What Stephen Colbert's cancellation says about the future of TV
On Thursday, Colbert shocked his studio audience, social media and Hollywood with the news that the long-running late night talk show will end in May. Colbert, who has hosted 'The Late Show' since taking over from David Letterman 10 years ago, will not be replaced. The franchise that has long led its direct broadcast competition will be no more.
Commentators immediately rushed to interpret the broader meaning of the decision. At best, it was seen as the latest sign that the entire genre of late night talk programming — a bedrock of broadcasting since the 1950s — is doomed, along with the rest of entertainment programming on linear TV other than sports and live events. Others floated more nefarious explanations.
You didn't have to be an Epstein files conspiracy theorist to wonder if there were political motivations behind the move. Only days before the announcement, Colbert had slammed his parent company, Paramount Global, for paying $16 million to settle Trump's lawsuit over CBS News' edits to a '60 Minutes' Kamala Harris interview — a legal salvo that experts had called frivolous.
He described the settlement as a 'big fat bribe,' referencing the fact that Paramount is desperately awaiting Federal Communications Commission approval, under Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr, for its long-pending $8-billion merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media. Colbert learned of the cancellation decision Wednesday and informed his audience on Thursday.
To quote another classic Paramount property, 'The Naked Gun,' which is being rebooted: 'Please disperse. Nothing to see here.' The Writers Guild of America swiftly weighed in, calling for an investigation and warning that the beleaguered company was 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration.' Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised similar concerns.
Paramount co-Chief Executive George Cheeks and CBS leaders Amy Reisenbach and David Stapf said in a statement last week that shuttering 'The Late Show' was 'purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' and had nothing to do with the show's performance or anything going on at Paramount.
Keith Olbermann, never one to accept corporate spin at face value, raised an interesting point. 'Yes, I get this is heresy,' he wrote on X. 'But, no, CBS didn't cancel Colbert primarily to appease Trump. One incontrovertible fact confirms this: you silence him by … keeping him on TV as an uncontrollable lame duck for 10 months?'
Indeed, Colbert was back on the air Monday night taking Trump to task. 'Go f— yourself,' Colbert said to the camera at one point in reference to the president.
Jon Stewart's reaction did not disappoint on Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show,' where he delivered a searing, f-bomb-filled monologue against his network's parent company. 'I don't think the answer can be found in some smoking gun email,' Stewart said of 'The Late Show's' demise. 'I think the answer is in the fear and pre-compliance that is gripping all of American institutions at this very moment.'
Notably, Colbert rose to fame on 'The Daily Show,' reporting in character as an over-the-top conservative commentator before launching 'The Colbert Report' on Comedy Central. (This episode, incidentally, also featured an interview with Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, who disclosed that he plans to take the paper public in the next year.)
Paramount's explanation holds some water for one simple reason: The business of late night talk is in decline. Ratings and ad revenue are down, and with highly paid hosts, these shows are not cheap.
Colbert remains the biggest draw in his time slot, averaging 1.9 million viewers, according to Nielsen, but he commands the largest slice of a shrinking pie. As my colleague Stephen Battaglio reported, 'The Late Show' is said to be losing tens of millions of dollars a year as younger viewers flee. Since 2022, the show has lost 20% of its audience in the advertiser-coveted 18-to-49 age group, according to Nielsen.
Ad revenue for 'The Late Show' in 2024 was $57.7 million, according to iSpot.tv, down from $75.7 million in 2022. NBC's 'The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon' and ABC's 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' have also slipped. As a result, late night shows have been slashing costs. NBC cut Fallon's show to four nights a week last year, while 'Late Night With Seth Meyers' eliminated its live band. Two years ago, CBS canceled 'The Late Late Show' hosted by James Corden.
One problem: Late night shows no longer serve the role they once did — especially for generations that grew up with social media and don't subscribe to TV packages. Waiting until 11:30 p.m. to hear the hot takes on the day's news is antiquated when political satire and commentary are now freely available and on demand through podcasts, TikTok, YouTube and X.
Celebrities have ways to promote their movies other than by hitting the desk-and-couch interview circuit. And if the goal is to give viewers a few chuckles before bed, there are endless Instagram accounts to choose from. The late night hosts' focus on Trump as comedic fodder surely narrowed their appeal over time as well. Over on Fox News, 'Gutfeld!' draws about 3 million viewers a night.
Networks have tried to adapt by chopping up their shows into clips for online consumption, but that strategy doesn't bring in the same advertising revenue, and it gives audiences even less reason to watch the full broadcast later.
Analyst Rich Greenfield, writing in a LightShed Partners blog post, said Colbert's impending departure is just the 'tip of the iceberg.'
'While there is shock and awe to the cancellation of 'The Late Show' on CBS, the real question is: why is any legacy media company still investing in original programming for linear TV outside of sports and news?' he wrote.
One thing remains certain: Even if Ellison had no part in 'The Late Show's' cancellation, his deal to take over the company looms large over management's decisions. Ellison and RedBird are expected to continue slashing costs as linear TV erodes and the film business settles into its new normal post-COVID.
The company has been deep in negotiations with 'South Park' creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker over their rich overall deal and streaming rights for the show.
On Monday, The Times reported that Paramount had reached a deal with the 'South Park' guys that values the show's streaming rights at about $1.5 billion over five years.
Ellison's team had been reluctant to overpay for a series now entering its 27th season, which led to tensions. That may foreshadow how Ellison will approach relationships with the company's top talent. Expect Paramount to continue trimming traditional TV programming in favor of its streaming service, Paramount+.
The typical weekday late night format has never truly worked on subscription-based platforms, though Netflix's more experimental 'Everybody's Live with John Mulaney' has its fans. Somebody, somewhere, will eventually figure it out.
As with most things in Hollywood these days, streaming will have the last laugh.
Netflix kept on winning. The streamer last week reported quarterly revenue that rose 16% to $11.1 billion, while the company's net income increased 46% to $3.1 billion compared with a year earlier, beating Wall Street expectations.
The strong quarter was due to a robust lineup of shows (including Season 3 of 'Squid Game'), price hikes and increased advertising sales. The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company raised its full-year guidance.
In terms of viewership, Netflix is on a solid run. In June, the service accounted for 8.3% of total TV usage, according to Nielsen, its greatest share since January. It was the third most-watched distributor of the month for the first time, coming in behind Disney (10%) and a still-growing YouTube (12.8%).
Netflix viewership rose 13.5% compared with May, thanks to popular new shows and an influx of young viewers on summer break. Engagement is critical for Netflix. More time spent watching means fewer cancellations and increased appeal for advertisers.
The company's lineup for the rest of the year has a number of highlights, including 'Wednesday' Season 2, 'Stranger Things' Season 5 and Christmas Day NFL games.
Peacock is getting more expensive.
Beginning July 23, NBCUniversal's Peacock Premium will cost $10.99 a month, up $3 from the current $7.99 fee. The Premium Plus option will jump to $16.99 a month, up from $13.99.
Customers can pay $109.99 for an annual plan of Peacock Premium, or $169.99 a year for its Premium Plus option.
NBCUniversal is joining rivals by hiking prices in order to reach profitability. The company needs to show streaming profits as it prepares to spin off its mature but still money-making cable TV networks.
Watch: I'm enjoying Lena Dunham's 'Too Much,' starring Megan Stalter of 'Hacks.' Here's Robert Lloyd's review.
Read: The Biggest K-Pop Band to Top the Charts Isn't Even Real.
Also: Bros, Budweisers, and Divorced Dads: Butt Rock Is Back, Baby
Listen: Tyler the Creator — 'Stop Playing With Me.'
Listen: Drain — 'Stealing Happiness From Tomorrow.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
20 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
