Jay Leno criticizes modern late-night comedy for alienating half the audience with partisan politics
The 75-year-old comedian recently sat down for an interview with David Trulio, the president and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, during which he was questioned about his approach to political humor.
'I read that there was an analysis done of your work on 'The Tonight Show' for the 22 years and that your jokes were roughly equally balanced between going after Republicans and taking aim at Democrats. Did you have a strategy?' Trulio asked.
'It was fun to me when I got hate letters [like] 'Dear Mr. Leno, you and your Republican friends' and 'Well, Mr. Leno, I hope you and your Democratic buddies are happy' — over the same joke,' Leno recalled.
'And I go, 'Well, that's good,'' he said. 'That's how you get a whole audience.'
Leno went on to note how late-night comedy has changed amid the current divisive political landscape.
'Now you have to be content with half the audience because you have [to] give your opinion,' Leno said.
7 Jay Leno hosts 'The Tonight Show with Jay Leno' on Nov. 5, 2012.
AP
When Trulio asked if Leno had any advice for comedians today, the 'Jay Leno's Garage' host referred to his longtime friendship with late comedy legend Rodney Dangerfield.
'I knew Rodney 40 years,' he said. 'I have no idea if he was Democrat or Republican. We never discussed [it], we just discussed jokes.'
'And to me, I like to think that people come to a comedy show to kind of get away from the things, you know, the pressures of life, whatever it might be,' Leno continued. 'And I love political humor, don't get me wrong, but it's just what happens when people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.'
7 Jay Leno rides his vintage 1910 Model O-O White Steam Car on July 14, 2025.
Snorlax / MEGA
7 Jay Leno appears on 'The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon' on June 15, 2016.
Getty Images
While speaking with Trulio, Leno discussed how comedy could be used to create common ground.
'Funny is funny,' Leno said. 'It's funny when someone who's not….when you make fun of their side and they laugh at it, you know, that's kind of what I do.'
'I just find getting out — I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture,' he continued. 'When I was with Rodney, it was always in the economy of words — get to the joke as quickly as possible.'
7 The New York Post front cover on July 27, 2025.
Trulio pointed out that both Leno and Dangerfield achieved massive success during their careers, noting the two's 'approach worked in the marketplace.'
'Well, why shoot for just half an audience all the time? You know, why not try to get the whole [audience],' Leno replied.
'I mean, I like to bring people into the big picture,' he explained. 'I don't understand why you would alienate one particular group, you know, or just don't do it at all. I'm not saying you have to throw your support or whatever, but just do what's funny.'
7 Stephen Colbert during a shooting of 'The Late Show' on June 25, 2025.
Scott Kowalchyk/CBS
7 Jimmy Fallon hosts 'The Tonight Show' on Feb. 21, 2013.
AP
Leno's comments come amid the uproar that ensued after CBS announced on July 17 that it was canceling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' with the show's final episode scheduled to air in May 2026.
At the time, the network clarified that the cancellation was 'purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' and noted, 'It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.'
Weeks ahead of the cancellation, CBS and Paramount paid President Donald Trump a $16 million settlement following his lawsuit against the news network for airing an edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election.
7 Seth Meyers hosting 'Late Night with Seth Meyers' on Feb. 24, 2014.
AP
Colbert, who frequently blasts Trump on his show, criticized the settlement and described it as a 'big fat bribe' during an episode that aired days before the cancellation was announced.
The host's supporters, including several politicians, have accused CBS and Paramount of canceling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' for political reasons.
Trump celebrated the news of the cancellation in a post on his platform Truth Social, which drew a fiery response from Colbert, who told the president 'Go f— yourself' during the opening monologue of his show on Monday.
Several fellow late night show hosts and comedians have rallied around Colbert. 'The Tonight Show' host Jimmy Fallon and 'Late Night' host Seth Meyers, 'Last Week Tonight' host John Oliver and 'The Daily Show' host Jon Stewart attended Colbert's taping on Monday in a show of support.
Stewart and Oliver previously worked alongside Colbert on 'The Daily Show.'
On Friday, 'The Late Show' creator David Letterman slammed CBS' decision to cancel the long-running show as 'pure cowardice' and asserted that the network mistreated Colbert, who succeeded him as host in 2015.
Fox News Digital's Gabriel Hays contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
CBS News
22 minutes ago
- CBS News
David Jolly, leading Democratic candidate for 2026 governor, shares views on abortion and Alligator Alcatraz
Jim devotes the entire half-hour to a sit-down with David Jolly, the leading Democratic candidate for governor in 2026. Jolly is facing his strongest criticism, not from Republicans, but from his fellow Democrats, especially on the issue of abortion. That's because 10 years ago, when he was in Congress, Jolly was a Republican who made it clear he believed life began at conception. Now, as a Democrat, Jolly says his views on abortion have evolved, and he now supports a woman's right to have one. Jim and Jolly also discuss the controversial Alligator Alcatraz detention center, the affordability crisis, and other issues he would have to address as governor. Guest: David Jolly/(D) Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Jolly, who as a Republican represented Florida's 13th District from 2014 to 2017, is officially running for Florida governor as a Democrat. Jolly, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, joins a growing and diverse field in the 2026 race, which includes Republican Congressman Byron Donalds and former Democrat-turned-Independent Jason Pizzo. In an interview with CBS News Miami's Joan Murray, Jolly explained his decision to run under the Democratic banner, despite the significant voter registration gap favoring Republicans.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
