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*&#@"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s so obvious it’s hysterical
CBS is selling. This has more to do with what the BUYER wants than cbs, and it’s doubtful they are entering into a large money losing contract right before they buy the company. If they happen to be lying about Colbert, it’s obvious they could be sued by the buyer. FFS democrats…
the bigger story that the democrats, yet again, are sleeping thru, A rarely used senate process to cut PBS NPR with only 51 votes and no filibuster. They already have a tough time reaching voters outside of large metro areas, now it will be even more difficult without npr. Reaching voters and democrats, Alex, give me things that don’t match for two thousand please.
NPR was not about the money. While the gop plays chess, the Dems are mastering checkers. This Colbert story is so dumb it’s hysterical.
What’s hysterical is that fly over country doesn’t realize they’re having it shoved up their ass sideways by repubs and they’ll continue to vote for it because it feels good. Can’t fix stupid.
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.
It’s so obvious it’s hysterical
CBS is selling. This has more to do with what the BUYER wants than cbs, and it’s doubtful they are entering into a large money losing contract right before they buy the company. If they happen to be lying about Colbert, it’s obvious they could be sued by the buyer. FFS democrats…
the bigger story that the democrats, yet again, are sleeping thru, A rarely used senate process to cut PBS NPR with only 51 votes and no filibuster. They already have a tough time reaching voters outside of large metro areas, now it will be even more difficult without npr. Reaching voters and democrats, Alex, give me things that don’t match for two thousand please.
NPR was not about the money. While the gop plays chess, the Dems are mastering checkers. This Colbert story is so dumb it’s hysterical.
The reactions here are mild compared to what I’m seeing on Facebook. A show that nets -$40 million gets canceled and the responses are its trumps vault, trump is controlling the media, Trump forced cbs to do it, democracy is over, etc.
I’m sure the other hosts love that narrative. Unless they see a drastic increase in viewers, I bet all late night tv is done within the next 5 years. Maybe they can scare people into watching thinking Trump tv will replace them if they don’t.
You are completely out to lunch if you don’t believe COOTWH is capable of using the power of government to punish his perceived enemies, both real and imagined. That type of thinking is partly responsible for where we are today.
Go back to sleep, indeed.
And again, if it’s all about just losing money, the executives and government officials shouldn’t have a problem providing documents, opening up the books and making sworn depositions, right? What could they possibly be hiding otherwise?
it's interesting timing given that trump is now threatening to stop the Washington Commanders new stadium unless they change their name to something racist.
But yeah....he wouldn't threaten CBS/Paramount's merger
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I think like most things in life, it’s a confluence of All the Above.
Yeah, maybe it lost money, but it was #1. Networks like that. Colbert bit the hand that feeds them and the new owners bend the knee to Trump and Paramount wants to push this deal through, so it was time to tighten things up. The stars just aligned for CBS.
I think there are broader and more impactful examples of Trump authoritarianism that we can point to. I think think this is the thing we need to “go to war” over.
Colbert will be fine and get a new show. And now no one has any reason to watch CBS anymore.
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.
It’s so obvious it’s hysterical
CBS is selling. This has more to do with what the BUYER wants than cbs, and it’s doubtful they are entering into a large money losing contract right before they buy the company. If they happen to be lying about Colbert, it’s obvious they could be sued by the buyer. FFS democrats…
the bigger story that the democrats, yet again, are sleeping thru, A rarely used senate process to cut PBS NPR with only 51 votes and no filibuster. They already have a tough time reaching voters outside of large metro areas, now it will be even more difficult without npr. Reaching voters and democrats, Alex, give me things that don’t match for two thousand please.
NPR was not about the money. While the gop plays chess, the Dems are mastering checkers. This Colbert story is so dumb it’s hysterical.
The reactions here are mild compared to what I’m seeing on Facebook.
I think like most things in life, it’s a confluence of All the Above.
Yeah, maybe it lost money, but it was #1. Networks like that. Colbert bit the hand that feeds them and the new owners bend the knee to Trump and Paramount wants to push this deal through, so it was time to tighten things up. The stars just aligned for CBS.
I think there are broader and more impactful examples of Trump authoritarianism that we can point to. I think think this is the thing we need to “go to war” over.
Colbert will be fine and get a new show. And now no one has any reason to watch CBS anymore.
I’m sure Trump is happy about it, and maybe even did tried to pull some strings. But how much of an impact did Trump have vs the -$40 million? Probably close to nothing. If it was making $40 million instead, do you think it would have been canceled? Of course not. And if you agree with that, then how can you say it was because of Trump? Just because Trump wanted it doesn’t mean he’s the reason. With that kind of net loss, it’s getting canceled with or without trumps help.
All these corporations donate to politicians. I'm sure decisions are made for political reasons all the time like that don't make news as not as high profile. I'm not a fan of it, but this isn't the first time a corporation has paid money or taken an action that benefited them and the politician.
So, which is it? Open the books and let the truth be free.
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
recent earnings report to indicate that the finances of its television division had eroded so precipitously that jettisoning one of its trademark programs would be a necessary solution.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
So, which is it? Open the books and let the truth be free.
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
recent earnings report to indicate that the finances of its television division had eroded so precipitously that jettisoning one of its trademark programs would be a necessary solution.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
This is absolute silliness. The timing corresponds to a SALE OF THE COMPANY. It sounds like you don’t have any m and a experience. The timing makes 100% sense. And if they are lying about Colbert being not profitable they could get sued by the buyer. This is exactly why Dems lose elections, they live in fantasy land.
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap. hey boss, look, da plane!
So, which is it? Open the books and let the truth be free.
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
recent earnings report to indicate that the finances of its television division had eroded so precipitously that jettisoning one of its trademark programs would be a necessary solution.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
This is exactly why Dems lose elections, they live in fantasy land.
Be fair, people like this exist on both ends of the spectrum.
Of course, but we are looking right at a situation where the left is fixated on Colbert, while there’s a perfect explanation for that, a massive sale of paramount, while npr just got cut, which is expected to significantly curtail Dems ability to reach rural voters.
this is probably the biggest political problem for the dem party right now, and they are living in fantasy island trying to argue that tv is not in a near decade long industry wide death spiral.
So, which is it? Open the books and let the truth be free.
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
recent earnings report to indicate that the finances of its television division had eroded so precipitously that jettisoning one of its trademark programs would be a necessary solution.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
This is absolute silliness. The timing corresponds to a SALE OF THE COMPANY. It sounds like you don’t have any m and a experience. The timing makes 100% sense. And if they are lying about Colbert being not profitable they could get sued by the buyer. This is exactly why Dems lose elections, they live in fantasy land.
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap. hey boss, look, da plane!
The Dems pointed out that the house and senate were cancelling funding for NPR and PBS. Red ‘Murica didn’t let their congress people know their opposition and the bill passed with all repub votes. Stupid doesn’t listen to Dems, regardless of the platform or message. Maybe someday they’ll learn which party is more on their side. I mean, once you vote for “they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” how do you ever return to reality? Don’t wanna be woke, yo!
And it’s not “exactly why Dems lose elections.” I thought it was because they allow the deep state to cover up the biggest political scandals of all time?
So, which is it? Open the books and let the truth be free.
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
recent earnings report to indicate that the finances of its television division had eroded so precipitously that jettisoning one of its trademark programs would be a necessary solution.
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
This is absolute silliness. The timing corresponds to a SALE OF THE COMPANY. It sounds like you don’t have any m and a experience. The timing makes 100% sense. And if they are lying about Colbert being not profitable they could get sued by the buyer. This is exactly why Dems lose elections, they live in fantasy land.
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap. hey boss, look, da plane!
Certainly the most transparent administration in history wouldn’t have a finger, a hand or a fist in anything, right?
No one is saying that. what I am saying is considering all of the facts, a net revenue of -$40 million, the pending sale, time to renew contracts coming up, the facts suggest this is a financial decision. I’ve asked 4 or 5 times and haven’t received an answer. How would you justify keeping a show that has shown continued decline for the last few years and is currently worth -$40 million? Tell me how you justify that in a way that makes sense. If you can’t, then that demonstrates a financial motivation.
Comments
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?
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.
doesn't really seem like good business to me.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
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.
the bigger story that the democrats, yet again, are sleeping thru, A rarely used senate process to cut PBS NPR with only 51 votes and no filibuster. They already have a tough time reaching voters outside of large metro areas, now it will be even more difficult without npr. Reaching voters and democrats, Alex, give me things that don’t match for two thousand please.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
A show that nets -$40 million gets canceled and the responses are its trumps vault, trump is controlling the media, Trump forced cbs to do it, democracy is over, etc.
I’m sure the other hosts love that narrative. Unless they see a drastic increase in viewers, I bet all late night tv is done within the next 5 years. Maybe they can scare people into watching thinking Trump tv will replace them if they don’t.
Go back to sleep, indeed.
And again, if it’s all about just losing money, the executives and government officials shouldn’t have a problem providing documents, opening up the books and making sworn depositions, right? What could they possibly be hiding otherwise?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But yeah....he wouldn't threaten CBS/Paramount's merger
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Paramount says its decision to cancel “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” despite it being the No. 1 late-night television program was “purely a financial decision.”
But there is little in Paramount Global Inc.’s
PARA
+0.19%
The Writers Guild of America, which represents many writers on the show, said the timing appeared suspicious and called on New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate.
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS, entertaining an audience of millions on late night television, on streaming services and across social media,” the union said. “Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that ‘The Late Show’s’ cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/was-canceling-stephen-colberts-late-show-really-about-money-the-numbers-dont-entirely-back-it-up-4b100500
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap.
hey boss, look, da plane!
this is probably the biggest political problem for the dem party right now, and they are living in fantasy island trying to argue that tv is not in a near decade long industry wide death spiral.
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap.
hey boss, look, da plane!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
while all this is going on, the Rs took away NPR from most of rural America, making it more difficult to reach these voters.
like you said earlier, enjoy your nap.
hey boss, look, da plane!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
what I am saying is considering all of the facts, a net revenue of -$40 million, the pending sale, time to renew contracts coming up, the facts suggest this is a financial decision.
I’ve asked 4 or 5 times and haven’t received an answer. How would you justify keeping a show that has shown continued decline for the last few years and is currently worth -$40 million? Tell me how you justify that in a way that makes sense. If you can’t, then that demonstrates a financial motivation.