Piers Morgan: ‘No Wonder' Stephen Colbert Got Canceled When Most Late Night Hosts Are ‘Activist Hacks for the Democrats'
On Sunday morning, the TV personality took to X to say that most late-night hosts have become nothing more than 'hyper-partisan activist hacks' for the Left and that it's really 'no wonder' why Stephen Colbert got the boot. He also shared a New York Post cover that read, 'No wonder he was canned, 'The Left Show With Stephen Colbert.''
More from Variety
David Letterman Blasts CBS and Skydance on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert' Cancellation: 'This Is Pure Cowardice'
Stephen Colbert Hails 'South Park' Premiere's Naked Trump as 'Important Message of Hope for Our Times'
LISTEN: 'Saiyaara' Shines Bright for Bollywood; 'Superman' Hangs Tough in Week 2; Stephen Colbert Fallout
'This is so damning,' Morgan wrote. 'Most of America's biggest late-night hosts have become nothing more than hyper-partisan activist hacks for the Democrats – a party that's rarely been more unpopular. No wonder Colbert got canned. More will follow.'
Morgan is not the only television authority to speak out on Colbert's cancellation. Also on Sunday, former 'Tonight Show' host Jay Leno said late-night frontmen too often alienate part of their audience by 'cozying up' to one political party.
'I love political humor, don't get me wrong. But it's just what happens when people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' Leno said in an interview with David Trulio, president and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. 'Why shoot for just half an audience all the time? You know, why not try to get the whole. I mean, I like to bring people into the big picture.'
It was announced on July 17 that the entire 'Late Show,' not just Colbert's iteration, would come to a close after the next TV season. CBS cited the move as a 'financial decision,' but some have wondered if it was to appease Donald Trump's FCC amid a pending merger between CBS' parent company, Paramount, and Skydance.
Best of Variety
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Final Emmy Predictions: Talk Series and Scripted Variety - New Blood Looks to Tackle Late Night Staples
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does this look like a real woman? AI Vogue model raises concerns about beauty standards
There's a new supermodel in town. She's striking, stylish... and not real. In August's print edition of Vogue, a Guess advert features a flawless blonde model showing off a striped maxi dress and a floral playsuit from the brand's summer collection. In small print in one corner, the ad reveals that she was created using AI. While Vogue says the AI model was not an editorial decision, it is the first time an AI-generated person has featured in the magazine. The advert has been met with controversy and raises questions about what this means for real models who have fought for greater diversity, and for consumers - particularly young people - already struggling with unrealistic beauty standards. Seraphinne Vallora is the company behind Guess's controversial advert. Its founders, Valentina Gonzalez and Andreea Petrescu, tell the BBC they were approached by Guess's co-founder, Paul Marciano, on Instagram and were asked to create an AI model as part of the brand's summer campaign. "We created 10 draft models for him and he selected one brunette woman and one blonde that we went ahead and developed further," Gonzalez says. She explains there's often a misconception that AI image generation is simple, saying it is actually a complex process. The company has five employees who create AI models, and it can take up to a month from idea inception to the completed product. The pair say they charge anywhere up to low six figures for a client like Guess. 'Disheartening' But Felicity Hayward, a plus-size model who has been in the industry for more than a decade, says using AI models in fashion campaigns "feels lazy and cheap". "Either Guess is doing this to create a talking point and get free publicity or they want to cut costs and don't think about the implications of that." She describes Vogue's decision to include the advert as "very disheartening and quite scary", and worries it could undermine years of work towards more diversity in the industry. The fashion world was making real progress to be more inclusive in the 2010s - the decade saw Valentina Sampaio become the first openly trans model to walk for Victoria's Secret, Halima Aden was the first hijab-wearing model in global campaigns, and brands like Savage x Fenty featured plus-size models on the runway. But in recent years, Hayward believes, the industry has slipped backwards because "these people are just not getting booked any more". And the use of AI models is "another kick in the teeth, and one that will disproportionately affect plus-size models", she warns. Gonzalez and Petrescu are adamant they don't reinforce narrow beauty standards. "We don't create unattainable looks - actually the AI model for Guess looks quite realistic," Petrescu says. "Ultimately, all adverts are created to look perfect and usually have supermodels in, so what we are doing is no different." The pair admit the AI images on their company's Instagram page are lacking in diversity and promote unrealistic beauty standards. They say they have tried to be more inclusive, but it's the users who don't engage much with those posts. "We've posted AI images of women with different skin tones, but people do not respond to them - we don't get any traction or likes," Gonzalez tells the BBC. "At the end of the day, we are a business and use images on Instagram that will create a conversation and bring us clients." The company is yet to experiment with creating plus-size women, claiming "the technology is not advanced enough for that". An ad campaign by Dove in 2024 was designed to highlight the biases in AI. In the advert, an image generator is asked to create the most beautiful woman in the world and produces virtually indistinguishable women who are young, thin and white, with blonde hair and blue eyes. The images generated look similar to the Guess AI model. Hayward worries that seeing these unattainable images could have an impact on people's mental health and negatively affect their body image. Concern around unrealistic beauty standards and the damaging effects they can have is nothing new. But unlike traditional airbrushing, which at least began with a real person, these AI models are digitally created to look perfect, free from human flaws, inconsistencies or uniqueness. While some high-profile figures such as Ashley Graham, Jameela Jamil and Bella Thorne have spoken out against image editing and refuse to have their pictures Photoshopped, the use of AI sidesteps such conversations entirely. Vogue's decision to include an AI-generated advert has caused a stir on social media, with one user on X writing: "Wow! As if the beauty expectations weren't unrealistic enough, here comes AI to make them impossible. Even models can't compete." Vanessa Longley, CEO of eating disorder charity Beat, tells the BBC the advert is "worrying". "If people are exposed to images of unrealistic bodies, it can affect their thoughts about their own body, and poor body image increases the risk of developing an eating disorder," she says. 'Exceptionally problematic' Adding to the issue is the lack of transparency - it is not a legal requirement to label AI-generated content in the UK. While Guess labelled its advert as AI-generated, the disclaimer is small and subtle. Readers may overlook it and, at a glance, the image appears entirely lifelike. Sinead Bovell, a former model and now tech entrepreneur, wrote an article for Vogue five years ago about the risks of AI replacing modelling. She tells the BBC that not labelling AI content clearly is "exceptionally problematic" because it could have a detrimental impact on people's mental health. "Beauty standards are already being influenced by AI. There are young girls getting plastic surgery to look like a face in a filter – and now we see people who are entirely artificial," she says. Aside from the impact AI models could have on a consumer, especially if unlabelled, what about the impact of this technology on those working in the fashion industry? Sara Ziff is a former model and founder of Model Alliance, an organisation that aims to advance workers' rights in the fashion industry. She says Guess's AI campaign is "less about innovation and more about desperation and need to cut costs". More broadly, the former model thinks AI in the fashion industry is not inherently exploitative, but can often come at the expense of the people who bring it to life because there are many more staff involved in a photoshoot than just the model and the photographer. "AI can positively impact the industry, but there need to be meaningful protections for workers," she explains. 'Supplement not replace' Seraphinne Vallora rejects the notion that it is putting people out of work, and says its pioneering technology "is supplementary and not meant to replace models". "We're offering companies another choice in how they market a product," Petrescu explains. The pair add that they have created jobs with their company, and part of the process of creating AI models requires them to hire a real model and photographer to see how the product looks on a person in real life. However, its website lists one of the benefits of working with them as being cost-efficient because it "eliminates the need for expensive set-ups, MUA artists, venue rentals, stage setting, photographers, travel expenses, hiring models". Vogue has come under fire for including the advert in its print edition, with one person on X saying the fashion magazine had "lost credibility". Bovell says the magazine is "seen as the supreme court of the fashion industry", so allowing the AI advert to run means they are "in some way ruling it as acceptable". The BBC approached Vogue and Guess for comment. Vogue said it was an advert, not an editorial decision, but declined to respond further. So, what does the future of the modelling industry look like? Gonzalez and Petrescu believe that as their technology improves, they will be even more in demand by brands looking to do things differently. Bovell thinks there will be more AI-generated models in the future, but "we aren't headed to a future where every model is created by AI". She sees positives in the development of AI in the industry - predicting that anybody could "start to see ourselves as the fashion models" because we will be able to create a personal AI avatar to see how clothes look and fit. However, she adds that we may get to the stage of "society opting out, and not being interested in AI models because it's so unattainable and we know it's not real". More Weekend Picks The procedures driving UK's cosmetic surgery rise Women share their bittersweet experience after taking weight-loss drugs Can LED face masks transform your skin? Here's what the experts say Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump looms large over a Fed likely to again defy his call for cuts
President Trump will loom large over the Federal Reserve's policy meeting this week, even if the central bank does what the market expects and keeps interest rates on hold. Trump and other top White House officials have been hammering Fed Chair Jerome Powell for months over his wait-and-see rate stance and his insistence that more time is needed to assess how the president's tariffs will affect the path of inflation. The president took that message directly to the Fed last Thursday as he toured a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters and confronted Powell in person while the two argued in front of reporters over the true costs of the project. "I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates have to come down," the president told reporters. Traders widely expect the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee to defy Trump and once again keep rates unchanged this Wednesday, as they have for every other meeting so far in 2025. The market expects the first cut of 2025 to happen on Sept. 17, the third-to-last meeting of the year. But at least two of Powell's colleagues are warming to Trump's near-term rate cut call, which could produce some disagreement this week behind closed doors in Washington. One Fed governor, Christoper Waller, has already hinted that he may publicly dissent Wednesday if his colleagues vote to keep rates unchanged. His opinion is that any inflation from Trump's tariffs will prove to be temporary, and he's concerned that the labor market may soon worsen. But many other Fed officials have backed Powell in his view that more time is needed to assess the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation. They also note that the labor market is holding up, removing any urgency to act in the way that Trump wants. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments "This is a campaign of undermining the chairman's credibility and really trying to undermine his public support in the face of what I think is the real objective, and that is to get a lower rate environment in place," former Kansas City Fed president Esther George said. A Powell press conference following the meeting on Wednesday gives the Fed chair a new chance to respond to the White House's escalating pressure campaign and mounting questions about the $2.5 billion renovation of two Fed buildings along the National Mall. Trump considered firing Powell in recent weeks but has now appeared to back away from doing so, telling reporters this past week that "he is going to be out pretty soon anyway" — a reference to the fact that Powell's term as chair is up in May. While touring the Fed's construction site on Thursday, Trump said of firing Powell: "To do that is a big move, and I just don't think it's necessary." Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? New headaches But that doesn't mean the White House is going to let up on Powell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this past week called for a review of the central bank's $2.5 billion project and an "exhaustive internal review' of its non-monetary policy operations. He argued that "significant mission creep and institutional growth have taken the Fed into areas that potentially jeopardize the independence of its core monetary policy mission." The Fed also got another new headache last week when a money manager — and Trump ally who recently served as an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency — filed a lawsuit arguing that the central bank is violating a 1976 federal law by keeping its policy meetings behind closed doors. That money manager, Azoria Capital, is asking for a Washington, D.C., federal court to issue a temporary restraining order compelling the FOMC to open its deliberations to the public this week. Some on Capitol Hill are also getting louder about more scrutiny of the Fed. Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, a subcommittee chair on the House Financial Services Committee, is reportedly moving forward with a congressional investigation of the Fed, according to PunchBowl News, even as many of his Senate colleagues have shied away from that idea. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, another Trump ally, formally requested that the DOJ investigate Powell for perjury over June comments about the renovations, although that is seen as a long shot at best. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors last week that he is "disenchanted" with Powell and is even open to modifying the 1913 act that created the Fed. That would be a major change, but it is not expected to come before Congress in the near term, as the House of Representatives went home Wednesday evening for a recess that is scheduled to last for the rest of the summer. Powell has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to leave as chair until his term is up, that his removal is "not permitted by law," and that he was honest and transparent about the Fed's construction project while testifying before Senate lawmakers on June 25. In a July 17 letter to White House budget director Russ Vought, Powell wrote that "we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources" and offered a point-by-point response to Vought's concerns about cost overruns and certain design elements. Read more: What experts say about the possibility of additional rate cuts 'I do think it's damaging' Trump and his allies have taken to several new lines of attack against Powell, even beyond the building renovation, as they argue for rates to be as many as three percentage points lower. They cite what they predict will be savings on US debt if the rate is lower, as well as how a lower rate would make borrowing for a home less expensive in the US. Trump has even hinted that he has more than just Powell to blame for the fact that rates have remained unchanged since he took office. "The Board should act, but they don't have the Courage to do so!" Trump wrote on his social media platform this past week, referring to the larger Fed Board of Governors on which Powell serves. StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance that he expects Trump's attacks to eventually extend to the regional Fed presidents based around the country. They have rotating positions on the Fed body that makes the final call on rates. The president does not appoint the regional Fed bosses, who are instead chosen by banks in those Fed districts. One of them, Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee, defended Powell in a July 18 interview with Yahoo Finance, calling the Fed chair a "totally honorable guy." He also expressed concerns about Fed independence. "It pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." George, the former Kansas City Fed president, said of the president's pressure campaign targeting building renovations: "I do think it's damaging." "It's when we undermine institutions and create suspicion in the public that something is wrong here, I think credibility suffers," she said. "This is a time when the Fed needs its independence," George added. "It is a time when, yes, lower rates would help the federal government, but we know countries that have gone down that path, and we know in this country going down that path does not produce good outcomes in the long term." Last Thursday, though, Trump sounded confident during his tour of the Fed's headquarters that Powell would see things his way. "I think he's going to do the right thing,' the president said. "Everybody knows what the right thing is.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
