I just googled “cost of late show” and this is the summary it provided:
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
Here's a breakdown:
High Production Costs:
Shows like "The Late Show" require significant investment in talent, staff, set design, and production equipment.
Declining Revenue:
While the show was once a strong revenue generator for CBS, recent reports suggest that ad revenue has plummeted.
Financial Losses:
CBS executives reportedly considered ways to cut costs but ultimately decided the show could not be viable, according to The New York Times.
Competition and Changing Viewing Habits:
Younger viewers are increasingly moving away from traditional television, impacting the viewership and revenue of late-night shows.”
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
I just googled “cost of late show” and this is the summary it provided:
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
Here's a breakdown:
High Production Costs:
Shows like "The Late Show" require significant investment in talent, staff, set design, and production equipment.
Declining Revenue:
While the show was once a strong revenue generator for CBS, recent reports suggest that ad revenue has plummeted.
Financial Losses:
CBS executives reportedly considered ways to cut costs but ultimately decided the show could not be viable, according to The New York Times.
Competition and Changing Viewing Habits:
Younger viewers are increasingly moving away from traditional television, impacting the viewership and revenue of late-night shows.”
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
It’s the way of the maga left.
in addition to losing money, the Redstone family is getting out at a time when most tv assets are declining in value. They obviously need to tighten the ship, minimize losses and avoid potentially costly legal fights. But the left sees the left in everything. Never heard of that other show btw? Is it also a talk show?
This what happens when your only material is leftist political rants night after night. Every now and then is expected but the hatred from the libs is insane. Kimmell and Fallon.....your next, lol. Conan was the last of the greats.
I just googled “cost of late show” and this is the summary it provided:
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
Here's a breakdown:
High Production Costs:
Shows like "The Late Show" require significant investment in talent, staff, set design, and production equipment.
Declining Revenue:
While the show was once a strong revenue generator for CBS, recent reports suggest that ad revenue has plummeted.
Financial Losses:
CBS executives reportedly considered ways to cut costs but ultimately decided the show could not be viable, according to The New York Times.
Competition and Changing Viewing Habits:
Younger viewers are increasingly moving away from traditional television, impacting the viewership and revenue of late-night shows.”
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
Then CBS/Paramount should have nothing to worry about in an investigation and be forthcoming with record requests and depositions.
I think the decision was political, and financial. I wonder what is going to happen with the rest of the late night shows thought? Colbert was actually the only show currently increasing its viewship right now, so presumably the others are doing even worse financially. So if the decision was all about money, then how are the other networks hanging onto their late nighters?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The timing is a bad look though (coupled with the future chairman meeting with the FCC). Obviously correlation doesn't equal causation, but I get how people ran with it.
I think the decision was political, and financial. I wonder what is going to happen with the rest of the late night shows thought? Colbert was actually the only show currently increasing its viewship right now, so presumably the others are doing even worse financially. So if the decision was all about money, then how are the other networks hanging onto their late nighters?
I just googled this. Fallon has less than half the viewership of Colbert, but here’s the summary it gave:
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Weekly Production Cost: $1.7 million
Annual Production Cost (45 weeks): $76.5 million (excluding talent and top producer salaries)
New York Tax Credits: New York offers a 30% tax credit for talk shows filmed with a studio audience of at least 200, provided they have a production budget of at least $30 million and have been filmed outside New York for at least five seasons, according to Business Insider.
Profitability: While the show's production costs are high, it is still considered profitable for NBC, even though it generates less profit than in the past, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Bottom line is he’s still profitable and Colbert isn’t. That tax credit has got to help, but probably other factors like lower production cost and a better sponsorship/cost ratio compared to Colbert..
I think the decision was political, and financial. I wonder what is going to happen with the rest of the late night shows thought? Colbert was actually the only show currently increasing its viewship right now, so presumably the others are doing even worse financially. So if the decision was all about money, then how are the other networks hanging onto their late nighters?
I just googled this. Fallon has less than half the viewership of Colbert, but here’s the summary it gave:
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Weekly Production Cost: $1.7 million
Annual Production Cost (45 weeks): $76.5 million (excluding talent and top producer salaries)
New York Tax Credits: New York offers a 30% tax credit for talk shows filmed with a studio audience of at least 200, provided they have a production budget of at least $30 million and have been filmed outside New York for at least five seasons, according to Business Insider.
Profitability: While the show's production costs are high, it is still considered profitable for NBC, even though it generates less profit than in the past, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Bottom line is he’s still profitable and Colbert isn’t. That tax credit has got to help, but probably other factors like lower production cost and a better sponsorship/cost ratio compared to Colbert..
Colbert is filmed in New York as well. Your earlier numbers didn't add up either when it mentioned the show generated half of what it did years back, but that was still double the production cost. Not sure where they're losing all the money 🤔.
I think the decision was political, and financial. I wonder what is going to happen with the rest of the late night shows thought? Colbert was actually the only show currently increasing its viewship right now, so presumably the others are doing even worse financially. So if the decision was all about money, then how are the other networks hanging onto their late nighters?
I just googled this. Fallon has less than half the viewership of Colbert, but here’s the summary it gave:
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Weekly Production Cost: $1.7 million
Annual Production Cost (45 weeks): $76.5 million (excluding talent and top producer salaries)
New York Tax Credits: New York offers a 30% tax credit for talk shows filmed with a studio audience of at least 200, provided they have a production budget of at least $30 million and have been filmed outside New York for at least five seasons, according to Business Insider.
Profitability: While the show's production costs are high, it is still considered profitable for NBC, even though it generates less profit than in the past, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Bottom line is he’s still profitable and Colbert isn’t. That tax credit has got to help, but probably other factors like lower production cost and a better sponsorship/cost ratio compared to Colbert..
Colbert is filmed in New York as well. Your earlier numbers didn't add up either when it mentioned the show generated half of what it did years back, but that was still double the production cost. Not sure where they're losing all the money 🤔.
I’m just going by the google results I shared, and they show it costs more to produce Colbert than Fallon. I assume it’s accurate, but maybe not, I haven’t read into it more than what I quoted. But I have no reason to believe it’s not accurate. The tax break mentioned is for shows filmed in NY that previously were not (I assume to bring outside business to NY). So that would apply to Fallon and not Colbert I believe, Tonight show used to be LA and late show was always NY. I’m not sure what you mean by my previous number not adding up. Multiple sources I saw put the production of Colbert over $100 million and losing about $40 million. I don’t see where I ever said the revenue was half what it used to be but still double the production cost (which would be it at $200, I don’t see anyone claiming that show makes $200). The show is a sinking ship, from a business perspective.
my only question is, we’re they given a chance to cut costs? I mean clearly that’s a lot of overhead (the difference with Fallon is, NBC owns 30 rock, so its costs are spread across all programming - as I’m sure lots of crew positions are).
both sides (TLS and CBS) are sort of existing in the ambiguity of the details. We may never really get the full story.
I just googled “cost of late show” and this is the summary it provided:
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
Here's a breakdown:
High Production Costs:
Shows like "The Late Show" require significant investment in talent, staff, set design, and production equipment.
Declining Revenue:
While the show was once a strong revenue generator for CBS, recent reports suggest that ad revenue has plummeted.
Financial Losses:
CBS executives reportedly considered ways to cut costs but ultimately decided the show could not be viable, according to The New York Times.
Competition and Changing Viewing Habits:
Younger viewers are increasingly moving away from traditional television, impacting the viewership and revenue of late-night shows.”
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
Then CBS/Paramount should have nothing to worry about in an investigation and be forthcoming with record requests and depositions.
So you want the government to mandate what contracts corporations enter into?
I just googled “cost of late show” and this is the summary it provided:
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
Here's a breakdown:
High Production Costs:
Shows like "The Late Show" require significant investment in talent, staff, set design, and production equipment.
Declining Revenue:
While the show was once a strong revenue generator for CBS, recent reports suggest that ad revenue has plummeted.
Financial Losses:
CBS executives reportedly considered ways to cut costs but ultimately decided the show could not be viable, according to The New York Times.
Competition and Changing Viewing Habits:
Younger viewers are increasingly moving away from traditional television, impacting the viewership and revenue of late-night shows.”
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
Then CBS/Paramount should have nothing to worry about in an investigation and be forthcoming with record requests and depositions.
So you want the government to mandate what contracts corporations enter into?
authoritarian much?
No, whether business with government oversight and approval is conducted fairly and without bribes like some third world shit hole country, to use COOTWH’s terminology. Level playing field much.
“Government mandating which contracts corporations enter into?” There you go again.
my only question is, we’re they given a chance to cut costs? I mean clearly that’s a lot of overhead (the difference with Fallon is, NBC owns 30 rock, so its costs are spread across all programming - as I’m sure lots of crew positions are).
both sides (TLS and CBS) are sort of existing in the ambiguity of the details. We may never really get the full story.
I’m sure the buyer had a lot to do with this. But skydance doesn’t draw internet eyeballs, so we have this made up silly stuff about cbs not losing money when the entire industry is in trouble . Have you done a lot of M&A work? Buyers usually want a say in upcoming significant contracts, especially ones that lose money. That’s the story here.
But the liberal message is lost yet again, because the senate voted Thursday without requiring cloture on a rarely used procedural rule to defund pbs.
There was a huge political message here for rural regions that rely on PBS NPR for essential communication, that it’s easier to tear things down than build them up, and this procedural rule was an excellent example to politic on.
But the dem message is lost in this non story about Colbert.
Yes, the rural NPR stuff should be a bigger story, but I saw several posts on my socials. It’s That’s not good in the face of Sinclair buying local TV.
That’s a good point. Defunding npr is absolutely lethal to Dems ability to reach rural voters and the Colbert nothing story is dominating the news im seeing. Colbert will likely get a show somewhere else or can do some podcast that fans can watch. He could do something extremely new and clever.
If Dems want a chance to get some more votes in these regions, they need to figure out how to reach these voters 365 days a year. To become part of their culture. That is what Sinclair has done . Dems try to pop in 2 months before an election and that just doesn’t work.
one of the big reasons we need more people to say the democrats, whether talking about the Schumer or AOC branch, are clueless.
Yup, nothing to see here. At all. Don’t question COOTWH. Don’t demand accountability or oversight. OBEY.
For a decade the comedian Stephen Colbert has mocked, ridiculed and eviscerated Donald Trump from every conceivable angle.
The settlement coincided with Paramount seeking approval from the US Federal Communications Commission for an $8.4bn merger with Skydance Media. Colbert called the settlement “a big fat bribe”.
CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, is attempting to close the merger with Skydance after the deal fell apart last year. Paramount’s owners have been pushing the Trump administration to approve the sale of CBS to Skydance.
There are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Earlier this month CBS’s owner, Paramount Global, reached a $16m settlement with Trump over an interview on its current affairs strand 60 Minutes, removing a potential obstacle to the company’s $8bn sale to the Hollywood studio Skydance Media.
If the mega-merger goes ahead, a friend and ally of the US president, the billionaire Larry Ellison, could wield huge influence over the CBS news division as well as programmes ranging from South Park to Star Trek. The Late Show is sure to be seen by some as an example of obeying in advance.
Among those sounding the alarm is Marvin Kalb, the last correspondent personally hired at CBS by Edward R Murrow, a giant of broadcast journalism whose defiance of McCarthyism was recounted in the film and play Good Night, and Good Luck. Now 95, Kalb perceives the Skydance takeover as a threat to CBS’s journalistic independence and moral integrity – and fears that this time it will buckle.
Speaking by phone from his home near Washington, Kalb said: “In my judgment it means that CBS, starting with 60 Minutes, will be under a tighter editorial control than it has ever been. The idea that 60 Minutes will be able to continue to do virile, unafraid reporting on Trump may be coming to an end.”
The Murrow protege, who spent 24 years at CBS News, warns that the network could drift in the direction of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, which often parrots Trump’s talking points. “I’m afraid that CBS News will become a little Fox, that it will begin to be timid in the way in which it approaches any possibly critical story about the president.
“Just as you rarely see or hear anything on Fox that is critical of Trump, likewise it may very well end up that CBS will be essentially in the same position, and that is huge loss for those who still favour freedom of the press and who still favour a vigorous, unafraid press.”
My gut feeling would be that Colbert’s contract, when it comes up, will simply not be renewed, and they will find a humourist who is pro-Trump,” Kalb said presciently.“Those are the kinds of programmes that, in a humorous way, tend to either criticise or make fun of Trump – and he doesn’t like that.”
Trump filed a $10bn lawsuit against CBS last October, alleging that the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on 60 Minutes with the then vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic party” in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20bn. CBS initially called the lawsuit “completely without merit”, a view shared by many legal experts, and sought to have it dismissed.
But then the company entered into mediation in an attempt to placate Trump as Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, sought to close the $8bn merger with Skydance, which needs federal government approval. The CBS News head, Wendy McMahon, and 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens quit over Paramount’s handling of the showdown.
When Paramount reached the out-of-court settlement, it insisted that the $16m would go towards Trump’s future presidential library, rather than to him personally, and it would not be issuing an apology. But critics saw it as the starkest example yet of Trump’s ability to intimidate major institutions including the media.
Rome Hartman, one of the producers of the Harris segment, who retired from CBS News and 60 Minutes last month for unrelated reasons, said in a phone interview: “The motive of this lawsuit was clearly harassment and intimidation and the decision by Paramount’s leaders to succumb to that harassment and intimidation was an absolute betrayal. It’s a shameful betrayal of the hardworking people at 60 Minutes and at CBS News.”
We are living in a moment of real peril for free voices and independent journalism, even independent commentary, as would be the case with Stewart and Colbert. These guys are businessmen in the end, and I hope they see that to maintain longstanding principles of independence and free speech is not just in their interest morally but in their interest economically.”
Skydance was founded in 2010 by Larry Ellison’s son David.According to its website, David, who is a pilot, came up with the name as a reference to flying aerobatics known as “skydancing” and its promise of limitless possibilities. It has produced films including the Tom Cruise vehicles Top Gun: Maverick and the Mission: Impossible franchise.
But although David is the public face of Skydance, his father Larry will be the power behind the throne at Paramount, according to an organisational chart obtained by the New York Times last year. The co-founder of software company Oracle is one of the world’s wealthiest men and a friend of Trump, who has touted Ellison as a potential buyer of TikTok.
Bill Carter, the author of four books about television, says: “Both of the Ellisons seem to be close to Trump, and Trump will basically use any leverage he can. That’s what he does, and he has been given the power to do it pretty much across the board here.
“The speculation is that they’ll install somebody who is at least somewhat willing to take his side in a future controversy, which means there’s very likely to be some kind of chilling effect on the news division, and especially at 60 Minutes, because they have basically defied him even after this.”
Last week the New York Times reported that David Ellison had held talks about acquiring the Free Press, an online publication co-founded by Bari Weiss and noted for its “anti-woke” politics. Discussions include Weiss “taking on an influential role in shaping the editorial sensibilities of CBS News”, the paper added, though probably not in a managerial capacity.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan responded to the report about Weiss by tweeting: “RIP CBS News.” Paul Farhi, a former media reporter at the Washington Post, said: “She’s an opinion journalist and always has been, and that’s not the person you want running a news division or having a prominent role in the news division. You want someone who actually knows or upholds the tradition of straight-up reporting that CBS has stood for its entire existence.”
Farhi added: “I suspect at the end of it he’ll discover that CBS News wouldn’t be too crazy about having her, but it’ll be a real test of his intentions, if he has any intentions at all, for CBS News. If he brings in someone like her, it will signal a direction and will be a sign of we’re not going to do things the way we’ve done in the past.
“But I think it’s more likely that he won’t do anything that’s going to be radical in terms of CBS News. For one thing, CBS News is a very small part of the overall Paramount enterprise that she’s buying. It’s not a big profit centre. At the end of the day I suspect we won’t be talking about this topic once the merger is done, simply because CBS News is not out of control.”
But other parts of the Paramount forest are already in revolt. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, co-creators of the long-running animated sitcom South Park, have accused the incoming Paramount president, Jeff Shell, of meddling in contract negotiations for streaming rights to the show, allegedly to benefit Paramount+ at their expense.
This has caused disruption to production schedules including a delay for South Park’s 27th season. Parker and Stone wrote on social media earlier this month: “This merger is a shitshow and it’s fucking up South Park. We are at the studio working on new episodes and we hope the fans get to see them somehow.”
Stewart and Colbert have also been pushing back. Stewart used a Daily Show monologue to tear into Paramount’s settlement, interrupted by a spoof ad for the fast-food chain Arby’s that said: “For when you want a sandwich commensurate with your company’s shame.” Colbert called it a “big fat bribe” and even alluded to speculation about his own job security, pointing to a moustache he grew on holiday and quipping: “OK, OK, but how are they going to put pressure on Stephen Colbert if they can’t find him?”
The timing of the decision to axe him raised eyebrows in Washington. Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday: “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just three days after Colbert called out CBS owner Paramount for its $16m settlement with Trump – a deal that looks like bribery. America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.”
Speaking before the announcement, Carter, author of The Late Shift and executive producer of the CNN docuseries The Story of Late Night, said: “It would be pretty obvious to anybody looking at this situation if they decided to eliminate those guys that it would be for political reasons because they’re obviously outspoken and have a big audience listening to them and it gets under Trump’s skin.
“But it’s scary to think that’s something that could happen in America, that a president could basically eliminate a voice of protest against him. It would be like [President Richard] Nixon getting rid of the editorial cartoonists who were criticising him over Watergate. I would not put it past Trump to try to do it.
“I do think that if you’re David Ellison, it’s a terrible look. If you’re in Ellison’s shoes, you have to know this will brand you as another person who’s basically giving the knee to Donald Trump. A lot of these guys don’t care because they have other agendas. But it is a thing to live with if you’re going to be branding yourself that way.”
Yes, the rural NPR stuff should be a bigger story, but I saw several posts on my socials. It’s That’s not good in the face of Sinclair buying local TV.
one of the big reasons we need more people to say the democrats, whether talking about the Schumer or AOC branch, are clueless.
Policies that affect these people and doing leg work will help get there. the AOC branch gets it better than Schumer.
Paramount Global (parent company of Paramount Pictures) has been facing financial challenges, including a significant debt load and pressures from a changing media landscape. S&P Global recently downgraded Paramount's debt to junk status, citing concerns about weak cash flow and the costs associated with the company's shift from traditional television to streaming services. The company's long-term debt was reported as $14.6 billion at the end of 2023.
Paramount Global (parent company of Paramount Pictures) has been facing financial challenges, including a significant debt load and pressures from a changing media landscape. S&P Global recently downgraded Paramount's debt to junk status, citing concerns about weak cash flow and the costs associated with the company's shift from traditional television to streaming services. The company's long-term debt was reported as $14.6 billion at the end of 2023.
this is interesting. i don't think they should be cutting the ratings leader because advertisers would want to purchase ad times during higher rated programs.
i wonder if some of this lost revenue goes back to when lara logan was allowed to lie about the bin laden raid on 60 minutes a few years ago. i think the news division never recovered from that one.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
my only question is, we’re they given a chance to cut costs? I mean clearly that’s a lot of overhead (the difference with Fallon is, NBC owns 30 rock, so its costs are spread across all programming - as I’m sure lots of crew positions are).
both sides (TLS and CBS) are sort of existing in the ambiguity of the details. We may never really get the full story.
If what’s been reported is true, I don’t see the point. Of it costs $100 million to produce and they lost 40 every year, the question should be why was this not cut sooner? Not just here, but all over social media I truly don’t understand the uproar. The show lost the company 40 million a year, why is it still on the air to begin with?
They can cut the budget in half and it’s still just barely pulling a profit. The goal for networks isn’t to just barely get buy, but make lots of money. Losing $40 million a year doesn’t fit that. Shows that break even get canceled. But to answer your question, could they really cut the budget in half and have a watchable show? They've been struggling with viewership (compared to years before). They’d realistically need to cut the budget in half to make it a financially manageable show. Could they do that and maintain the same quality and viewership? My guess is they looked into that and realized the answer was no. For everyone who this this is political, then tel me how you justify keeping a show that looses you $40 million?
If you owned a small chain of restaurants and one of them was always in the red, wouldn’t you close that one and maybe reopen a different one somewhere else? I would.
Comments
“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," like other late-night talk shows, costs over $100 million annually to produce, according to The New York Times. Recent reports indicate that while the show was once profitable, it has been losing money in recent years, with one source stating it was losing $40 million to $50 million a year. Despite its high production cost and declining viewership among younger audiences, the show has maintained a leading position in its time slot.
A show is losing $50 million a year and people things it’s because Trump doesn’t like it? And then a former host of The. Jew says the same thing and people take that as confirmation? The reality is shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled.
in addition to losing money, the Redstone family is getting out at a time when most tv assets are declining in value. They obviously need to tighten the ship, minimize losses and avoid potentially costly legal fights. But the left sees the left in everything. Never heard of that other show btw? Is it also a talk show?
"Trump must be stopped, at all costs! He hates Nazis! Wait a minute - I just bought a new car."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
SHOW COUNT: (170) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=114, US=124, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
But yes, if it is indeed losing 40 million, i get ending the show.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The tax break mentioned is for shows filmed in NY that previously were not (I assume to bring outside business to NY). So that would apply to Fallon and not Colbert I believe, Tonight show used to be LA and late show was always NY.
I’m not sure what you mean by my previous number not adding up. Multiple sources I saw put the production of Colbert over $100 million and losing about $40 million. I don’t see where I ever said the revenue was half what it used to be but still double the production cost (which would be it at $200, I don’t see anyone claiming that show makes $200).
The show is a sinking ship, from a business perspective.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
both sides (TLS and CBS) are sort of existing in the ambiguity of the details. We may never really get the full story.
authoritarian much?
“Government mandating which contracts corporations enter into?” There you go again.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But the liberal message is lost yet again, because the senate voted Thursday without requiring cloture on a rarely used procedural rule to defund pbs.
There was a huge political message here for rural regions that rely on PBS NPR for essential communication, that it’s easier to tear things down than build them up, and this procedural rule was an excellent example to politic on.
But the dem message is lost in this non story about Colbert.
If Dems want a chance to get some more votes in these regions, they need to figure out how to reach these voters 365 days a year. To become part of their culture. That is what Sinclair has done . Dems try to pop in 2 months before an election and that just doesn’t work.
one of the big reasons we need more people to say the democrats, whether talking about the Schumer or AOC branch, are clueless.
There are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Earlier this month CBS’s owner, Paramount Global, reached a $16m settlement with Trump over an interview on its current affairs strand 60 Minutes, removing a potential obstacle to the company’s $8bn sale to the Hollywood studio Skydance Media.
If the mega-merger goes ahead, a friend and ally of the US president, the billionaire Larry Ellison, could wield huge influence over the CBS news division as well as programmes ranging from South Park to Star Trek. The Late Show is sure to be seen by some as an example of obeying in advance.
Among those sounding the alarm is Marvin Kalb, the last correspondent personally hired at CBS by Edward R Murrow, a giant of broadcast journalism whose defiance of McCarthyism was recounted in the film and play Good Night, and Good Luck. Now 95, Kalb perceives the Skydance takeover as a threat to CBS’s journalistic independence and moral integrity – and fears that this time it will buckle.
Speaking by phone from his home near Washington, Kalb said: “In my judgment it means that CBS, starting with 60 Minutes, will be under a tighter editorial control than it has ever been. The idea that 60 Minutes will be able to continue to do virile, unafraid reporting on Trump may be coming to an end.”
The Murrow protege, who spent 24 years at CBS News, warns that the network could drift in the direction of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, which often parrots Trump’s talking points. “I’m afraid that CBS News will become a little Fox, that it will begin to be timid in the way in which it approaches any possibly critical story about the president.
“Just as you rarely see or hear anything on Fox that is critical of Trump, likewise it may very well end up that CBS will be essentially in the same position, and that is huge loss for those who still favour freedom of the press and who still favour a vigorous, unafraid press.”
My gut feeling would be that Colbert’s contract, when it comes up, will simply not be renewed, and they will find a humourist who is pro-Trump,” Kalb said presciently.“Those are the kinds of programmes that, in a humorous way, tend to either criticise or make fun of Trump – and he doesn’t like that.”
Trump filed a $10bn lawsuit against CBS last October, alleging that the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on 60 Minutes with the then vice-president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic party” in the election.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20bn. CBS initially called the lawsuit “completely without merit”, a view shared by many legal experts, and sought to have it dismissed.
But then the company entered into mediation in an attempt to placate Trump as Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, sought to close the $8bn merger with Skydance, which needs federal government approval. The CBS News head, Wendy McMahon, and 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens quit over Paramount’s handling of the showdown.
When Paramount reached the out-of-court settlement, it insisted that the $16m would go towards Trump’s future presidential library, rather than to him personally, and it would not be issuing an apology. But critics saw it as the starkest example yet of Trump’s ability to intimidate major institutions including the media.
Rome Hartman, one of the producers of the Harris segment, who retired from CBS News and 60 Minutes last month for unrelated reasons, said in a phone interview: “The motive of this lawsuit was clearly harassment and intimidation and the decision by Paramount’s leaders to succumb to that harassment and intimidation was an absolute betrayal. It’s a shameful betrayal of the hardworking people at 60 Minutes and at CBS News.”
We are living in a moment of real peril for free voices and independent journalism, even independent commentary, as would be the case with Stewart and Colbert. These guys are businessmen in the end, and I hope they see that to maintain longstanding principles of independence and free speech is not just in their interest morally but in their interest economically.”
Skydance was founded in 2010 by Larry Ellison’s son David. According to its website, David, who is a pilot, came up with the name as a reference to flying aerobatics known as “skydancing” and its promise of limitless possibilities. It has produced films including the Tom Cruise vehicles Top Gun: Maverick and the Mission: Impossible franchise.
But although David is the public face of Skydance, his father Larry will be the power behind the throne at Paramount, according to an organisational chart obtained by the New York Times last year. The co-founder of software company Oracle is one of the world’s wealthiest men and a friend of Trump, who has touted Ellison as a potential buyer of TikTok.
Bill Carter, the author of four books about television, says: “Both of the Ellisons seem to be close to Trump, and Trump will basically use any leverage he can. That’s what he does, and he has been given the power to do it pretty much across the board here.
“The speculation is that they’ll install somebody who is at least somewhat willing to take his side in a future controversy, which means there’s very likely to be some kind of chilling effect on the news division, and especially at 60 Minutes, because they have basically defied him even after this.”
Last week the New York Times reported that David Ellison had held talks about acquiring the Free Press, an online publication co-founded by Bari Weiss and noted for its “anti-woke” politics. Discussions include Weiss “taking on an influential role in shaping the editorial sensibilities of CBS News”, the paper added, though probably not in a managerial capacity.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan responded to the report about Weiss by tweeting: “RIP CBS News.” Paul Farhi, a former media reporter at the Washington Post, said: “She’s an opinion journalist and always has been, and that’s not the person you want running a news division or having a prominent role in the news division. You want someone who actually knows or upholds the tradition of straight-up reporting that CBS has stood for its entire existence.”
Farhi added: “I suspect at the end of it he’ll discover that CBS News wouldn’t be too crazy about having her, but it’ll be a real test of his intentions, if he has any intentions at all, for CBS News. If he brings in someone like her, it will signal a direction and will be a sign of we’re not going to do things the way we’ve done in the past.
“But I think it’s more likely that he won’t do anything that’s going to be radical in terms of CBS News. For one thing, CBS News is a very small part of the overall Paramount enterprise that she’s buying. It’s not a big profit centre. At the end of the day I suspect we won’t be talking about this topic once the merger is done, simply because CBS News is not out of control.”
But other parts of the Paramount forest are already in revolt. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, co-creators of the long-running animated sitcom South Park, have accused the incoming Paramount president, Jeff Shell, of meddling in contract negotiations for streaming rights to the show, allegedly to benefit Paramount+ at their expense.
This has caused disruption to production schedules including a delay for South Park’s 27th season. Parker and Stone wrote on social media earlier this month: “This merger is a shitshow and it’s fucking up South Park. We are at the studio working on new episodes and we hope the fans get to see them somehow.”
Stewart and Colbert have also been pushing back. Stewart used a Daily Show monologue to tear into Paramount’s settlement, interrupted by a spoof ad for the fast-food chain Arby’s that said: “For when you want a sandwich commensurate with your company’s shame.” Colbert called it a “big fat bribe” and even alluded to speculation about his own job security, pointing to a moustache he grew on holiday and quipping: “OK, OK, but how are they going to put pressure on Stephen Colbert if they can’t find him?”
The timing of the decision to axe him raised eyebrows in Washington. Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday: “CBS canceled Colbert’s show just three days after Colbert called out CBS owner Paramount for its $16m settlement with Trump – a deal that looks like bribery. America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.”
Speaking before the announcement, Carter, author of The Late Shift and executive producer of the CNN docuseries The Story of Late Night, said: “It would be pretty obvious to anybody looking at this situation if they decided to eliminate those guys that it would be for political reasons because they’re obviously outspoken and have a big audience listening to them and it gets under Trump’s skin.
“But it’s scary to think that’s something that could happen in America, that a president could basically eliminate a voice of protest against him. It would be like [President Richard] Nixon getting rid of the editorial cartoonists who were criticising him over Watergate. I would not put it past Trump to try to do it.
“I do think that if you’re David Ellison, it’s a terrible look. If you’re in Ellison’s shoes, you have to know this will brand you as another person who’s basically giving the knee to Donald Trump. A lot of these guys don’t care because they have other agendas. But it is a thing to live with if you’re going to be branding yourself that way.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
i wonder if some of this lost revenue goes back to when lara logan was allowed to lie about the bin laden raid on 60 minutes a few years ago. i think the news division never recovered from that one.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Of it costs $100 million to produce and they lost 40 every year, the question should be why was this not cut sooner?
Not just here, but all over social media I truly don’t understand the uproar. The show lost the company 40 million a year, why is it still on the air to begin with?
But to answer your question, could they really cut the budget in half and have a watchable show? They've been struggling with viewership (compared to years before). They’d realistically need to cut the budget in half to make it a financially manageable show. Could they do that and maintain the same quality and viewership? My guess is they looked into that and realized the answer was no.
For everyone who this this is political, then tel me how you justify keeping a show that looses you $40 million?