Here's what I don't get. If this genuinely had nothing to do with the Paramount settlement or the merger, then why did it come immediately after that? Wouldn't a corporation that cares so much about optics want to at least wait a bit to give the impression these are unrelated, if they could? Is there a plausibly explanation here?
ilcious · 1d ago
Colbert will end up bigger than before.
Paramount probably can’t afford him anyway.
ahartmetz · 1d ago
As far as I'm concerned, he became lame and boring after the Colbert Report. But I guess it's also difficult to come up with stuff that's crazier than reality with, uhm, the competence level of current US leadership.
whycome · 1d ago
The paradigm used to be that “late at night” means kids aren’t likely to watch. So, you had a bit of room to get away with things. Now, that doesn’t apply in the same way when things are on demand. So there’s still a desire for the types of content, but it’s not dictated by the broadcast timeslots.
antithesizer · 1d ago
Certainly not, as anyone with YouTube or Rumble knows. There have never been more such talk shows than there are now. But cable TV's efforts can't compete.
zaphod420 · 1d ago
Good riddance. Just a bunch of CIA psyops anyway.
zaphod420 · 1d ago
It's true. Research Project Mockingbird. It's still happening, and Colbert is one of them.
j45 · 1d ago
I doubt it's the death of the late night show.
People are known to watch late night show highlights at a different time, on demand.
Nice fit for digital.
He will end up on existing cable networks, or the cable networks of the future, whether it's a Netflix et. al, or Youtube.
Paramount probably can’t afford him anyway.
People are known to watch late night show highlights at a different time, on demand.
Nice fit for digital.
He will end up on existing cable networks, or the cable networks of the future, whether it's a Netflix et. al, or Youtube.