The recent indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC, following his monologue referencing the Trump Administration and the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has sparked discussions about media control and authoritarian tactics. Some viewers accused “Kimmel” of incorrectly implying that “Kirk’s” shooter was MAGA, a claim that federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr condemned. “Carr” suggested potential repercussions for local stations airing “Kimmel’s” show, stating, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” This suspension is seen as part of a series of attacks by the Administration on media outlets, especially broadcast television networks. Disney, owner of ABC, and Paramount, owner of CBS, previously settled lawsuits with “Donald Trump,” while CBS News has reportedly taken steps, influenced by “Carr,” such as hiring a conservative ombudsman. Moreover, “Trump” has suggested revoking broadcast licenses for networks employing late-night hosts critical of him.

To provide insight into the situation and discuss authoritarian leaders’ responses to comedy, Michael Idov, a novelist and filmmaker who ran GQ Russia from 2012 to 2014, and wrote and directed the 2019 film “The Humorist,” was interviewed. “Idov’s” most recent novel is “The Collaborators.” The conversation explored the parallels between “Trump’s” and “Putin’s” approaches to suppressing comedy and culture, the rapid pace of “Trump’s” actions against institutions, and the state of Russian comedy under “Putin’s” rule.

Echoes of Russia’s media Crackdown

when asked about his initial reaction to the “Jimmy Kimmel” news, “Idov” recalled a period in Russia a decade ago when independent editors and producers were systematically replaced by “Putin” loyalists. He quoted a Russian meme, “Links in a fucking chain,” which was used each time someone was fired and replaced. “Idov” also noted the Trump Administration’s decision to cancel creative-writing fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, contingent on writing about topics such as “Make America Healthy Again,” which he found reminiscent of his experiences in Russia.

“Links in a fucking chain.”

“Idov” pointed out that it took over a decade of “Putin’s” rule for the Russian Ministry of Culture to suggest preferred themes to filmmakers and TV creators, and even then, it was considered scandalous. The then-Minister of Culture, Vladimir Medinsky, suggesting topics like “heroic cosmonauts or the Olympics and the Second World War” was met with outrage.

Timeline of Changes in Russia

“Idov” explained that the initial attacks on the news media in Russia occurred early in “Putin’s” reign. In 2001, the network owned by oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky was taken over as part of “Putin’s” efforts to consolidate power and reduce the influence of oligarchs. The second wave of control came after the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, prompting “Putin” and his government to focus on the internet, youth culture, and creating AstroTurf movements to monitor the online space.

“Idov” noted that these restrictions were frequently enough prompted by external events. Prior to the 2022 invasion of ukraine, media repression was generally a response to specific incidents, with certain areas left untouched. As an example, glossy magazines were often exempt because they were seen as catering to urban elites and not posing a important threat as long as TV news and daily newspapers were controlled. However,as time passed,the government felt the need to control more aspects of the media and informational space to maintain power.

When asked if these external factors aligned with the idea that early moves against the media were “Putin” trying to take power from the oligarchs, “Idov” agreed, stating that “putin” witnessed firsthand in 1996, under Boris Yeltsin, how a media strategy could sway an election. “Putin’s” initial goal was to prevent independently held TV networks from creating popular challengers. “Idov” believes that “Putin” lacks a master plan but is a brilliant tactician focused on survival and maintaining power for himself and his allies. He is willing to adopt any ideology to achieve this, presenting himself as a liberal reformer in the 2000s and later empowering the Patriarch and presenting Russia as a religious state in 2012.