CBS cancels ‘Late Show' after Colbert criticises Trump settlement
Paramount is meanwhile seeking to close its $8 billion merger with the entertainment company Skydance, which needs federal Government approval.
Colbert said on Thursday the cancellation was not just the end of his show but the end of the decades-old 'Late Show' franchise, which has been broadcast continuously on CBS since 1993 and was previously hosted by David Letterman.
'I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away,' Colbert said.
Trump celebrated the cancellation, writing on his Truth Social platform, 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings.'
Trump's political opponents and other critics drew attention to the timing of the decision.
'CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump -- a deal that looks like bribery,' Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said on social media platform X.
'America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons,' Warren said.
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, who was a guest on Colbert's show on Thursday, said: 'If Paramount and CBS ended the 'Late Show' for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.'
The Writers Guild of America called on the New York attorney general to investigate whether the move by CBS was intended to improperly curry favour with Trump.
The cancellation is a financial decision, not related to show performance. Photo / Getty Images
'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 cancelation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favour with the Trump Administration as the company looks for merger approval,' it said in a statement.
Jimmy Fallon, host of NBC's 'The Tonight Show' and one of Colbert's rivals, posted on Instagram that 'I'm just as shocked as everyone'.
'I really thought I'd ride this out with him for years to come,' wrote Fallon, whom Trump had earlier referred to as 'the Moron on NBC who ruined the once great Tonight Show'.
Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, whose program airs on ABC, chimed in: 'Love you Stephen.'
CBS said in its Thursday statement it was 'proud that Stephen called CBS home'.
'He and the broadcast will be remembered in the pantheon of greats that graced late night television,' its statement said.
Colbert, once a regular on Comedy Central, made use of humour in his incisive political commentary and succeeded Letterman as the host of 'The Late Show' in 2015.
The late-night television landscape has long been dominated by satirical comedy shows that blend entertainment with political commentary.
For decades, these programmes have served as television touchstones, with hosts like Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Letterman and – more recently – Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel shaping public discourse through humour and celebrity interviews.
-Agence France-Presse
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium
US President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins that was considered offensive to Native Americans. Trump also said on Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a "big clamouring for this" as well. The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be "much more valuable" if it restored its old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,'' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump said on his social media site. ADVERTISEMENT His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The team announced it would drop the Redskins name and the Indian head logo in 2020 during a broader reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality. The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades. Trump's ability to hold up the deal remains to be seen. President Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia. The provision was part of a short-term spending bill passed by Congress in December. While DC residents elect a mayor, a city council and commissioners to run day-to-day operations, Congress maintains control of the city's budget. Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment following Trump's statement. The Washington team started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. The Cleveland Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. ADVERTISEMENT "We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us," he said. Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out "Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of the national discussions about logos and names considered racist. Trump posted Sunday afternoon that "The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!" Matt Dolan, the son of the late Larry Dolan, no longer has a role with the Guardians. He ran the team's charity endeavours until 2016. Matt Dolan was a candidate in the Ohio US Senate elections in 2022 and 2024 but lost. Washington and Cleveland had another thing in common — David Blitzer was a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and held a minority stake in the Guardians.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Pacific Islands push hard as International Court of Justice set to deliver landmark climate ruling
'It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,' said Prasad. But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. 'Acts and omissions' The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. Firstly, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Secondly, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?' The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. 'David Vs Goliath' In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions – the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. Advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings. Photo / Getty Images 'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. 'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change'. Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime'. Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. 'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji. The United States, under President Donald Trump, has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. 'Watery graves' But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. 'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. 'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least US$300 billion ($504 billion) a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. 'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. 'Our people ... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. 'They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.' -Agence France-Presse
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
Other recent surveys find significant dissatisfaction with Trump's handling of the economy. When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype. Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult. Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base. He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency. For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base. The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration. Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people. She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records. It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies. Trump's successes This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes. Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill. The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers. The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme. Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending. This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans. That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war. Immigration and raids Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point. His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts. All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion. The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively. Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year. Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%. In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today. The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration. In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving. The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration. Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative. The economy and tariffs Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters. In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration. Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially. Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy. Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election. Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance. An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved. A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving. In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference. A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving. Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially. Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike. There's history to buttress those concerns. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise. Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions. He plays a dominant role in the world. But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.
