Roy Wood Jr. Predicts Stephen Colbert Will Become Leading Anti-Trump Voice On YouTube Next Year
That was the verdict of Roy Wood Jr., the host of CNN's Have I Got News For You, when considering how the soon-to-depart CBS late night presenter could use platforms like YouTube to make his anti-Trump voice heard extremely loudly soon.
More from Deadline
Trump White House Joins TikTok As Ban Deadline Looms; "I Am Your Voice," POTUS Tells Followers
Paramount UK Chief Ben Frow Says Channel 5 Won't Be Sold After Skydance Merger
Shonda Rhimes On Paramount & Disney Bowing To Trump: "It Feels There's Self-Censoring Going On"
'When he's running rampant on YouTube like Don Lemon that will create a bigger issue for this administration in 2026 if he builds an audience,' added Wood Jr. 'It will be a very different landscape if he continues to run off [after leaving CBS]. If [the Trump administration] were smart they would leave us alone and let us tell our jokes.'
Wood Jr. was speaking in the wake of Colbert's show being canceled, with the presenter set to exit next May. Paramount has reiterated repeatedly that the move is a financial one but many consider it to be influenced by Trump, and the POTUS has loudly celebrated the decision. This has all taken place as the Paramount-Skydance merger has gone through and after Paramount settled with Trump over a questionable lawsuit targeting 60 Minutes.
Wood Jr. said CNN is holding firm amid Trump's push against the media. One of the ways in which it is doing this, he added, is by having Conservative voices speak on the network. NBC, meanwhile, invited Fox Conservative commentator Greg Gutfeld onto the Jimmy Fallon show recently.
'This would be like if Piers Morgan went on Graham Norton,' joked Wood Jr., flagging a British example to the audience at Edinburgh.
In this way, Wood Jr. said traditional networks can try and regain some audience trust in the mainstream media,
Sadly, however, he went on to discuss how American journalists are not willing to sacrifice their jobs in order to make a political point.
'I don't know if there are enough American journalists who care enough about the totality of our society to sacrifice their career,' he added. 'Because then the question becomes, 'How many journalists can you fire until you find a compliant one?'.'
Wood Jr. was speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival on the same day as the likes of Shonda Rhimes and MacTaggart lecturer James Harding.
Best of Deadline
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Everything We Know About 'The Boys' Prequel Series 'Vought Rising' So Far
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
The era of the public apology is ending
The age of the public apology is over, as more brands, public figures and companies dig in their heels amid backlash or dodge accountability amid operational snafus. Why it matters: This is a major shift in communication style and reflects the current zeitgeist. State of play: American Eagle doubled down on its controversial ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, women's dating advice app Tea didn't apologize after user data was hacked and leaked, and Crowdstrike left out the "sorry" initially when its global outage took out airlines and more last year. While phony statements from Astronomer executives littered the internet, the executives have yet to issue public apologies following the recent kiss cam scandal. Replit CEO Amjad Masad had choice words for X users who were offended by his stance on the Gaza conflict, writing, "I've been reflecting and going back and forth on how to handle this. I finally realized that I must, from the bottom of my heart, apologize to — absolutely nobody." Zoom out: This isn't happening in a vacuum, according to communication experts — the no-apology, hardline stance is a response to desensitized audiences, political polarization and cancel culture fatigue. "People are simply tired of the outrage cycles and cancellation campaigns," crisis communications expert Molly McPherson says. "And the public is splitting because they don't want to jump on someone else's grievance bandwagon." Plus, there's no guarantee the apology will placate people, as it may be seen as a weakness to some or insufficient to others. The rapid pace of the news cycle is another major consideration. Controversy could quickly blow over without the need for a public apology, which could threaten to drive more coverage and conversation. What they're saying: Instead of making sweeping public apologies, some are opting for more targeted outreach, says Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communications at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Leaders are reconsidering whether it's the right tool, and we're watching companies experiment here, defending their decision, ignoring the noise or addressing constituencies privately instead of making a public spectacle," he adds. Context: An apology signals a reset. It is an acknowledgement that something went wrong and will be corrected. However, if a change in strategy or action isn't taken, then apologizing looks inauthentic and can worsen the backlash. "Not every crisis demands a loud response ... but it's almost as if the more personal the crisis, the more personal the response needs to be," McPherson says. Yes, but: American consumers are still boycotting brands that don't align with their values. 1 in 4 Americans report boycotting a brand, with Democrats twice as likely to boycott as Republicans, a recent Ipsos survey found. The bottom line: Taking accountability and being transparent can build trust in place of an apology.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Navarro expects no extension for 50 percents tariffs on India for buying Russian oil
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said on Thursday that he doesn't expect President Trump to extend the timeline on doubling tariffs on India as a penalty for buying Russian oil beyond next week. Trump is set to hit India on Aug. 27 with a 50 percent tariff, which includes a 25 percent penalty for the oil purchases that Trump has argued are helping fuel Moscow war efforts in Ukraine. 'I see that taking place. India doesn't appear to want to recognize its role in the bloodshed. It simply doesn't,' Navarro told reporters at the White House. 'They don't need oil— it's a refining profiteering scheme,' he added. 'I love India. Look, [President] Modi is a great leader. But please, please India, like, look at what is, what your role here is in the global economy and good here. It's like, what you're doing right now is not creating peace, it's perpetuating the war.' Navarro outlined that India will be hit with 25 percent 'because they cheat us on trade' and 25 percent because of the oil purchases. The top trade adviser wrote in an op-ed in the Financial Times earlier this month that 'India's dependence on Russian crude is opportunistic and deeply corrosive of the world's efforts to isolate Putin's war economy.' Trump is in the midst of setting up a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to talk face-to-face about ending the war. But, Russia is sending signals that it intends to slow-walk a deal on Ukraine and tamping down any progress made at a summit at the White House earlier this week where Trump met with seven European leaders and Zelensky.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariffs are a money launderer's best friend
U.S. trade policy is now synonymous with tariff policy. President Trump's latest round of higher taxes on imports went into effect on Aug. 7, and the 40 countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit now face a 15 percent rate. Some will be hit with even steeper rates — Brazil, for one, faces a 50 percent total tariff. While trade and tariffs have been a dominant economic policy issue since Trump took office in January, one related domain has been completely overlooked: the connection between high tariffs and trade-based money laundering, which disguises the proceeds of crime through the use of trade transactions in an attempt to legitimize their illicit origins. Some sources estimate that trade-based money laundering could account for as much as $1.6 trillion of the total amount laundered globally each year. In a study cited by the Financial Action Task Force, trade mis-invoicing accounted for roughly 80 percent of illicit financial flows in developing countries. The relationship between tariffs and money laundering represents one of the most complex challenges facing global trade and financial systems today. As tariff rates increase, so too does the incentive for both legitimate businesses and criminal organizations to engage in customs fraud and trade-based money laundering. This symbiotic relationship creates a dual threat: higher tariffs directly incentivize evasion schemes, while these same schemes provide convenient vehicles for laundering illicit proceeds from other criminal activities. Simply stated, the fundamental relationship between tariffs and financial crime is straightforward: High tariffs create greater incentives to cheat. The methods employed to evade tariffs often mirror traditional money laundering techniques, creating overlapping areas of criminal activity. These include over- and under-invoicing, whereby importers systematically misrepresent the value of goods to reduce duty payments. The difference between actual and declared values is often settled through informal channels, facilitating money laundering. Another is country-of-origin fraud, where products manufactured in high-tariff countries are falsely declared as originating from lower-tariff jurisdictions. This frequently involves forged certificates of origin and collusion with overseas suppliers. Transshipment schemes are another technique, as goods are routed through third-country intermediate ports with minor repackaging or processing to disguise their true origin. Chinese steel, aluminum and other products commonly transit through countries such as Oman, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam before reaching U.S. markets. Finally, false description schemes are employed as a method whereby high-value items are deliberately misclassified as lower-value goods to reduce scrutiny and tariff liability. For example, electronics might be declared as 'plastic components' to avoid detection. Drug trafficking organizations from Latin America are prone to use a type of money laundering scheme known as the Black Market Peso Exchange to launder funds. Such schemes involve merchants who — wittingly or not — accept payment in illicitly derived funds, often from third parties to a trade transaction, for exports of goods. In carrying out such schemes, criminal and terrorist organizations use various goods, including precious metals and automobiles. As an example of tariff-based money laundering, in May 2023, a federal judge sentenced a co-owner of Woody Toys, Inc. to 14 months in custody for participating in a scheme that laundered approximately $3 million for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers. The plot involved foreign toy retailers using Colombian and Mexican pesos to purchase discounted U.S. dollars from currency brokers, which were then used to buy merchandise from Woody Toys. In terms of enhanced enforcement, the Department of Justice has significantly elevated tariff evasion and trade-based money laundering as priorities. In May, Justice Department Criminal Division head Matthew Galeotti identified 'trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion' as among the 'most urgent' threats facing the country. At the same time, the federal government has increased its deployment of technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence in its money laundering prevention strategies. Effectively fighting trade-based money laundering and tariff fraud requires three critical elements: ongoing collaboration between nations, adequate funding and staffing for enforcement agencies, and advanced technology that can keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminal operations. 'The challenge is significant,' David Schwartz, president and CEO of the Financial International Business Association, told me. 'We must safeguard the global financial system's credibility without hampering the legitimate international commerce that drives our interconnected economy.' The nexus between high tariffs and money laundering demands vigilance and action to confront illicit behavior — the sooner, the better.
