Trump's FCC chairman gloats over Colbert's cancellation days after meeting soon-to-be CBS owner
Read more Support Now
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Read more
Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, gloated Tuesday morning over the abrupt cancellation of Stephen Colbert's late-night CBS show and gleefully mocked critics of the move.
'The partisan left's ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth over Colbert is quite revealing,' Carr tweeted. 'They're acting like they're losing a loyal DNC spokesperson that was entitled to an exemption from the laws of economics.'
Carr's post came the morning after Colbert fired back at Donald Trump for celebrating that the comedian 'got fired,' telling the president to 'go f*** yourself' during a blistering monologue that also saw the host promise that 'the gloves would be off' over his final 10 months on air.
On top of that, Carr's mockery of Colbert and his defenders comes just days after the FCC chairman met with David Ellison, the CEO of Skydance Media and the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison. According to a regulatory filing, Ellison urged Carr to finalize Skydance's $8.4 billion merger with Paramount, the parent company of CBS that recently settled a 'meritless' lawsuit with Trump over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.
The FCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Carr's tweet.
open image in gallery Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, mocked critics of CBS' decision to cancel Stephen Colbert's show mere days after meeting with David Ellison about the upcoming Paramount merger.
( AFP via Getty Images )
The meeting between Carr, Ellison and Ellison's legal team took place two days before CBS announced that it was canceling Colbert's show, which Paramount executives claimed was purely a 'financial decision' due to the program's hefty production costs and the dwindling ad revenues for late-night programming on linear television.
Asking Carr to 'promptly grant' Paramount's request to transfer control of its broadcast licenses to Skydance while highlighting 'the public interest benefits' of the merger, Ellison's team promised the FCC that CBS would be 'unbiased' under the new corporate leadership.
'[W]e explained the Ellison family and RedBird represent fresh leadership with the vision and experience needed to drive New Paramount's long-term growth in the face of the challenges presented by today's media landscape, all while preserving and enhancing the legacy and broad reach of both the national CBS television network and the company's 28 owned-and-operated local television stations,' Ellison's attorney wrote in the filing.
'Relatedly, we discussed Skydance's commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS's editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers,' the lawyer added.
While it has been recently reported that Colbert's show was losing as much as $40 million annually despite being the top-rated show in its time slot, prompting Colbert himself to call out his own network Monday night for leaking the data to justify the cancellation, CBS has been accused of appeasing the Trump administration with the 'politically motivated' move. Especially since Colbert not only has long been critical of Trump, but has also repeatedly blasted Paramount's decision to settle its lawsuit, likening it to bribery in order to grease the wheels of the merger.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents the writing staff of The Late Show, said it is concerned that the cancellation 'is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration as the company looks for merger approval.'
CBS staffers also aren't buying the company's claims that Colbert's show was canceled due to financial reasons. 'Many of us think this was part and parcel of the Trump shakedown settlement,' one network employee told The Independent.
open image in gallery A defiant Stephen Colbert hosts The Late Show on Monday July 21 2025 days after its axing was announced
( The Late Show/CBS )
Meanwhile, several Democratic lawmakers who are already alleging the network is placating Trump with the cancellation have also pressed Ellison about the president's claim that they reached a side deal on the lawsuit settlement. Trump has asserted that, besides the $16 million Paramount agreed to pay, Ellison promised as much as $19 million in pro-Trump advertisements on CBS once the merger is complete.
During Colbert's broadcast on Monday night, several other late-night show hosts and celebrities appeared to show support for the CBS star, including The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who is also rumored to possibly face cancellation amid the merger.
In his own passionate and profane monologue on Monday night, Stewart defended his longtime friend while acknowledging that he could soon be on the chopping block himself. At the same time, he called out Paramount for being fearful of Trump and his anti-media crusade.
'And if you believe as corporations or as networks, you can make yourselves so innocuous that you can serve a gruel so flavourless that you will never again be on the boy king's radar,' Stewart proclaimed. 'Why will anyone watch you? And – you are f***ing wrong.'
Carr, who serves as Trump's own personal 'attack dog' against the legacy media, has long been a fierce critic of the mainstream press and has opened or threatened several investigations into media companies over their news coverage.
Earlier this spring, Carr said 'all options remain on the table' in his agency's ongoing 'news distortion' probe of CBS News over the 60 Minutes interview behind the president's lawsuit. Months later, Paramount would reach its settlement with the president.
Meanwhile, Carr's tweet prompted centrist pundit Matthew Yglesias to note that the FCC chief 'should clear the air' over whether The Late Show's cancellation is playing a factor in his decision to approve the Paramount-Skydance deal.
'I think the fact that it's been widely reported in the business press that Paramount believes settling lawsuits with Trump is key to winning merger approval from your agency is influencing some people's understanding of the Colbert situation,' Yglesias wrote, leading Carr to react with a wind blowing face emoji.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: The psychological impact of growing up with a unique name - as Trisha Paytas names her son Aquaman
From Elon Musk 's sons X Æ A-12 and Techno Mechanicus, to Nara Smith's children Rumble, Slim Easy, and Whimsy Lou, there is no shortage of celebrity kids with unique names. But as influencer Trisha Paytas names her third son Aquaman Moses Paytas-Hacmon, psychologists have revealed why this might not be a good idea. From your choice of job to how likely you are to get a date, your name can influence more of your life than you might expect. Psychologists call this effect 'nominative determinism', and it is the theory that we are drawn towards life choices that match our names. When surnames first emerged in the 11th century, they were often a simple reflection of someone's career - with names like Hunter, Smith, or Baker. Nominative determinism takes this a step further and argues that someone called Baker really is much more likely to find themselves working in a bakery. However, it is bad news for children who end up with highly unusual and unique names. Studies suggest that people with unpopular names often end up less happy, worse off, and more dissatisfied with their lives. One of the simplest ways that your name might affect your life is by influencing the kind of career you gravitate towards. Psychologists attribute this to a phenomenon called 'implicit egoism', which is the idea that we prefer things that remind us of ourselves. In 2024, researchers from the University of Utah said that this could be why people disproportionately end up in careers which start with the first letter of their own name. For example, their study found that someone called Dennis is more likely to be a dentist while someone called Lawrence might be more likely to become a lawyer. This same effect could explain why Agatha Christie ended up as an author or why Ariana Grande has been spending more time acting than singing recently. People also tend to live in places which match their names, which should mean that London has more Lawrences and Lisas than Arthurs and Alices. That might mean Aquaman could be destined to take up a career in acting and live in Austin, Texas. However, having an unusual name comes with its own set of drawbacks. Some psychologists believe that our names are so key to our identity that having a bad one can have serious psychological impacts. In 2006, a pair of researchers from the University of Michigan found that people who didn't like their names were less well psychologically adjusted. Looking at siblings to control for factors such as background and childhood, people with lower rates of name satisfaction had lower self-esteem, life satisfaction, and spent more time unhappy. The researchers suggested that this was either because disliking their name caused lower self-confidence or their lower self-confidence caused them to dislike their name. In addition to affecting how you see yourself, your name also has a big impact on how others see you. Your name is the first thing most people learn about you and affects both how warm and competent others see you as being. A 2018 study from Syracuse University in New York found that the names Susan, Thomas, Madeline, Kathleen, and Felicia were seen as both warm and confident. Alvin, Duane, Rex, Roy, Mercedes, Vicki, and Trenton, on the other hand, were seen as having low warmth and confidence. Likewise, a study looking at hundreds of thousands of names conducted by the Institute of Psychology in Beijing found that people with names seen as less popular or having more negative connotations were more likely to commit crimes. Experts have warned about the rise in names with violent associations, which could mean bad news for Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly's son Saga Blade. Similarly, a German study conducted in 2011 found that people with unfashionable names were more likely to be rejected on dating apps. However, if you are willing to take a risk, having an unusual name could also have some benefits. Another study by the same team at Beijing's Institute of Psychology found that people with a rare name were more likely to have an unusual career such as a filmmaker, actor or judge. That might mean Nicholas Cage's son Kal-El Coppola Cage stands a good chance of following in his father's footsteps. Speaking to BBC Science Focus, lead author Professor David Zhu said: 'Early in life, some people may derive a sense of unique identity from their relatively unique names. 'Parents need to find ways to help the child appreciate his or her uniqueness, perhaps by giving the child a special nickname or frequently affirming the child's unique characteristics.' However, some studies have shown that unusual names can also be associated with increased creativity and higher chances of having an unusual career. That could be good news for Nicholas Cage's son Kal-El (pictured right) Likewise, some research even suggests that an odd name might help people become more creative and open-minded. Researchers at Arizona State University examined the names of CEOs at over a thousand US firms. They found that the rarer the CEO's name, the more distinctive their business strategy tended to be. That could mean Trisha Paytas' children, Malibu Barbie, Elvis, and the newborn Aquaman, might be more creative than your average John or Jane Doe. HOW DOES YOUR NAME IMPACT HOW OTHERS PERCEIVE YOU? A number of studies have found that our names change the way people judge our personality, age and more. In a study published May 8, scientists at Syracuse University in New York asked 500 university students to rate 400 popular names spanning 70 years. Questions came in the format: 'Imagine that you are about to meet Samantha. How competent/warm/old do you think she is when you see her name?' Scientists used their results to assess which names were perceieved as being competent, warm, or a combination of the two. Below are the results: Warm and competent names Ann, Anna, Caroline, Daniel, David, Elizabeth, Emily, Emma, Evelyn, Felicia, Grace, James, Jennifer, John, Jonathan, Julie, Kathleen, Madeline, Mark, Mary, Matthew, Michael, Michelle, Natalie, Nicholas, Noah, Olivia, Paul, Rachel, Samantha, Sarah, Sophia, Stephen, Susan, Thomas, William Warm but less competent names Hailey, Hannah, Jesse, Kellie, Melody, Mia Competent but less warm names Arnold, Gerard, Herbert, Howard, Lawrence, Norman, Reginald, Stuart Names of low warmth and competence
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
David Letterman's swipe at CBS over Colbert cancellation
David Letterman used his YouTube page to make a statement in support of Stephen Colbert Monday, following Colbert's CBS cancellation. The late night legend, 78, posted a video more than 20 minutes long of him trashing the network, which he worked for from 1993 to 2015. He captioned the curated clip, 'You can't spell CBS without BS' - amid widespread speculation the move was politically-motivated . The montage showcased various jokes Letterman told about the network, with eight clips spanning two decades, from 1994-2013. Colbert on Monday returned for his first full program after last week's announcement that CBS was canceling his Late Show with some supportive late-night guests, a joke about cancel culture and an extremely pointed remark directed at President Donald Trump . 'I'm going to go ahead and say it: Cancel culture's gone way too far,' Colbert said to a rambunctious audience that loudly chanted his name. CBS and parent Paramount Global said the decision to end the Late Show next May was was 'purely a financial' one amid 'a challenging backdrop in late night.' The decision was 'not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount, the network said. CBS said its 'admiration, affection, and respect' for Colbert 'made this agonizing decision even more difficult.' It hadn't gone unnoticed - and was mentioned by Colbert Monday night - that the announcement came days after the comic had sharply criticized Paramount's $16 million settlement of Trump's lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview. Colbert, known for his sharp comic takedowns of the Republican president , said that 'over the weekend, it sunk in that they killed off our show. But they made one mistake. They left me alive.' Now, he said, 'I can say what I really think of Donald Trump, starting right now.' As his audience cheered him on, Colbert said, 'I don't care for him. Doesn't seem to have the skill set to be president.' He read a passage from a Trump social media message saying that he loved that the 'untalented' Colbert had been fired. 'How dare you, sir,' Colbert said. 'Would an untalented man be able to compose the following satirical witticism?' The show switched to a close-up camera where Colbert appeared to say, '[Expletive] you,' the word bleeped out and his mouth blurred. Noting CBS' explanation for his firing, Colbert said, 'how can it purely be a financial decision if the show is number one in the ratings? 'It's confusing. A lot of folks are asking that question, mainly my staff's parents and spouses.' With some apparent irritation, he said some news stories over the weekend reported the apparently leaked information that Late Show was losing between $40 million and $50 million a year. Ad revenue for late-night entertainment broadcasts has shrunk sharply as the audience, particularly young men, turn to streaming or other priorities. 'I could see us losing $24 million,' Colbert said. 'But where would Paramount have ever spent the other $16 million? Oh, yeah.' Colbert introduced the odd duo of 'Weird Al' Yankovic and Lin-Manuel Miranda to sing Coldplay's Viva La Vida. In a sly reference to the couple caught on camera last week at a Coldplay concert, Late Show cameras panned the audience to find some supportive friends - fellow late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, Jon Stewart and John Oliver, as well as Adam Sandler, Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen. On Comedy Central's The Daily Show, also owned by Paramount, Stewart delivered an impassioned defense of his friend and former co-worker and suggested it was futile to try to satisfy Trump, certainly not by taking away programs that have helped build the company's value over the years. 'This is not the moment to give in,' Stewart said. 'I'm not giving in. I'm not going anywhere. I think.' On his own show, Colbert turned serious - briefly - to address people who had expressed support for him since the announcement was made. 'Some people see this show going away as the sign of something truly dire. And while I'm a big fan of me, I don't necessarily agree with that statement,' he said, 'because we here at the 'Late Show' never saw our job as changing anything other than how you felt at the end of the day, which I think is a worthy goal. 'Or,' he continued, 'changing how you felt the next morning when you watched on your phone, which is why broadcast TV is dying.'
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Families face red tape nightmare with inheritance tax on pensions
Families will be forced to pay inheritance tax on pensions after the government pushed ahead with plans that had sparked significant opposition. From April 2027 pensions will be added to the value of your estate for inheritance tax purposes in a move that the Treasury says will raise £1.46 billion a year by 2029-30. HM Revenue & Customs estimates that about 10,500 estates in 2027-28 will have to pay inheritance tax in the 2029-30 financial year while 38,500 will face a larger bill. Polling earlier this month by AJ Bell, an investment service, suggested that charging inheritance tax on pensions was the Labour government's most unpopular tax change so far. Some 44 per cent of 2,050 adults surveyed were opposed to the change, with only 21 per cent in favour. Renny Biggins from the Investing and Savings Alliance, which represents more than 270 financial services firms, said it was 'disappointing to see that despite significant pushback from the industry, pensions will form part of inheritance tax calculations'. The government originally proposed that pension schemes would have to work out and pay any inheritance tax due on pension pots, while the executors of the deceased's estate would be responsible for calulating tax due on any other assets, such as a home or a share portfolio. After lobbying by the pensions industry, the government has now said that personal representatives, usually either solicitors or bereaved family members, will be liable for reporting and paying any inheritance tax due on pension pots. They will have to do this within six months of a death to avoid interest being charged on overdue payments. A summary of responses to HMRC's consultation on how the rules would work published on Monday said that 'while many respondents supported the principle of bringing pension wealth into the scope of inheritance tax, the majority strongly opposed the proposal to make pension scheme administrators liable for reporting and paying tax due on the pension component of an estate'. Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, said: 'Life is tough enough when you have just lost a loved one without having extra layers of bureaucracy on top. In future, the person dealing with the estate will need to track down all of the pensions held by the deceased which may have any balances in them, contact the schemes, collate all the information and put it into an online calculator and then work out and pay the IHT bill. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts 'Complications will no doubt arise where the family member cannot track down all of the deceased's pensions or where providers are slow to supply the information needed to work out the IHT bill.' He suggested that the government should 'give serious thought' to changing the penalty rules around late payment of inheritance tax bills to ensure that grieving families were not fined because of delays that pension schemes might cause. Webb, now a partner at the consultancy Lane Clark and Peacock, said: 'While the changes HMRC has made are undoubtedly good news for pension schemes and those who administer them, it is hard to see that they are good news for bereaved families.' You can pass on £325,000 of assets from your estate without your beneficiaries paying any inheritance tax. This rises to £500,000 if you leave your main home to a direct descendant and your estate is worth less than £2 million. Any assets above those thresholds are usually taxed at 40 per cent, but anything left to a spouse or civil partner — including a pension from 2027 — is inheritance tax-free. Including pensions in an estate will close a loophole that gave savers a uniquely tax-efficient way of passing on wealth to the next generation. Those who could afford it could use other assets to live off in retirement, leaving their pension savings untouched to be passed on inheritance tax-free. In one piece of good news for families, the government confirmed that death-in-service benefits payable from pension schemes will still be excluded from inheritance tax. Pete Maddern from the insurer Canada Life said: 'These benefits provide a critical short-term financial lifeline for loved ones following the death of a working-age earner. Including them in the changes risked much wider repercussions not only for grieving families, but also for the employers that provide these benefits for their workforce.'
