CBS to end Stephen Colbert's ‘The Late Show' in May 2026 after comedian blasts Trump settlement
CBS said in a statement the cancellation was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night," and was "not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at (parent company) Paramount."
"Next year will be our last season," the host announced on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on Thursday to boos and shouts of disbelief. "The network will be ending the show in May (2026)."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 minutes ago
- First Post
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines read more CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.'
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
INDIA bloc to corner Centre over Operation Sindoor, Bihar SIR , Trump's ‘ceasefire' claim
NEW DELHI: Ahead of the Monsoon session of Parliament, leaders of 24 Opposition parties came together on Saturday evening and vowed to corner the NDA government on a number of key issues, including the recent Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor, the special intensive revision (SIR) of Bihar electoral rolls and US President Donald Trump's repeated claims of brokering a 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan. The virtual meeting was attended by several senior leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, parliamentary party leader Sonia Gandhi, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, NCP (SP) supremo Sharad Pawar, Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thakarey, TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee, J&K CM Omar Abdullah and Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren, Tejashwi Yadav (RJD), Ram Gopal Yadav (SP), Tiruchi Siva (DMK) M A Baby of CPI(M), D Raja (CPI), and CPI(ML)'s Dipankar Bhattacharya. Briefing reporters, Congress' deputy leader in Rajya Sabha Pramod Tiwari said though several issues came up in the course of the meeting, the bloc has unanimously decided to focus on eight key issues. The leaders expressed grave concern over the government's failure in bringing the terrorists behind the Pahalgam attack to justice and its 'silence' on repeated claims made by US President Donald Trump in brokering a 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan, Tiwari said. The leaders also deliberated on the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar that 'threatens the voting rights of people', he said. 'There is an undeclared Emergency that has been imposed and voting rights are being snatched away.' Tiwari said the opposition parties would expect the Prime Minister to be present in Parliament and respond to the issues raised in the House, asserting that, 'Parliament is more important than travelling abroad'. Several parties raised the issue of 'atrocities' against SC, ST, women and minorities, inflation, farmers' distress and the delimitation excercise. According to sources, Rahul Gandhi spoke about the Pahalgam attack and Modi government's foreign policy failure.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
US Congressman says $21mn USAID for voter turnout in India never existed, refutes Trump's claim
Senior US Congressman Gregory Meeks has refuted Donald Trump's claim that $21 million in US aid was given to boost voter turnout in India, calling it completely false and saying such a grant 'never existed.' read more US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi shake hands as they attend a joint press conference at the White House in Washington, on, February 13. Reuters Senior US Congressman Gregory Meeks on Saturday dismissed President Donald Trump's claim that the American government had provided $21 million through USAID to boost voter turnout in India, saying that it 'never existed.' 'The President claimed there was a wasteful $21 million grant to India. That grant never existed,' said Meeks, a Democrat and the top-ranking opposition member on the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee. Earlier this year, Trump repeatedly alleged that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated $21 million to support voter turnout in India. 'We're giving $21 million for voter turnout in India… What about us? I want voter turnout too,' Trump said, implying the funds were meant to influence India's elections. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The claim triggered a political storm in India, prompting a response from the Ministry of External Affairs. 'We have seen media reports regarding the alleged allocation of US funds for election-related activities in India. This is deeply troubling, and all relevant government agencies are examining the matter. India takes its sovereignty and electoral integrity very seriously,' said ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also voiced concern, saying, 'It's worrisome. If there's something to it, the country should know. India's elections are for Indians—we have zero tolerance for any foreign interference.' However, even at the time, there was no clear evidence that such a grant had been given to any Indian organisation. US media later reported that the $21 million was actually designated for Bangladesh, which was also preparing for national elections—not for India.
