JCA1 said: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.
60 Minutes is one of the most popular shows on broadcast television. It gets massive ratings (relatively speaking), to the point where there's no world in which CBS could conceivably cancel it for no reason whatsoever, other than "Trump wants it cancelled."
Come on, man.
Trump got his pound of flesh from them, though, in the form of the $16M settlement and the head of 60 Minutes quitting in protest.
And yet, the Skydance deal STILL didn't go through (Carr wouldn't even meet with Ellison), another point you refuse to acknowledge. Either way, no, Colbert is obviously not part of CBS' news division. But he *is* a very bias CBS personality who happens to talk politics every single weeknight. And what do you know, all of the sudden, in Paramount's newfound commitment to "unbiased journalism," the most bias political talking head they have is suddenly gone two days later, something you can't just keep writing off as a "coincidence."
Also, I never said I had "proof" of any of this. That's the standard you introduced, not me. I've said from the beginning this is what I believe, based on the sheer amount "coincidences" that continue to stack up in the face of improbable odds. You're the one saying it's proof or nothing, treating this discussion like a courtroom instead of the message board that it is.
