
There's a bigger story behind Colbert's cancellation
On Thursday, CBS announced that it was going to cancel The Late Show With Stephen Colbert after Colbert's contract ends in May 2026. The news comes at a politically fraught moment for CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global. It's also the capper on the long arc of late-night political comedy, a genre Colbert was instrumental in building and which now, finally, appears to be on its last legs.
In a statement, CBS said its decision to end The Late Show — which began with David Letterman as host in 1993 — was 'purely financial.'
'We are proud that Stephen called CBS home,' the CBS statement said. '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.'
Vox Culture
Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
That last line, that The Late Show's cancellation has nothing to do with 'other matters happening at Paramount,' seems directly aimed at tamping down speculation about CBS and Paramount Global's political motivations for cancelling a decades-long fixture of network television.
Paramount Global is currently attempting to merge with Skydance Media, and company leadership has been acting as though they are concerned that President Donald Trump might try to block the merger. Earlier this month, CBS and 60 minutes announced a $16 million settlement in its lawsuit with Trump over the editing of a segment about former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris — an extraordinary concession for a media company in a case that experts agree CBS would have likely won in court. The longtime executive producer of 60 Minutes also resigned earlier this year, citing threats to his journalistic independence.
Days before the cancellation, Colbert said on his show, 'I am offended' by the settlement. 'I don't know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company. But, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help,' he quipped. The payout, he added, was a 'big fat bribe.'
Colbert's ousting feels symbolic, not just of CBS's apparent decision to bow down to Trump, but of the end of late-night political comedy as a genre.
Two days later, reports say, CBS told Colbert they were canceling his show.
The network's stated reason for canceling the show has the sheen of believability. It's true that the late-night ecosystem is struggling. Still, Colbert's show has consistently led the ratings for its time slot. CBS and Paramount Global, The Atlantic contended on Thursday, no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.
On Truth Social, Trump — a frequent target of Colbert's jokes — is celebrating.
'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' Trump posted Friday morning. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.'
Colbert's ousting feels symbolic, not just of CBS's apparent decision to bow down to Trump, but of the end of late-night political comedy as a genre. Sure, John Oliver's Last Week Tonight continues gamely on HBO, but the kind of late-night show that felt urgent and necessary 20 years ago — the stalwart outraged host cracking wise about the foibles of the corrupt federal government and the credulous media ecosystem that enabled it — has been fading for a long time. Now, its moment is coming to a close.
Jon Stewart and the rise of political comedy
The late-night political comedy show as we know it was developed and perfected by The Daily Show under Jon Stewart over the course of the 2000 presidential election. As the question of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush had won the electoral college wended its way through the Supreme Court, The Daily Show took on a central role: Stewart and his colleagues, including Colbert, were the TV personalities best equipped to talk about how fundamentally weird and confusing the whole thing was.
After Bush emerged victorious, The Daily Show became even more crucial. Their skill set was uniquely suited to the Bush years. While the administration took on a pious pose of compassionate conservatism, it was lying to the American people and embroiling the country in an endless foreign war. Stewart and his cohorts knew how to call Bush out on their hypocrisy and be funny about it, too. They were young and edgy, making one of the most exciting shows on television. It felt as if they were telling the truth in a time when no one else was.
Stewart always insisted that he wasn't a real journalist and The Daily Show wasn't a real news show. Nonetheless, a 2007 poll from the Pew Research Center found Stewart tied for fourth place in a list of America's most trusted journalists, along with Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Anderson Cooper. For lots of liberals, especially young ones, Stewart absolutely was a journalist, and so were the comedians he elevated.
In 2005, Colbert developed his own Daily Show spin-off, The Colbert Report. Even more biting than The Daily Show, The Colbert Report saw the host playing a parodic version of Bill O'Reilly, then the biggest star on Fox News. Like O'Reilly, Colbert's character was pompous and swaggering, lapping up his audience's applause and pontificating on 'truthiness' and the American dream. In 2006, he headlined the White House Correspondent's Dinner in character and ripped into Bush directly to his face, in a moment that Vanity Fair would say turned Colbert into a 'folk hero for the left.'
With The Colbert Report an accepted institution, Colbert and Stewart developed a double act. They held a 2010 Rally to Restore Fear and/or Sanity, with Stewart pleading for sanity and Colbert for fear. In retrospect, those years would represent the zenith of their popularity.
Colbert was the first Stewart acolyte to get a Daily Show spin-off, but his wouldn't be the last. John Oliver got his own show in 2014. Samantha Bee got hers in 2015. Hasan Minhaj got his in 2018. The 2010s saw The Daily Show model of news-focused political comedy spread across the landscape of television, no longer a scrappy upstart, but an institution, what we understood as what late-night television was supposed to look like.
They couldn't critique hidebound media institutions for failing to do their jobs anymore, because now they were media institutions.
There were two big problems with all that success. The first was that the Bush years were over. In 2008, Barack Obama became president, and while his administration had plenty of foibles for liberal comics to skewer, the central joke of the hypocrisy of neoconservatism was no longer available to them. The urgency of their comedy, the sense that they were meeting a moment as no one else could, began to fade away.
The second problem was that success meant that The Daily Show brand of comedy was no longer punching exclusively up. They couldn't critique hidebound media institutions for failing to do their jobs anymore, because now they were media institutions. What else could it mean when, in 2015, Colbert took over The Late Show and became the face of CBS's late-night lineup?
How late-night television lost its bite
When Trump won the presidential election in 2016, part of the received wisdom was that this would be great for comedy. Trump, after all, was a joke. He would offer all those Daily Show graduates plenty of fodder for their routines.
Instead, liberal comedy faltered. The skill set they had developed for the Bush years, the ripping away of pious lies to reveal the violent truth below, had no particular effect on a figure as shameless and straightforward as Trump.
One by one, the shows of the Daily Show alums began to topple. Patriot Act With Hasan Minhaj went in 2020. Full Frontal With Samantha Bee left in 2022. On The Daily Show itself, hosted from 2015 to 2022 by Trevor Noah, ratings toppled.
Colbert dropped his character to host The Late Show, but he criticized Trump often and vociferously as himself. All the same, his work didn't feel particularly biting or urgent anymore. Young people, particularly young men, were more likely to find right-wing comedy to be edgy and transgressive.
Yet somehow, with a president this thin-skinned, and a corporate leadership this obsequious, Stephen Colbert has been rendered threatening once again.
'If something was the height of fashion 20 years ago, that almost inversely makes it less likely to seem hip and cool at the moment,' the media critic Matt Sienkiewicz told me in 2022. 'There's a rebelliousness in the way people think of this right-wing comedy, right? Even if it really is regressive and pointing back to old dominant ideas. But it can be branded as being the opposite of Stephen Colbert crying about January 6 during his monologue, which is very much not cool to the teens.'
That's part of what's so striking about Paramount's decision to cancel Colbert's show in an apparent attempt to curry favor with Trump: Colbert's work hasn't felt dangerous in a long time. We're a long way from that 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner, when Colbert delivered his jokes to a tense and scandalized crowd and Bush walked away furious. Colbert is the definition of a mainstream comedian now, and it doesn't seem as though anyone has any illusions that the jokes he cracks in between celebrity glad-handing and crowd work are culturally fundamental.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Paramount gets green light for $8 billion merger. But what is the psychic cost for company?
With this week's FCC approval, the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media is expected to be completed in the coming weeks at a value of $8 billion. The question for the new company is whether the psychic cost is much higher. It has been a particularly rough few months at Paramount-owned CBS, where the settlement of a lawsuit regarding '60 Minutes' and announced end of Stephen Colbert's late-night show has led critics to suggest corporate leaders were bowing to President Donald Trump. Following the Federal Communications Commission approval Thursday, one of the triumvirate of current Paramount leaders, Chris McCarthy, said that he would be leaving the company. McCarthy has been in charge of fading cable properties like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, expected to bear the brunt of an estimated $2 billion in cost cuts identified by Skydance leaders. Skydance head David Ellison is expected to head the new company, and he has identified former NBC Universal executive Jeff Shell as the incoming president. CBS News' trajectory will be scrutinized After the merger's Aug. 7 closing date, the new leaders will be watched most closely for how they deal with CBS News, particularly given the $16 million paid in a settlement of Trump's complaint that last fall's '60 Minutes' interview was edited to make opponent Kamala Harris look good. Two news executives — News CEO Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens — resigned due to their opposition to the deal. The appointment of respected insider Tanya Simon to replace Owens this week was seen as a positive sign by people at '60 Minutes.' Days before the FCC's vote, Paramount agreed to hire an ombudsman at CBS News with the mission of investigating complaints of political bias. 'In all respects, Skydance will ensure that CBS's reporting is fair, unbiased, and fact-based,' Skydance said in a letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. The role of an ombudsman, or public editor, who examines a news outlet's work is often positive — if they are given independence, said Kelly McBride, an ethics expert who has had that role at NPR for five years. 'You really want the person to have loyalty only to their own judgment and the journalistic mission of the organization,' she said. Having the sole mission of examining bias could be problematic, however. To be fair, a journalist's work should be closely studied before making that determination, not judged on the basis of one report or passage, she said. Carr, in an interview with CNBC on Friday, said the role 'should go a long way toward restoring America's trust in media.' Anna Gomez, an FCC commissioner who voted to reject the deal on Thursday, interpreted the arrangement as a way for the government to control journalists. 'They want the news media to report on them in a positive light or in the light that they want,' Gomez told MSNBC. 'So they don't want the media to do their job, which is to hold government to account without fear or favor.' How the merger could ripple out across Paramount properties According to published reports, Ellison has explored purchasing The Free Press, a flourishing news site founded by Bari Weiss perhaps best known for a former NPR editor's study of liberal bias in public broadcasting. An Ellison spokeswoman did not return a message seeking comment on Friday. Colbert's slow-motion firing — he'll work until the end of his contract next May — was described by CBS as a financial decision given late-night television's collapsing economics. Colbert's relentless lampooning of Trump, and his criticism of the '60 Minutes' settlement, led to suspicion of those motives. 'Was this really financial?' comic Jon Stewart wondered. "Or maybe the path of least resistance for your $8 billion merger was killing a show that you know rankled a fragile and vengeful president?' Stewart's profane criticism on his own Paramount-owned show may provide its own test for Skydance. 'The Daily Show' is one of the few original programs left on Comedy Central, and his contract ends later this year. In an odd way, Comedy Central's 'South Park' buttresses CBS' claim that the Colbert decision was financial, not political. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone delivered an episode this week that depicted a naked Trump in bed with the devil. Paramount just signed Parker and Stone to a new $1.5 billion deal that Skydance executives surely cleared; it makes the entire 'South Park' library available for streaming on Paramount+. a platform where Colbert's show doesn't do nearly as well. Figuring out what to do with others at Paramount's cable networks, or even the networks as a whole, will be an early decision for Ellison, son of multibillionaire and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. 'There is a clear opportunity to improve Paramount's growth profile by letting those assets go,' analyst Doug Creutz of TD Securities told investors Friday. 'On the other hand, we suspect the Ellisons did not purchase Paramount in order to break it up for parts.' The merger also brings together the Paramount movie studio with one of its most regular partners. David Ellison has been one of the industry's top investors and producers since founding Skydance in 2006. Ellison has a challenge here, too: Years of uncertainty over its future and modest investment in its movie pipeline has shrunk Paramount's market share to last among the major studios. The Paramount+ streaming service has been a money-loser. To revive Paramount, Ellison will look to revamp its streaming operations, leverage its franchises and try to bolster family content. ___ AP Film Writer Jake Coyle contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and how much of a psychic cost has been extracted. Sign in to access your portfolio


New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Anti-Trump DA Alvin Bragg sure acts like he has something to hide — we're suing to find out
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds potentially hundreds of communications appearing to link his office to senior Biden administration officials and other political actors in connection with his unprecedented criminal prosecution of then-former President Donald Trump. We've asked for those records, and he's not turning them loose. So we're taking him to court. Last September, America First Policy Institute launched a formal investigation into the people and motivations behind Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump. Advertisement Our effort had a simple goal: figuring out whether Bragg's case was a routine legal probe — or lawfare, a politically engineered hit job orchestrated to influence the 2024 election. The charges brought against Trump were extraordinary. Never before has a question of federal campaign-finance law — which the FEC declined to pursue, no less — been morphed into a state-level misdemeanor, already time-barred under New York law, then Frankensteined into a felony by alleging it was committed to conceal some other crime never defined by the prosecution, nor unanimously agreed upon by jury. Advertisement Confusing? That's the point. Bragg's office thrives on obfuscation. Public records should be accessible. Criminal prosecutions should be transparent. This case was neither — and still isn't. We were drawn to investigate because we saw just too many coincidences to ignore. Michael Colangelo, a top DOJ official with a focus on white-collar crime, left his Biden administration post to join Bragg's office just months before Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Advertisement Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Bragg's prosecution, had a history of political donations to Biden and to political groups opposed to Trump, the defendant before him. He was officially 'cautioned' on that by the state ethics board. Merchan's daughter Loren worked on Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign and during Trump's trial served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a progressive political consulting firm hired by the Biden-Harris ticket. It all paints a curious picture: A DA who campaigned on a promise to take down Trump, aided by a Biden DOJ veteran, bringing legally contorted charges before a judge with clear partisan connections. Advertisement If this wasn't coordinated, it's one lucky political pile-up. The American people deserve answers. In pursuit of those answers, and in defense of the public's right to know, AFPI submitted a request to Bragg's office under New York's Freedom of Information Law in September 2024. We sought any records that could shed light on whether political influence or coordination played a role in Bragg's decision-making. Our request was specific, lawfully submitted and directly tied to one of the most consequential legal proceedings in modern American history. Ten months later, no records have been produced. None. Though they apparently exist. Instead of providing transparency, the DA's office has engaged in delay, double-talk and silence. We've asked for a list of responsive documents. They won't give one. Advertisement We've asked which of our specific requests the withheld documents pertain to. They won't say. We know, based on our investigation and his office's limited correspondence with us, that the DA possesses hundreds of records of communications with or about political agents who should have had no influence in a 'routine' prosecution, like Lauren Merchan's Authentic Campaigns. Bragg refuses to explain why the public isn't entitled to see them. There is no legal justification for this blackout. No privilege excuses total stonewalling. Advertisement There is only evasion. It's been nearly a year. The records exist, and the DA cannot explain why they remain secret. That alone should raise alarms. AFPI has now turned to the courts to compel compliance. The law does not permit selective transparency by the Manhattan DA. It does not allow politically sensitive cases to be shielded from scrutiny. Advertisement As the New York Legislature declared when it passed the state's open-records law in 1977, 'The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents leading to determinations is basic to our society.' We agree. Advertisement That's why on July 17, AFPI filed its petition in New York County Superior Court requesting that Bragg's records, whatever they may reveal, be released to the public. The law demands openness, and we intend to see it enforced. Jessica Steinmann is executive general counsel and Jack Casali is an attorney at the Center for Litigation at the America First Policy Institute


Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Dems think they can get ahold of Epstein's birthday book
House Democrats are trying to get their hands on the now-infamous book celebrating Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday after it was suggested the disgraced financier's estate is in possession of it, Axios has learned. Why it matters: As the minority party in Congress, Democrats have been largely toothless in their attempts to investigate President Trump. They believe this is a rare opportunity to obtain concrete information. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is leading the effort, told Axios it would be "very difficult" to obtain the book if it was in the hands of the Department of Justice. "In this case, you literally have a private attorney," said the California Democrat. "A private attorney is much more likely to comply. It's a much easier challenge than going after the administration." Driving the news: Khanna and House Oversight Committee ranking member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) wrote to attorneys for the Epstein estate's executors asking for a "complete, unredacted copy" of the book, according to a copy of their letter obtained by Axios. Citing Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump submitted a poem and drawing for the book, the lawmakers wrote that it may be "essential" for a probe of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein matter. Trump has denied the Wall Street Journal's reporting and sued the outlet for libel. What they're saying: " We write with deep concern regarding potential public corruption, abuse of power, and failures in the federal law enforcement response to the Epstein case," Khanna and Garcia wrote. They argued that members of the Oversight Committee should be permitted to review the book before deposing Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly put it together. "Information gathered from this document may also inform the development of legislative reforms addressing sex trafficking networks, financial regulation, or other critical matters," they added. State of play: Brad Edwards, a lawyer for over 200 of Epstein's victims, said in an MSNBC appearance Thursday, "I know the executors of the estate are in possession of that book." "If somebody simply called" Epstein's executors "and said, 'Give us the book,' they would probably give you the book," Edwards said. "They have attorneys, their attorneys are good people. If they didn't just voluntarily turn over the book out of fear of reprisal, Congress could just issue a subpoena to their attorneys ... they would turn the book over immediately." The three attorneys for Epstein's executors did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Axios. What's next: Khanna and Garcia asked that Epstein's estate turn over the book by August 10. Khanna told Axios: "I will make sure, if we get it, that whatever we do in terms of releasing it is what the victims want, what the victims' attorney wants, and not just trying to score partisan points." "If the victims don't want certain things, I am going to guarantee that the victims are the topmost consideration," he said. "But I do believe that they will want some of it released and once we get it, we can."