Entertainment
Sponsored by

Colbert cancelled

36,856 Views | 587 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by captkirk
JCA1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 7:09a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:

Quote:
"I guess I don't understand the "sure, the show was hemorrhaging money, sponsors. and viewers but to cancel it now was solely political" argument."

Again... you guys aren't reading the words being written or listening to the words being said. No one is saying "it was solely a political argument." I've said MULTIPLE times now that it wasn't, other posters here have said that it wasn't, and John Stewart has said that it wasn't. We've said it was PARTLY political. Not solely.

Quote:
"And in these types of claims, the right "time" never seems to come around. I mean, if the current financial situation doesn't justify it, I'm having a hard time coming up with what would. If you admit the decision is totally justified, then the right time is now."

This has been explained numerous times as well. In every other instance like this, where the current financial situation didn't "justify it," cuts have first been made. The shows were given second and third chances to succeed, and often times they did. Staff was downsized, the band was cut, salaries were reduced, etc. Would those measures have worked in this instance? Who knows. Maybe not. But it's incredibly suspect that they didn't even try, especially considering the pedigree of the show.

Quote:
There is no credible claim that this had anything to do with Trump and the settlement.

Yes, there is. You're simply and blatantly ignoring it.


You again admit the cancellation was justified but can't leave it at that. You have to come up with some political angle, even though, as best as I understand it, it is nothing more rank speculation at this point (I'm unaware of anyone involved in the decision making telling anyone, even anonymously, that this was part of the Trump settlement). So, while you decry politics, you're desperately looking for a reason to make it political. Physician, heal thyself.

Downsizing doesn't really work at this scale. The show cost double what it brought I and was getting worse. CBS would have had to slash every budget line item by 50%. The numbers were just too far apart. It's not surprising they didn't try this.

Look, you clearly want to blame this on Trump and are looking for any reason to do so. And that's fine. Just be honest with yourself.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JCA1 • 7:28a, 7/23/25
AG
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.
Reply Quote
1
20ag07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JCA1 • 7:30a, 7/23/25
Quote:
That's what it was losing. It cost $100 million a year.
When you have like 70 people on staff, shooting 200 shows a year in Manhattan, you can get there in a hurry.
Reply Quote
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to superunknown • 7:37a, 7/23/25
AG
superunknown said:
Prosperdick said:
I wonder if the USAID spigot being shut off is playing a bigger part than people realize. Maybe the Late Show wasn't losing $40 million a year because they were able to funnel millions to it through various NGO's over the years but now that the money has dried up they have to start making cuts.


what the fffffffffffffff


Dont know if this was happening but it's totally plausible and I wouldn't rule it out. Have you looked into all of the money that was being laundered all over the place with that program? It was a money buffet primarily for Democrat causes and constituents across the spectrum. There were a few Republicans partaking as well.
Reply Quote
6
JCA1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 7:41a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.


I'm not calling you any names. Just noted that you seem highly invested with coming up with a political reason for this when there is little concrete support for it right now. People talk and if this was part of a negotiated settlement, I have little doubt that someone would whisper it to someone. You really think agreeing to cancel the Colbert show as part of a settlement could be kept under wraps?

I'm more than happy to listen but right now, I've seen nothing but speculation. Maybe I've just missed it. Since you claim it's out there, what's the single, most concrete piece of evidence that this was done for Trump?
Reply Quote
9
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:43a, 7/23/25
AG
If it was solely about money why cancel the show 10 months from now? What business so concerned about money would choose to keep hemorrhaging money for an extra 10 months?
A smart money minded business would either cancel immediately or give Colbert a new budget and tell him he had 10 months to turn a profit. That's not happening here so shoveling else must be going on too.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
20ag07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:00a, 7/23/25
One that still needs something in the 10:30 slot going forward and doesn't have a plan yet.

You can't tell Colbert to go shoot out of his garage for 10 months without knowing what you're doing going forward.

It IS normal for a future contract to be negotiated (or in this case canceled all together) months ahead of the end date.

It's not as bad as football coaches, but you don't wait until 3 months out to start talking re-up.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:02a, 7/23/25
AG
Also, why would the current Paramount/CBS leadership, who is either leaving or, in some cases, auditioning to keep their jobs, make such a monumental decision like this, only 30-45 days before the new corporate regime takes over? In what world does it make sense for them not to just leave Colbert's firing, and the cancellation of a 30-year institution, up to the new guy(s)? Why do this at this exact moment, on the way out the door, when it won't even be their problem to deal with?

Hmmm, I wonder.

It's such a mystery…
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:11a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
Gigem314 said:
Ferg said:
Saw a promo for Colbert (on Newsmax maybe?), He said the gloves are off for the rest of his time at CBS, and he's going to say whatever he wants and dropped an fbomb at President Trump,

If i was his boss, it would be his last day on the job.

Jon Stewart supposedly just did an entire musical segment where he just yelled nothing but f-bombs over and over and over. Watching these once snarky and confident comedians turn into angry old guys has been interesting. Nothing lasts forever.

Maybe try actually watching it first before spreading nonsense/misinformation. Yes, there were f-bombs, but his commentary was spot-on, well-argued, hilarious throughout, and only "angry" in short bursts...



Did he do that thing where the plays a clip out of context, makes an awkward face at the camera and the audience of neckbeards all laugh in unison?
Reply Quote
11
1 edit
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:13a, 7/23/25
AG
Quad Dog said:
If it was solely about money why cancel the show 10 months from now? What business so concerned about money would choose to keep hemorrhaging money for an extra 10 months?
A smart money minded business would either cancel immediately or give Colbert a new budget and tell him he had 10 months to turn a profit. That's not happening here so shoveling else must be going on too.


Maybe like everyone else the know it's unsalvageable. You don't throw good money after bad.
Reply Quote
1
Equinox
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:14a, 7/23/25
If it's all political, Colbert should protest by walking away now. And Kimmel, Fallon et al should walk off their shows in protest. Put your money where your mouth is.
Reply Quote
9
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:15a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
Also, why would the current Paramount/CBS leadership, who is either leaving or, in some cases, auditioning to keep their jobs, make such a monumental decision like this, only 30-45 days before the new corporate regime takes over? In what world does it make sense for them not to just leave Colbert's firing, and the cancellation of a 30-year institution, up to the new guy(s)? Why do this at this exact moment, on the way out the door, when it won't even be their problem to deal with?

Hmmm, I wonder.

It's such a mystery…


Have you considered the real question isn't why it's being canceled now, but rather how it lasted this long?
Reply Quote
8
drewser95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:24a, 7/23/25
AG
From the thread on F16:

Quote:


Turns out his staff knew a while ago. All that talk of political retribution was stupid to begin with.

Reply Quote
5
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 20ag07 • 8:25a, 7/23/25
AG
They could put CSI reruns on instantly for free at late night and maybe even turn a profit.
Reply Quote
8
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JCA1 • 8:25a, 7/23/25
AG
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.


I'm not calling you any names. Just noted that you seem highly invested with coming up with a political reason for this when there is little concrete support for it right now. People talk and if this was part of a negotiated settlement, I have little doubt that someone would whisper it to someone. You really think agreeing to cancel the Colbert show as part of a settlement could be kept under wraps?

I'm more than happy to listen but right now, I've seen nothing but speculation. Maybe I've just missed it. Since you claim it's out there, what's the single, most concrete piece of evidence that this was done for Trump?


I'm not "coming up" with a political reason. It was political from the jump, when Trump sued Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes, resulting in the Skydance deal being held up. Why do you keep ignoring that key piece of information? It's literally been Trump vs Paramount for months now.

Also, again, no one is saying that Colbert's firing was part of the officially negotiated settlement. I've clarified that multiple times. Rather, even after Paramount agreed to pay the $16M settlement, Trump/Carr still didn't budge on approving the Skydance deal, likely sending a clear message with their silence. Finally, though, a meeting was set a week ago to at last discuss the deal, where, one might assume, either a voluntary offering was made, or perhaps it was insinuated that a final gesture would be required. Either way, lo and behold, two days later, against all odds, not only is Colbert is gone, but The Late Show is outright canceled.

What a coincidence!
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 8:26a, 7/23/25
AG
Teslag said:
Quad Dog said:
If it was solely about money why cancel the show 10 months from now? What business so concerned about money would choose to keep hemorrhaging money for an extra 10 months?
A smart money minded business would either cancel immediately or give Colbert a new budget and tell him he had 10 months to turn a profit. That's not happening here so shoveling else must be going on too.


Maybe like everyone else the know it's unsalvageable. You don't throw good money after bad.

Choosing to air for 10 more months is literally throwing good money after bad. If they are so concerned about throwing away money cancel it now.
Reply Quote
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 8:28a, 7/23/25
AG
Quad Dog said:
Teslag said:
Quad Dog said:
If it was solely about money why cancel the show 10 months from now? What business so concerned about money would choose to keep hemorrhaging money for an extra 10 months?
A smart money minded business would either cancel immediately or give Colbert a new budget and tell him he had 10 months to turn a profit. That's not happening here so shoveling else must be going on too.


Maybe like everyone else the know it's unsalvageable. You don't throw good money after bad.

Choosing to air for 10 more months is literally throwing good money after bad. If they are so concerned about throwing away money cancel it now.

Unless many of those costs are already sunk
Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 8:29a, 7/23/25
AG
Teslag said:
TCTTS said:
Also, why would the current Paramount/CBS leadership, who is either leaving or, in some cases, auditioning to keep their jobs, make such a monumental decision like this, only 30-45 days before the new corporate regime takes over? In what world does it make sense for them not to just leave Colbert's firing, and the cancellation of a 30-year institution, up to the new guy(s)? Why do this at this exact moment, on the way out the door, when it won't even be their problem to deal with?

Hmmm, I wonder.

It's such a mystery…


Have you considered the real question isn't why it's being canceled now, but rather how it lasted this long?


We all know the answer and I don't think anyone here is disputing it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:30a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
Teslag said:
TCTTS said:
Also, why would the current Paramount/CBS leadership, who is either leaving or, in some cases, auditioning to keep their jobs, make such a monumental decision like this, only 30-45 days before the new corporate regime takes over? In what world does it make sense for them not to just leave Colbert's firing, and the cancellation of a 30-year institution, up to the new guy(s)? Why do this at this exact moment, on the way out the door, when it won't even be their problem to deal with?

Hmmm, I wonder.

It's such a mystery…


Have you considered the real question isn't why it's being canceled now, but rather how it lasted this long?


We all know the answer and I don't think anywhere here has disputed it.


We do?
Reply Quote
4
JCA1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 8:42a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.


I'm not calling you any names. Just noted that you seem highly invested with coming up with a political reason for this when there is little concrete support for it right now. People talk and if this was part of a negotiated settlement, I have little doubt that someone would whisper it to someone. You really think agreeing to cancel the Colbert show as part of a settlement could be kept under wraps?

I'm more than happy to listen but right now, I've seen nothing but speculation. Maybe I've just missed it. Since you claim it's out there, what's the single, most concrete piece of evidence that this was done for Trump?


I'm not "coming up" with a political reason. It was political from the jump, when Trump sued CBS/60 Minutes, thereby holding up the Skydance deal. Why do you keep ignoring that key piece of information? It's literally been Trump vs Paramount for months now.

Also, again, no one is saying that Colbert's firing was part of the officially negotiated settlement. I've clarified that multiple times now. Rather, Trump/Carr still didn't budge on approving the Skydance deal, even after Paramount paid the $16M settlement, likely sending a clear message with their silence. Finally, though, a meeting was set a week ago to at last discuss the deal, where, one might assume, either a voluntary offering was made, or perhaps it was insinuated that a final gesture would be required. Either way, lo and behold, two days later, against all odds, not only is Colbert is gone, but The Late Show is outright canceled.

What a coincidence!


So your opinion is that the Trump admin demanded the cancellation of the Colbert Show as a prerequisite for approving the Skydance deal? And your "evidence" is assumptions of what may or may not have been insinuated at some meeting? And no one in that meeting has suggested this anywhere? It's just you connecting dots? That's the "ample evidence"? I think we have different opinions on what constitutes evidence.

But to play ball a little further. Why would Trump be this jazzed up over Colbert. Colbert is a choir preacher with an ever-dwindling, elderly audience of true believers. He doesn't move the needle with any undecideds. If anything, trump can play him to his advantage. I mean, the guy literally rode "fake news" and the belief that the establishment was out to get him to the White House. Why would he want to toss out that playbook now?
Reply Quote
5
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 8:45a, 7/23/25
AG
It was making money as far as we know in 2018, but that was rapidly changing.
Quote:
The genre has also experienced a sharp decline in advertising revenue in recent years. In 2018, network late-night shows took in $439 million in ad revenue, according to Guideline, an advertising data firm. By last year, that figure had dropped to $220 million, a 50 percent drop in just seven years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/business/stephen-colbert-late-show-ending.html
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JCA1 • 8:55a, 7/23/25
AG
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.


I'm not calling you any names. Just noted that you seem highly invested with coming up with a political reason for this when there is little concrete support for it right now. People talk and if this was part of a negotiated settlement, I have little doubt that someone would whisper it to someone. You really think agreeing to cancel the Colbert show as part of a settlement could be kept under wraps?

I'm more than happy to listen but right now, I've seen nothing but speculation. Maybe I've just missed it. Since you claim it's out there, what's the single, most concrete piece of evidence that this was done for Trump?


I'm not "coming up" with a political reason. It was political from the jump, when Trump sued CBS/60 Minutes, thereby holding up the Skydance deal. Why do you keep ignoring that key piece of information? It's literally been Trump vs Paramount for months now.

Also, again, no one is saying that Colbert's firing was part of the officially negotiated settlement. I've clarified that multiple times now. Rather, Trump/Carr still didn't budge on approving the Skydance deal, even after Paramount paid the $16M settlement, likely sending a clear message with their silence. Finally, though, a meeting was set a week ago to at last discuss the deal, where, one might assume, either a voluntary offering was made, or perhaps it was insinuated that a final gesture would be required. Either way, lo and behold, two days later, against all odds, not only is Colbert is gone, but The Late Show is outright canceled.

What a coincidence!


So your opinion is that the Trump admin demanded the cancellation of the Colbert Show as a prerequisite for approving the Skydance deal? And your "evidence" is assumptions of what may or may not have been insinuated at some meeting? And no one in that meeting has suggested this anywhere? It's just you connecting dots? That's the "ample evidence"? I think we have different opinions on what constitutes evidence.

But to play ball a little further. Why would Trump be this jazzed up over Colbert. Colbert is a choir preacher with an ever-dwindling, elderly audience of true believers. He doesn't move the needle with any undecideds. If anything, trump can play him to his advantage. I mean, the guy literally rode "fake news" and the belief that the establishment was out to get him to the White House. Why would he want to toss out that playbook now?


I didn't say outright "demanded." I said possibly "insinuated that a final gesture would be required." Also, it wasn't just "some meeting." If you would actually read the reporting, the meeting was literally partly about a commitment to "unbiased journalism" going forward on the part of Skydance. Seeing as Colbert is now gone, I'd said that honors said commitment about as blatantly as possible.

As for doubting Trump being "jazzed up" up at the idea of Colbert being fired, here's Trump's exact quote on the matter from Friday afternoon: "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings."

Do we really need to keep playing this game? Or are you going to keep insisting that "coincidence" after "coincidence" after "coincidence" after "coincidence" is just a big nothingburger.
Reply Quote
1
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cliff.Booth • 8:58a, 7/23/25
AG
Cliff.Booth said:
I'm talking about the obvious issue that Stewart wouldn't dare mention, that late night shows might not be on the chopping block if they had hosts with enough sense not to make spewing one-sided political vitriol their thing. Regardless of the lawsuit, late night shows could still be profitable if they controlled their spending and focused on broad appeal. Stewart quickly glossed over the absurd amount of money Colbert's show was losing.

I think picking a political side and getting that guaranteed audience that agrees with you and likes your takes brings in better ratings in todays tv landscape. Colbert started off non-political and his ratings tanked hard. Now, that may be just because he's not that funny outside of his political humor. Being a political satirist is what made his name. I think 2.5-3 Million viewers per night is the top of what any network can expect. Late night tv used to bring in the younger viewer. The younger viewer is not going to turn on CBS or NBC at 10:30. My kids still don't know what tv channels are. The future of the highly produced/big budget late night talk show will probably resemble John Oliver's show where its once per week and on a streaming app. For those wanting to see celeb interviews can listen to podcasts on your favorite streaming service or see the interview on the hosts youtube channel. Please like and subscribe.

I listened to that Bill Simmons clip posted earlier and they made a great point that a comedian that would make a great late night host that is rather non-political (Bargatze) or not afraid to joke about anyone (Gillis) has no need nor desire to do a daily late night talk show. They can make their own content on their own platforms and make just as much, if not more money. It would need to be an almost unknown comedian willing to put themselves through the grind hoping to become a household name and are any of us going to tune in to a name we don't know? The last time a network hired an almost unknown late night host was Conan and he barely made it past the first season.
Reply Quote
1
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cajunaggie08 • 9:00a, 7/23/25
AG
Quote:
I think picking a political side and getting that guaranteed audience that agrees with you and likes your takes brings in better ratings in todays tv landscape


Like South Park?
Reply Quote
2
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 9:03a, 7/23/25
AG
Teslag said:
Quote:
I think picking a political side and getting that guaranteed audience that agrees with you and likes your takes brings in better ratings in todays tv landscape


Like South Park?

South Park technically has much worse ratings. But it doesn't have to be watched within 24 hours of airing to generate interest and you can package and sell it globally. No one outside of America is begging for the Tonight Show to be streaming on Netflix Asia.
Reply Quote
JCA1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:04a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
JCA1 said:
TCTTS said:
There is ample evidence partly connecting this to Trump (though, again, no one is saying he's the sole reason), but you're refusing to address or engage with it in any way. Instead dismissing it simply because no one involved in the deal has gone on record to officially say so, which is incredibly disingenuous and extremely telling, no matter how much you trying and make me out to be some desperate, TDS loon.


I'm not calling you any names. Just noted that you seem highly invested with coming up with a political reason for this when there is little concrete support for it right now. People talk and if this was part of a negotiated settlement, I have little doubt that someone would whisper it to someone. You really think agreeing to cancel the Colbert show as part of a settlement could be kept under wraps?

I'm more than happy to listen but right now, I've seen nothing but speculation. Maybe I've just missed it. Since you claim it's out there, what's the single, most concrete piece of evidence that this was done for Trump?


I'm not "coming up" with a political reason. It was political from the jump, when Trump sued CBS/60 Minutes, thereby holding up the Skydance deal. Why do you keep ignoring that key piece of information? It's literally been Trump vs Paramount for months now.

Also, again, no one is saying that Colbert's firing was part of the officially negotiated settlement. I've clarified that multiple times now. Rather, Trump/Carr still didn't budge on approving the Skydance deal, even after Paramount paid the $16M settlement, likely sending a clear message with their silence. Finally, though, a meeting was set a week ago to at last discuss the deal, where, one might assume, either a voluntary offering was made, or perhaps it was insinuated that a final gesture would be required. Either way, lo and behold, two days later, against all odds, not only is Colbert is gone, but The Late Show is outright canceled.

What a coincidence!


So your opinion is that the Trump admin demanded the cancellation of the Colbert Show as a prerequisite for approving the Skydance deal? And your "evidence" is assumptions of what may or may not have been insinuated at some meeting? And no one in that meeting has suggested this anywhere? It's just you connecting dots? That's the "ample evidence"? I think we have different opinions on what constitutes evidence.

But to play ball a little further. Why would Trump be this jazzed up over Colbert. Colbert is a choir preacher with an ever-dwindling, elderly audience of true believers. He doesn't move the needle with any undecideds. If anything, trump can play him to his advantage. I mean, the guy literally rode "fake news" and the belief that the establishment was out to get him to the White House. Why would he want to toss out that playbook now?


I didn't say outright "demanded." I said possibly "insinuated that a final gesture would be required." Also, it wasn't just "some meeting." If you would actually read the reporting, the meeting was literally partly about a commitment to "unbiased journalism" going forward on the part of Skydance. Seeing as Colbert is now gone, I'd said that honors said commitment about as blatantly as possible.

As for doubting Trump being "jazzed up" up at the idea of Colbert being fired, here's Trump's exact quote on the matter from Friday afternoon: "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings."

Do we really need to keep playing this game? Or are you going to keep insisting that "coincidence" after "coincidence" after "coincidence" after "coincidence" is just a big nothingburger.


So you think Colbert is part of CBS's journalism department? I don't see the connection between 60 Minutes (the actual program that instigated the lawsuit), CBS's journalism department and The Late Show. By this logic, isn't 60 minutes the show he should have demanded get canceled? Why this sudden detour to Colbert?

All I've demanded is for you to point to the "ample evidence" you claimed was out there. Because I was curious if there was a statement by one of the players or a piece of paper, or something more than internet detectives trying to connect dots with speculation. And it's looks like there's currently nothing. Now, you can still believe whatever you want and you may even be proven right one day. But right now, you haven't proven anything more than your burning desire to hang this on Trump one way or another.
Reply Quote
12
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07a, 7/23/25
AG
There is no evidence that the settlement led to the cancellation. That's ridiculous. Trump has been attacked everywhere and hasn't taken anyone out; these "comedy" shows can do what they want. Honestly, the attacks have been good for him. It helps him rile up support.
Reply Quote
12
2 edits
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:18a, 7/23/25
AG
TCTTS said:
Gigem314 said:
Ferg said:
Saw a promo for Colbert (on Newsmax maybe?), He said the gloves are off for the rest of his time at CBS, and he's going to say whatever he wants and dropped an fbomb at President Trump,

If i was his boss, it would be his last day on the job.

Jon Stewart supposedly just did an entire musical segment where he just yelled nothing but f-bombs over and over and over. Watching these once snarky and confident comedians turn into angry old guys has been interesting. Nothing lasts forever.

Maybe try actually watching it first before spreading nonsense/misinformation. Yes, there were f-bombs, but his commentary was spot-on, well-argued, hilarious throughout, and only "angry" in short bursts...


It's not nonsense/misinformation. These guys loved to savagely troll/clown others and act like the rebels sticking it to the man, and built their careers on it. But now that things are happening that they don't like, they react with such anger - even veiled in humor. It just seems so bitter and mean spirited to me. They've become the lecturing grumps that they once portrayed others to be.

I mean, it's pretty arrogant for them to come out and lay the blame on Trump when their format and content had been going downhill for years. They have zero self awareness.
Reply Quote
13
Quad Dog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 9:18a, 7/23/25
AG
It's either an insane coincidence that the cancelation news came out so close to these meetings, the lawsuit, and Colbert mocking the merger and lawsuit. If CBS was smart at all they should have delayed the cancellation announcement to put some distance between these things and the cancellation if they weren't associated.

Or it is all wrapped up together.
Reply Quote
1
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 7/23/25
AG
If CBS was smart they would have killed this money pit years ago. Long overdue
Reply Quote
10
20ag07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 9:26a, 7/23/25
Again…a person with 10 months left on his contract has an agent asking questions.

It's not football where everyone must have 5 years (apparently).

But questions are being asked on renewal inside of 10 months FOR SURE.

And if the answer is No…well, here we are.
Reply Quote
1
JCA1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quad Dog • 9:26a, 7/23/25
AG
Quad Dog said:
It's either an insane coincidence that the cancelation news came out so close to these meetings, the lawsuit, and Colbert mocking the merger and lawsuit. If CBS was smart at all they should have delayed the cancellation announcement to put some distance between these things and the cancellation if they weren't associated.

Or it is all wrapped up together.


With the countless contracts involved, etc., there's any number of explanations for the timing. My guess is giving notice now for a cancellation in May was the cheapest exit under the existing contractual obligations.
Reply Quote
1
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 20ag07 • 9:27a, 7/23/25
AG
20ag07 said:
Again…a person with 10 months left on his contract has an agent asking questions.

It's not football where everyone must have 5 years (apparently).

But questions are being asked on renewal inside of 10 months FOR SURE.

And if the answer is No…well, here we are.


This. The contract is really what is driving the timing. Take off the tinfoil
Reply Quote
4
EclipseAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30a, 7/23/25
AG
Plus it absolutely benefits Colbert to announce this cancellation now.

Takes the heat off his failure and places it on "the big bad corporation and the orange man."

Reply Quote
10
cajunaggie08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 20ag07 • 9:34a, 7/23/25
AG
20ag07 said:
Again…a person with 10 months left on his contract has an agent asking questions.

It's not football where everyone must have 5 years (apparently).

But questions are being asked on renewal inside of 10 months FOR SURE.

And if the answer is No…well, here we are.

Simmons podcast mentioned that this time of year is when producer contract offers start going out. If the producers on Colbert's show wouldn't have received offers, it wouldnt take long for people to connect the dots.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.