Late Show with Stephen Colbert canceled...Possible Political Reasons

Tim Simmons · July 20

Yes, the rural NPR stuff should be a bigger story, but I saw several posts on my socials. Its not good in the face of Sinclair buying local TV.

Lerxst1992 · July 20

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax · July 20

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.”

Tim Simmons · July 20

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Tim Simmons · July 20

At the end of the day all any voter wants is to feel pampered/catered to. thats how you win.

Lerxst1992 · July 20

Tim Simmons said:

At the end of the day all any voter wants is to feel pampered/catered to. thats how you win.

Will find out in 28 and perhaps how the Senate goes next year. The house should be a lock

Lerxst1992 · July 20

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.

gimmesometruth27 · July 20

Lerxst1992 said:

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.

Tim Simmons · July 20

.

mace1229 · July 20

Tim Simmons said:

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.

igotid88 · July 20

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

mace1229 · July 20

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

Being #1 in it’s time slot might just mean late night shows as we know them are coming to an end. 2 million viewers isn’t a lot for the production costs. Hot tv shows have 5-10 times the viewership with similar costs. Late shows have a large staff and cost a lot to produce, but bring in a fraction of the revenue as prime time shows. Probably will see a shift to something simpler with a significantly smaller budget, no gimmicks or bands and just a couple writers or maybe just an evening news or something that’s low budget.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

igotid88 · July 20

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

igotid88 · July 20

things like this is why we question

mace1229 · July 21

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

Do you judge an investment based on what it did 10 years ago or what it’s doing now?

How do you justify keeping a show that looses $40 million a year? I’ve asked about 4 times and haven’t received one answer, because you can’t.

igotid88 · July 21

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

Do you judge an investment based on what it did 10 years ago or what it’s doing now?

How do you justify keeping a show that looses $40 million a year? I’ve asked about 4 times and haven’t received one answer, because you can’t.

Unless it's fake news. Then why renew it a couple of years ago?

josevolution · July 21

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

Do you judge an investment based on what it did 10 years ago or what it’s doing now?

How do you justify keeping a show that looses $40 million a year? I’ve asked about 4 times and haven’t received one answer, because you can’t.

Exactly I don’t believe for a second that many tv corporations would have kept his show going after loosing 40 million per year after the 1st season of him loosing that amount

gimmesometruth27 · July 21

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

Do you judge an investment based on what it did 10 years ago or what it’s doing now?

How do you justify keeping a show that looses $40 million a year? I’ve asked about 4 times and haven’t received one answer, because you can’t.

Exactly I don’t believe for a second that many tv corporations would have kept his show going after loosing 40 million per year after the 1st season of him loosing that amount

was their plan "its ok for him to lose 40 million for 7 years in a row, but that 8th year, the show is over."

doesn't really seem like good business to me.

mace1229 · July 21

gimmesometruth27 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

igotid88 said:

mace1229 said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

Is it $40 million every year or just this year? Also companies lose a lot of money. Layoff workers and somehow still give their CEOs raises. All shows except for football don't have the rating they used to. It was still # 1 in its timeslot. Both things can be true that it was losing money and it was politically motivated. But you can always rebound in making it profitable again. You think if Biden said he was happy that Gutfeld got canceled and it was losing $40 million. That there wouldn't be outrage from the right. And you would probably say "he has higher ratings than those Libt*&#@"

I’ve said before Gutfeld and other late night shows aren’t a fair comparison. Being cable and on at 8:00 on the west coast is a big enough difference that it’s apples to oranges. But also, not just Gutfeld, but fox in general pretty much has the monopoly on right leaning news. Conservatives watch fox, liberals are split among 3 or 4 networks. Another reason why shows on fox get higher ratings compared to something similar on other networks.

But any show losing $40 million and getting canceled isn’t going to raise any questions or concerns from me.

If it’s political, how do you justify keeping it?

Unless Colbert is misleading his viewers intentionally like a fox news I could understand. But in the 10 years he's been on he never made them money? There are so many things that side with it being for trump than it does money.

Do you judge an investment based on what it did 10 years ago or what it’s doing now?

How do you justify keeping a show that looses $40 million a year? I’ve asked about 4 times and haven’t received one answer, because you can’t.

Exactly I don’t believe for a second that many tv corporations would have kept his show going after loosing 40 million per year after the 1st season of him loosing that amount

was their plan "its ok for him to lose 40 million for 7 years in a row, but that 8th year, the show is over."

doesn't really seem like good business to me.

That’s not how it went down. There’s not a single source that says it’s a profitable show.
The data is out there and easy to find, I don’t know if everyone here is just ignore the facts or what. No one has said it’s lost 40 million for 8 years, but has been in a decline, where the latest loss was 40 million.
in 2018 the ad revenue was $120 million, making it a profit. In 2024 it was only $70 million, giving it a loss.

It’s pretty plain. Shows that lose millions of dollars get canceled. Several years ago it made money. It’s been in a steady decline and reached a point where they don’t think they can turn a profit on it again.
I’m sure issues with contracts and other variables determine the time frame that they allow a show to recover. Covid probably played a factor. That’s about when the decline started and they probably thought it was temporary, and took a few years to realize late-night tv post covid isn’t the same. When Conan got canceled they still paid him millions for not working so they could bring back Leno. They don’t plan to replace Colbert, they’ll let his contract play out.

**I didn’t copy it, but I just googled “how much did the late show make in 2020.” And the summary it gave was that numbers for 2020 are not available, but made a little mover 120 in 2018 and about 75 in 2022. It’s not unreasonable to think no one was concerned about number in 2020-2021 (Covid). The show had been widely popular and profitable for decades. They gave it a couple years to see what the new trend is and how to respond. So we’re not taking 8 years, we’re talking 2 or 3. And given that he signs 3-year contracts, seems even more reasonable they gave it a few years. And they took that time to ask does the show need to be revamped, a new host, is late night tv over? And looking at all the trends, sounds like they decided late night tv just isn’t profitable anymore. Blaming Trump for a show getting canceled that loses $40 million just seems absurd to me.

bootlegger10 · July 21

If the DailyMail article is right, Colbert was informed early July that the show may be canceled. Colbert tweeted about the "bribe" after he was informed the show could be axed. I could see where Colbert did that tweet either hoping they wouldn't fire him, or if they did, it could be used as a reason for the termination.

Who knows. Easily could be a bribe to Trump, but just pointing out that Colbert knew the show may be axed before making that tweet. I can't imagine being ticked off at my employer who paid me millions and my show lost many more millions.

Late Show with Stephen Colbert canceled...Possible Political Reasons

Comments

Categories