acts of kindness. She's since founded Junie's place, which seeks to offer no-cost grief support to families enduring child, infant, and or pregnancy laws. I can't help but be moved by this, especially when I think about my own three-and-half-year-old daughter and how incredible and joyful and kind she is. So I wanted to share those comments and inspired by that last story, my question for you this week is, what is an

act of kindness that you have either done for someone or received recently? And if you haven't done one yet, what is an act of kindness that you would consider doing or look forward to doing? Again, I'm really enjoying getting these responses from everybody and hearing these stories. So if you want to write in, please email me at John J-O-N at retangle.com. And as always, let's bring the best of ourselves to everything that we do this week. read some positivity, joy, encouragement, and I'm sure that you'll make a positive difference in someone's life. All right, with all that said, let's move on to today's quick hits. First up, President Donald Trump announced a new $100,000 fee for applicants to the H-1B visa program,

which gives temporary legal status to foreign workers employed by U.S. companies. The White House said the fee will only apply to new applicants, though some companies advised employees with H-1B visas not to leave the country in the near future. Number two, MSNBC reported that in 2024, White House Borders are Tom Homan allegedly accepted $50,000 from undercover federal agents after indicating that he could help them receive government contracts if President Trump won re-election. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department closed the investigation in recent weeks. Homan denies any wrongdoing. Number three, President Trump said the U.S. military struck a boat allegedly carrying drugs

and bound for the United States. The third such strike publicized by the president. Trump said the three people on board the boat were killed. Number four, an estimated 90,000 people attended a memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on September 10th. The service included speeches by President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other top Trump administration officials. Kirk's wife, Erica, also spoke and said she forgave her husband's killer.

And number five, an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon killed five people, according to the Lebanese government, with Lebanon Speaker of the Parliament claiming that four U.S. citizens were among the fatalities. However, a U.S. State Department spokesperson disputed that American citizens were killed in the strike. This morning, Jimmy Kimmel off the air. The host seen leaving his studio last night after ABC announced suspending his long-running late-night show indefinitely. During his monologue Monday night, Kimmel made comments about the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, accusing Republicans of reaching new lows in response to the 22-year-old alleged killer, who authorities say had a leftist ideology.

The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. The comments sparked outrage among many conservatives, including Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, which oversees broadcast licensing for local stations, speaking on Wednesday afternoon, threatening to take action against ABC and its parent company Disney. On Wednesday, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show indefinitely

in response to comments the host made in his comedy monologue, which discussed the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the political ideology of the suspected shooter. Kimmel's remarks prompted significant backlash from the right and drew a rebuke from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who suggested his agency could take regulatory action against ABC. For context, on Monday, September 15th, Kimmel discussed the arrest of the suspected shooter,

saying, we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it. The next day, clips of the remarks spread on social media, with many commentators interpreting Kimmel's comment as a claim that the suspect held conservative or pro-Trump beliefs. FCC Chairman Carr broached the issue on conservative influencer Benny Johnson's podcast,

saying, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. Next are, a media company that owns approximately 30, ABC affiliate stations, then announced it would preempt or replace Kimmel's show on its stations over its objections to his comments, after which ABC decided to suspend the show entirely. Kimmel has not been fired, and his representatives are reportedly in talks with Disney, which owns ABC, about a plan to return the show to the air.

However, political leaders from both parties and other late-night hosts objected to the appearance of Carr threatening regulatory consequences for ABC if they did not take action against Kimmel, calling it an attack on free speech. Others noted that Nextdoor is seeking approval for a $6.2 billion merger with broadcast media company Tegna, suggesting it was attempted to curry favor with the Trump administration. Many others praised the decision to suspend the show, saying that Kimmel spread false information about the suspected shooter

to smear President Donald Trump and his supporters. It was appearing to directly mislead the American public about a significant fact about probably one of the most significant political events we've had at a long time, Carr said. President Trump also cheered the decision and said network should take similar action against other late-night hosts. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage

to do what had to be done, Trump wrote on Truth Social. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers on fake news NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it, NBC. Today, we'll share views from the right and the left about the decision to suspend Kimmel's show, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right mostly supports the suspension, arguing that Kimmel was punished by his bosses, not the government. Some say Kimmel is facing reasonable consequences for misleading his audience. Others suggest the suspension will have a corrosive effect on free speech. In the Washington examiner, Zachary Faria said, Don't cry for Jimmy Kimmel. The decision likely had nothing to do with the Federal Communications Commission

and everything to do with syndicates not wanting to lose viewers over Kimmel's comments, Fario wrote. He chose to dip his toes in the water of the conspiracy theory that Kirk was killed by a right-wing supporter of President Donald Trump. Kimmel lied to his audience, and syndicates knew that they would have to pay the price of a boy. boycott of their networks, so ABC stemmed the bleeding by suspending Kimmel's show. Kimmel wasn't censored, and he wasn't taken off the air by Trump's FCC. Kimmel's regular political soliloquies and lack of any comedy that appeals to anyone

outside an obnoxious liberal bubble also set the stage for his suspension. Kimmel's show is some 650,000 viewers behind Stephen Colbert's, Faria said. Between the worst ratings, his overly politicized comedy, and lying to the public about the facts of a major political assassination, this suspension was the result of Kimmel's ego and toxic politics, not any sort of First Amendment violation. In the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Mark Davis called Kimmel's suspension accountability. One of the hopes that emerged upon the death of Charlie Kirk was that American society could improve its manner of discourse, aiming for a return to a time when we could disagree without the hostility that springs to life so instantly today, Davis wrote.

That path requires two things, a broad commitment to improve the tone of what we say and a reckoning for those who choose to remain mired in familiar hatred. Late night host Jimmy Kimmel's momentary banishment from ABC is a significant chapter in the dawn of that reckoning, and it is a welcome sign that basic standards of decency are making a comeback. Genuine cancel culture, the wanton attempt to muzzle voices because some people's feathers are ruffled, is wrong no matter which side is the target, Davis said. That is a far cry from a righteous public recoil on the occasion of a genuinely excorable diatribe. With ample evidence of a killer turned sharply leftward by both personal relationships and online addictions steeped in hatred of conservatives, Kimmel nonetheless chose to smear millions of Americans with the familiar loathing that has poisoned his so-called comedy for years. On his podcast, the verdict, Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas, criticized FCC Chairman Carr's

comments. Jimmy Kimmel was lying. and his lying to the American people is not in the public interest. And so Carr threatens explicitly, we're going to cancel ABC's license. We're going to take Kimmel off the air, Cruz said. Carr says, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. That's right out of good fellas. That's right out of the mafia.

I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said, and I'm thrilled that he was fired. But let me tell you, if the government gets in the business of saying, we don't like what the media has to say and we're going to ban you from the airwaves, that will end up bad for conservatives. There will come a time when a Democrat wins again. They will use this power and they will use it ruthlessly, Cruz said. I think it is unbelievably dangerous for the government to put itself in the position of saying, we're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't,

and we're going to threaten to take you off the air if we don't like what you're saying. It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, but when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left opposes the suspension, saying it resulted from government coercion. Some say the move exemplifies Trump's efforts to crack down on speech he doesn't like. Others suggest Kimmel's remarks were wrong, but his punishment is more concerning. In MSNBC, Anthony L. Fisher called Kimmel's suspension government censorship.

A government official who openly disdains mainstream media and has already used his bully pulpit to influence company's news coverage, such as when the FCC approved the Paramount Skydance merger only after CBS News agreed to install a bias monitor, who turned out to be a Trump-supporting conservative think-tank veteran with no journalistic experience, leaned on a corporation to silence a comedian for saying things the government official doesn't like, Fisher wrote. It's called jawboning, and it doesn't matter if a private company is the entity that ultimately took Kimmel off the air. That entity did so under duress from

the government. This is censorship. Carr gloated to media reporters by sending cheeky jiffs. President Donald Trump celebrated that Kimmel had joined the recently canceled Stephen Colbert, Kimmel's show has not to date been canceled, and called on NBC to cancel Jimmy Fallons and Seth Myers' late-night shows as well, Fisher said. The FCC chair justified his intervention by invoking the public interest. But during the first Trump administration, he tweeted, should the government censor speech it doesn't like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest. In the nation, Jeet here wrote, Jimmy Kimmel's bosses sold us all out. Kimmel's words were neither offensive nor factually wrong.

Kimmel wasn't saying that the killer was definitely a part of the Maga gang. He was objecting to the way Maga was responding to the shooting. But the right seized on them and mischaracterized them as claiming that the assassin was a Trump supporter, here said. The fact that Trump's war against late-night talk show hosts is ludicrous should not disguise the fact that it is dangerous. It is part and parcel of the largest attack on free speech since the McCarthy era ended in the early 1950s. The political economy of the new authoritarianism is clear.

In an increasingly plutocratic America, where a handful of corporations control most of the media, an authoritarian president such as Trump, can easily destroy free speech. The corporate weasels and other elite institutions are calculating that Trump has the immediate power to hurt them and that they won't suffer any penalty for surrendering to Trump if and when Democrats are back in power here, wrote. Organizing against Trump's authoritarianism is both necessary and politically sound. As scary as Trump's attack on free speech is, the real danger is not the president,

but an opposition that refuses the courage this moment requires. In the Atlantic, Adam Serwer said the Constitution protects Jimmy Kimmel's mistake. Kimmel made a mistake. He said something that was not correct to an audience of millions. Although he is a comedian, not a journalist, it would have been appropriate for him to apologize to his viewers and correct the record, Serwer said. Instead, he was silenced by a government and its allies that want to control what you say, what you do, and what you think. Conservative outrage over some of what was said after Kirk's murder is understandable. People getting mad at one another over what they say is part of living in a free society.

What happened to Kimmel is something different, a state-backed campaign of repression. It is one thing for Trump loyalists like Carr to make threats. It is another for the targets of the threats to capitulate. In the early months of the second Trump administration, we have discovered that many American corporations, including companies that own media outlets, are ready to surrender their First Amendment rights as soon as Trump indicates the slightest displeasure with their politics, server said. Whether they are capitulating because of fear or because they see a financial interest,

in aligning with the administration is ultimately irrelevant. Their rapid surrender to state coercion points to the absolute rot in these elite echelons. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the left and the writer saying, which brings us to my take. So on the suspension of the rules podcast this week, I argued that the last few months have been the scariest moment for free speech that I've ever lived through. I said that in my lifetime, it was unprecedented, a word that's overused to the point of meaninglessness. But I think I'm right. Kimmel's transgression was suggesting that Charlie Kirk's shooter was MAGA.

All the evidence I've seen indicates that he is not. Kimmel should not have implied this on national television, though my podcast co-hosts Camille Foster noted, Kimmel only said that Trump and his allies were desperately trying to paint the accused shooter as anything other than one of them, which I suppose is different than making a definitive statement about the shooter's beliefs. Other prominent liberals, like the historian and writer Heather Cox Richardson, have unambiguously endorsed suggestions that the suspect held far-right views. this insistence currently permeating the left-wing ether is conspiratorial

without even meaningfully bolstering their case. The shooter, having leftist political views, is not an indictment of the entire left any more than Melissa Hortman's attacker being a Trump supporter is an indictment of the entire right. Both sides use extreme rhetoric that needs to be turned down, but if you aren't calling for or inciting violence, you don't have to defend the actions of other people. You can think any number of things about Kimmel's joke, that it was a fireball offense, that his show stinks, that he was on the air too long anyway, et cetera.

But the Federal Communications Commission, chair openly using his position to strong-armed Disney into punishing Kimmel, that's hard to deny. And a multi-billion-dollar company being brought to heal by the federal government is a terrifying development. The FCC chair's mafia-style threat, ABC, was so clear that it, that drew strongly worded rebukes from people like Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas, and Senator Dave McCormick, the Republican from Pennsylvania, both of whom rarely crossed Trump in public. It's also the latest episode in a series of worrisome and overt crackdowns on free speech. Just days before, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced even more ubiquitous backlash for suggesting, quote, we will absolutely target you, end quote, for hate speech,

which drew such strong rebukes from the right that she ended up walking it back. President Trump is filing often frivolous lawsuits against media outlets for billions of dollars, explicitly saying that the lawsuits in compass coverage he deems unfair. Legal U.S. residents are being arrested and deported for unpopular political views. The Pentagon is now promising to revoke clearance and access for journalists who publish stories about the military that the White House is not cleared prior to release. These examples also include a litany of less direct, equally chilling developments. U.S. officials are threatening ordinary Americans who express views they deem distasteful,

often encouraging campaigns to get them fired. Trump has successfully extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from universities and law firms, with lawsuits focus on their handling of speech issues or the clients they decided to represent. The president signed an executive order cutting funding for grants based on gender ideology, which courts rejected for violating the First Amendment. Newsrooms are cow towing to the White House to maintain access, while the owners of our biggest social media platforms, see Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg,

and artificial intelligence companies, see Sam Altman, are finding new ways each week to appease and praise Trump. A lot of this isn't new. President Barack Obama spied on reporters from the Associated Press and aggressively used the Espionage Act against leakers. President Biden, pressured social media executives to silence misinformation about COVID, attempted to create a disinformation board

run by the Department of Homeland Security, and aggressively pursued the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. President George W. Bush passed the Patriot Act, which vastly increased government surveillance powers, tried to criminalize flag burning and even created free speech zones to court and protesters far away from where he made public appearances. This is all without even getting into earlier actions in American history, like Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus,

or Richard Nixon's list of enemies to target through the IRS, or John Adams' criminalization of anti-government. speech through the Alien and Sedition Acts. We have a long history of presidents infringing on speech. What makes this moment unprecedented, at least in the last few decades, is that so many of these threats to free speech are being pushed all at once from the same administration over the course of just a few months. And in the post-Charlie-Kirk era, when you remember this push, is all in reaction to genuine

political violence, it's clear that this crackdown has the potential to get much worse. This weekend, many of the country's most influential conservatives gathered in Arizona to memorialize Kirk. His wife, Erica, gave a brave and moving speech that every American should spend a few minutes watching. In front of influential right-wing thinkers, the president, the vice president, and the entire country, she forgave the shooter. It was a powerful moment, and had the ceremony ended there, I may have left with a sense that the temperature was turning down that the hottest moment had passed. Then, a few minutes later, President Trump took the stage. In his remarks, he called out his one disagreement with Kirk. I hate my opponents, Trump said, and I don't want the best for them.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Erica. Some in the crowd jeered, others laughed, and Trump's defenders will surely write the moment off as an innocent joke. But this is where we are right now. The day before, on truth social, the president urged the Attorney General to immediately begin the prosecution of his political opponents, including former FBI director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Leticia James. We can't wait any longer, the president said. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing.

Justice must be served now. I've been enthused by some of the responses from the right, and I admire those who are willing to criticize their own side. But the response from the president, in the context of everything else this administration has done to chill free speech, worries me. And I think we're all becoming far too desensitized to the threat at hand. The temptation for those in power to use whatever means available to justify their ends is always great.

But the lasting impact is never just those people's ends. It's the means themselves. All right, that is it for my take. We actually have a co-written staff dissent today from Ari and Audrey. So I'm going to send it over to them now. This is Audrey Moorhead, Associate Editor, with Tangle with the staff dissent. Isaac's argument that Trump's infringements are unprecedented in his lifetime

understates the severity of past free speech infringements. For example, President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and President John Adams' 1798 alien and sedition acts silence protest and anti-government speech under threat of imprisonment. Additionally, Isaac used these historical examples outside his lifetime to further argue that at no other time have all these constrictions happened at once, which feels like a rhetorical trick to make this moment more severe historically. It also ignores the McCarthyist Redscare that entailed anti-American congressional hearings,

loyalty oaths for government officials, FBI surveillance, and public blacklists and firings for people accused of anything, from homosexuality to criticism of the government. Altogether, past attacks on free speech are at least as chilling as the current moment, if not more so. Hi, this is Senior Editor Will Kayback. I also authored a dissent from today's take. And here's what I wrote. I'm not overly alarmed by Kimmel's suspension.

I found FCC Chairman Carr's suggestive comments about going after ABC to be inappropriate for sure. But I think they fall far short of the government compelling speech. If the FCC actually tried to revoke ABC's license over a perceived lack of consequences for Kimmel, I think they'd lose the subsequent legal challenge. And accordingly, I'm pretty skeptical that Carr would have actually taken this course. of action. Mainly, I'm disappointed that ABC, like other major outlets have done, capitulated so easily, and I think the decision will tarnish their reputation in the long run. But I don't think Kimmel's suspension, which may end up being short-lived in light of recent reports that

Disney is negotiating with the show over bringing it back to the air, is the five-alarm fire for the First Amendment that it's portrayed as in Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. That is it for my take and our staff dissent, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Beth in Tehachapi, California. I think I said that, right? Teha choppy, Tehahapi. I don't know. That's an awesome name for a town. I read a post recently about what was called Soft Secession by Blue State. If this is something that is actually happening, would you consider addressing it in one of your

newsletters? I've had great difficulty validating some of the details of the article, so I've come to wonder if it is actually happening, and if so, to what effect. So the couple posts that we've seen about this have not come from legacy media outlets, but from more niche creators on substack, Medium, and Instagram. Soft secession, quote-unquote, is a term of art here, and nobody is really seceding. A better way to describe the tactic is that, Blue states are just going to be as uncooperative as possible to the Trump administration. Interestingly, the framework for this type of soft secession was actually developed by conservative thought leaders. Blue state leaders are rediscovering a state's rights view and advocating for

state independence through a legal and financial framework. First, since states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, blue states don't need to help the government carry out laws that liberals don't support, like abortion restrictions or immigration enforcement. However, that's runs into a few practical roadblocks. Regarding abortion, for instance, any facility that receives federal funding must comply with federal rules. So state governments don't have any role in enforcing federal regulations in those facilities, and less than want to fund their own facilities and pass their own state laws, which already happens. On immigration, states already don't enforce immigration law. Jurisdictions can cooperate with federal law enforcement, but opting not to is

pretty far from a quote-unquote secession. Second is a financial argument that But since Democratic states send far more to the federal government than they receive in return, states should stop sending money to the federal government. But states, quote-unquote, don't send money to the federal government. Individuals do through taxes. And recommending tax evasion as a form of state-level resistance doesn't really make sense. States receive money from the government. And yes, red states receive more. So in a way, blue states help subsidize them.

But the only way to stop that is to actually secede. soft secession can't really work here. These tactics haven't yielded many concrete steps yet, and secession is a strong term. However, the movement is real, and it's growing. Democratic governors are actively pursuing ways to resist the current administration, and we've just begun to see them taking these avenues.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On Wednesday, the Guardian reported that the Trump administration has rolled back efforts to combat human trafficking by firing officials working on the issue, reassigning others, and canceling or pausing grants. At the Department of Homeland Security, the administration has reportedly

moved agents investigating human trafficking to deportation efforts, while the State Department reduced headcount by over 70% at an office that coordinates anti-trafficking efforts across the government. A State Department spokesperson said the administration takes human trafficking seriously, but leaders of anti-trafficking organizations say the cuts and rollbacks are impeding their work. The Guardian has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. According to a UGov poll, 35% of U.S. adults approve of ABC's decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel's show, while 50% disapprove. ABC began broadcasting Kimmel's late-night show, Jimmy Kimmel Live, in 2003.

There have been 3,950 episodes of Kimmel's show that have aired. The approximate number of months remaining on Kimmel's contract with ABC is 8. According to Late Nider, approximately 1.8 million viewers watched Kimmel's show nightly in Q2 of 2025. The percent change in Kimmel's average viewership compared to Q1 2025 was minus 3%. According to an August 2025 Associated Press NORC poll, 24% of U.S. adults say they watch all or most of a late-night talk show or variety show at least once a month. 33% of Democrats say that they watch all or most of a late-night talk show or variety show at least once a month. And 18% of Republicans say that they watch all or most of a late-night talk show or variety show at least once a month.

And last but not least are Have a Nice Day Story. Once called a Great Open Sewer for its abundance of industrial waste, the Chicago River hadn't hosted an open water swim in nearly a century. That changed on Sunday when 500 experienced swimmers took to the river to compete in one and two mile races. Local nonprofit, a long swim, organized the race, and founder Doug McConnell largely credited river cleaning efforts that followed the Clean Water Act in 1972 with transforming the river's health.

McConnell said that all proceeds from, the race will go toward ALS research and youth swim education. Block Club Chicago has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow.

For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was editives and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kback and associate editor's Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White.

Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. I don't know.