Colbert is latest casualty of late-night TV's fade-out
The announced end of one of the most popular broadcast late-night shows, days after host Stephen Colbert accused the network owner of bribing President Donald Trump to approve a merger, drew cries of political foul play from liberal politicians, artists and entertainers.
"Stephen Colbert, an extraordinary talent and the most popular late-night host, slams the deal. Days later, he's fired. Do I think this is a coincidence? NO," Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent, wrote on X.
CBS executives said in a statement that dropping the show was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount."
Whether or not politics were at play, the late-night format has been struggling for years, as viewers increasingly cut the cable TV cord and migrate to streaming. Younger viewers, in particular, are more apt to find amusement on YouTube or TikTok, leaving smaller, aging TV audiences and declining ad revenues.
Americans used to religiously turn on Johnny Carson or Jay Leno before bed, but nowadays many fans prefer to watch quick clips on social media at their convenience. Advertising revenue for Colbert's show has dropped 40% since 2018 - the financial reality that CBS said prompted the decision to end 'The Late Show' in May 2026.
One former TV network executive said the program was a casualty of the fading economics of broadcast television.
Fifteen years ago, a popular late-night show like 'The Tonight Show' could earn $100 million a year, the executive said. Recently, though, 'The Late Show' has been losing $40 million a year, said a person briefed on the matter.
The show's ad revenue plummeted to $70.2 million last year from $121.1 million in 2018, according to ad tracking firm Guideline. Ratings for Colbert's show peaked at 3.1 million viewers on average during the 2017-18 season, according to Nielsen data.
For the season that ended in May, the show's audience averaged 1.9 million.
Comedians like Colbert followed their younger audiences online, with the network releasing clips to YouTube or TikTok. But digital advertising did not make up for the lost TV ad revenue, the source with knowledge of the matter said.
The TV executive said reruns of a hit prime-time show like 'Tracker' would leave CBS with 'limited costs, and the ratings could even go up."
"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" is just the latest casualty of the collapse of one of television's most durable formats. When 'The Late Late Show' host James Corden left in 2023, CBS opted not to hire a replacement. The network also canceled 'After Midnight' this year, after host Taylor Tomlinson chose to return to full-time stand-up comedy.
But the end came at a politically sensitive time.
Paramount Global (PARA.O), opens new tab, the parent company of CBS, is seeking approval from the Federal Communications Commission for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. This month Paramount agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with his 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris.
Colbert called the payment 'a big fat bribe' two days before he was told his show was canceled.
Many in the entertainment industry and Democratic politicians have called for probes into the decision, including the Writers Guild of America and Senator Edward Markey, who asked Paramount Chair Shari Redstone whether the Trump administration had pressured the company.
Paramount has the right to fire Colbert, including for his political positions, Markey said, but 'if the Trump administration is using its regulatory authority to influence or otherwise pressure your company's editorial decisions, the public deserves to know.'
A spokesperson for Redstone could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday night.
"It's a completely new world that artists and writers and journalists are living in, and it's scary," said Tom Nunan, a veteran film and TV producer who is co-head of the producers program at UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television. "When the news came in about Colbert, we were shocked but not surprised."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Joe Rogan hits out at FBI's Kash Patel and Dan Bongino over Epstein silence
Joe Rogan hit out at the FBI 's Kash Patel and Dan Bongino for failing to deliver files on Jeffrey Epstein while speculating about who is really in charge of the sharing information with the public. The podcast host's outburst came after it emerged that the Department of Justice is ending its probe into the case, despite failing to disclose the disgraced financier's 'client list' as previously hinted at. 'Kash came on the podcast and said, "There's nothing that you want to see",' Rogan said during his show Friday. 'Dan Bongino, who's always shouting from the rooftops, "We're going to get to the bottom of this and find out who these people are", now everyone's saying "No, Epstein killed himself. No, nothing to see here", that's why people are cynical.' Patel and Bongino, along with other MAGA personalities, have fueled speculation that Epstein kept a shadowy 'client list' which would be reviewed and disclosed in due course. Bongino stated there was 'extremely credible' evidence of a 'multitude of tapes' existed showing Epstein and associates committing child abuse, a claim which was echoed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. But Rogan claimed the reticence to release the files is indicative of the fact Kash and Bongino are being controlled by external forces. 'People are cynical because you had all this hope for change, and then you realize, "Oh the same people that are pulling the strings are still pulling the strings",' he said. 'I think the cynical perspective is that at the highest levels, it's all being controlled by money and that's not going to change.' The DOJ, led by Bondi, said last week it had concluded that Epstein did not possess a 'client list' and that it had decided against releasing any additional records from the investigation. Conspiracy theorists seized on the decision as the latest in a long line of attempts to cover up and cover for a shadowy list of associates that many believe Epstein kept. The disgraced financier's former lawyer Alan Dershowitz denied the claims and said Epstein did not keep a list of clients. Meanwhile Republicans on the House Rules committee blocked an amendment pushed by Democrats that would have allowed for the release of documents related to the Epstein probe. The DOJ's decision led to a revolt among MAGA loyalists, many of whom had hoped that the files would see prominent Democrats linked to Epstein. The backlash pushed President Trump to request that Bondi release more of the materials. ' Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' he wrote on his Truth Social account. Bondi started that process on Friday by filing with the Southern District of New York to unseal the highly-secretive grand jury court documents in the case. Although the filing is submitted it doesn't mean the documents are coming anytime soon. The grand jury information is only a part of the evidence that makes up the so-called Epstein files. Trump's vow to unseal more information came after the Wall Street Journal published a 50th birthday card it said he allegedly sent to Epstein in 2003. It comes as Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction for sex trafficking.
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Dana White embroiled in feud with UFC fighter Jon Jones over Donald Trump's White House card
UFC chief Dana White has found himself embroiled in a feud with iconic fighter Jon Jones over his desire to fight at Donald Trump's White House card. The president revealed earlier this month that he planned to host a fight card on July 4 next year to celebrate the United States' 250th birthday. And Jones has seemingly reversed his June retirement following that announcement, as he expressed his interest in fighting on the White House lawn and told TMZ that he had a 'strong feeling' he'd be participating. The fighter made no secret of his positive feelings toward Trump in November, when he handed the president his heavyweight title belt following his win over Stipe Miocic at Madison Square Garden. On Saturday, though, White firmly poured cold water on the idea that Jones would be fighting at the White House next summer. 'It's not even about him winning the belt,' White told reporters at the UFC 318 post-fight press conference. 'You know how I felt about him. I just can't risk putting him in big positions in a big spot and have something go wrong, especially the White House card.' Jones, 38, vacated the heavyweight title belt in June when he suddenly retired before a planned future fight against Tom Aspinall. And the legendary fighter, who has missed other fights due to legal issues and drug suspensions, said on Sunday that he was 'disappointed' with White's remarks. 'I heard the comments made at last night's press conference. While I was a little disappointed, I'm still in the UFC's drug testing pool, staying sharp, and continuing to train like a professional. I'll be ready for whatever comes next,' Jones wrote on X. 'In a recent interview, I shared that the opportunity to fight at the White House gave me something deeper to fight for, a 'why' that goes beyond paychecks or belts. Fighting for my country gives me a greater purpose! 'The silver lining in all this is knowing the fans see my heart. They see, I am ready and willing to take on anyone, to represent my country on a historic stage. For me, it's never been just about the opponent. I'm chasing legacy, something timeless, something bigger than the moment,' he continued. 'So for now, I'll keep grinding, stay patient, and stay faithful. I'm ready to fight on July 4th.' In separate posts, Jones said that he likely wouldn't fight again if it wasn't on the White House card, but called it 'understandable' that White would have his reservations about selecting him for the event. Trump sat ringside at UFC 309 at Madison Square Garden last year and met Jones In 2016, Jones was pulled off the UFC 200 card after testing positive for clomiphene and letrozole (resulting in a year suspension), and he also received a 15-month ban the following year after testing positive for an anabolic steroid. Jones has also had a litany of legal issues, including a hit-and-run arrest in 2015, while his rejection of a short-notice fight against Chael Sonnen in 2012 resulted in the cancellation of UFC 151 (his scheduled opponent, Dan Henderson, pulled out with an injury towards the end of Jones' training). In that instance, White blasted Jones publicly and said it was 'one of the most selfish, disgusting decisions that doesn't just affect you. 'This is affecting 16 other lives, their families, kids are going back to school. The list goes on and on of all the things, the money that was spent for fighters to train and the list goes on and on. Like I said, I don't think this is going to make Jon Jones popular with the fans, sponsors, cable distributors, television network executives or other fighters,' White said. Nonetheless, White called Jones 'pound-for-pound best fighter in the world' after his fight in November, and it certainly sounds like he'll be staying ready should his boss change his mind with regards to July 4, 2026.
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
New York Magazine writer encourages democrats to 'cut off' MAGA relatives
A liberal writer is encouraging fellow progressives to cut off family members who support Donald Trump. New York Magazine's Sarah Jones insists that going 'no contact' is the only way to deal with right wing family members. 'Sometimes the act of knowing a person leaves you with no choice but to move on without them,' Jones wrote. 'If my parents liked Alligator Alcatraz, I'd no longer speak to them. 'If they were rude to my LGBT friends, I'd block their numbers. Though shunning won't work as a political strategy, there are still natural consequences for the way we speak and behave.' Her comments were a response to a guest essay by former Obama speech writer David Litt in The New York Times, in which he advocated for reaching across the aisle when it comes to families with opposing political views. Jones said she hails from a conservative family and suggested this has been a source of contention. 'I come from a conservative family and a conservative place, and I nurture my pain like it's a small pet,' she wrote. 'But I speak to my family and sometimes I even go home to see them.' She shared a link to her article on Friday on X with the caption: 'Should you cut off your MAGA relatives? That's up to you, in the end, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable choice to make.' In the piece she cited a study by marketing firm The Harris Poll which found that half of American adults are estranged from a relative, with one in five citing political differences as the reason why. This is a phenomenon which has been exacerbated since Trump returned to office, according to Jones. Her views are in contrast to Litt who talked about how he connected with his anti-Covid vaccine, Joe Rogan loving brother-in-law over their love of surfing after previously keeping his distance. 'Shunning plays into the hands of demagogues, making it easier for them to divide us and even, in some cases, to incite violence,' Litt wrote. However this approach was slammed by Jones as, 'so naïve it borders on malice'. Jones' stance was condemned by social media users who flooded her post to express their disagreement. 'Seriously, the only one that would be hurt over time in this situation is you,' one person wrote. 'Putting politics before family and not being able to take the high road says that you're unable to be neutral and keep the peace. Just agree to not talk politics and be civil with friends and family.' 'Dear Sarah, LMAO, how arrogant! You keep cutting people off, soon you will have no one. Good Luck! Laughing at you!' another added. 'Sounds like they are better off without you. Disregard everything they ever did for you in a snap, what a great person you must be,' a third person agreed. However, Jones is not the only progressive to advocate such drastic action. MSNBC's Joy Reid previously interviewed a Yale psychiatrist that it's fine to disown family members who voted for Trump. Dr. Amanda Calhoun, a child psychiatry fellow at the Ivy league school, made the comments during an interview on Reid's show The Reid Out last at the end of last year, while discussing coping strategies for people upset by Trump's election win. 'There is a societal norm that if somebody is your family that they are entitled to your time and I think the answer is absolutely not,' Calhoun said.
