For the past week now, there has been media mewling over the announced cancellation of Stephen Colbert and “The Late Show.” The pundits/experts/hysterics have strained to claim that this was the result of President Trump leveraging CBS. As usual, the press jumping on this bandwagon of outrage are unbothered by the absence of facts. Colbert had zero connection to the “60 Minutes” lawsuit and settlement, and there is no evidence of Trump forcing the hand of the network.
Supposedly, goes their claim, Trump could not abide Colbert insulting and criticizing him, and he has influenced them to be rid of the late night pest. The problem for the carping set is that the details defy their wailing. Colbert has been on Trump’s case for close to a decade (he announced on his first show since the announcement that “now the gloves are off,” as he continued to deliver the very same anti-Trump invective), and though CBS says he’s canceled, Stephen is not going anywhere until deep into 2026. He is hardly being yanked off the air. But the real tell is that Colbert has not been the one canceled – CBS is ending “The Late Show” entirely.
But to have their accusations hold up, these complainers hold onto what they feel is the linchpin argument: Colbert is being canceled while having the top-rated talk show. Problem. They need to overlook the competition that has been beating him on the regular in order to lodge this argument. For over a year now, “Gutfeld!” on Fox News has been outperforming “The Late Show,” and while Colbert sees his numbers eroding, Gutfeld has been steadily building his audience over the years.
It has been revealed that the primary reason behind the Colbert cancellation has been the unwieldy cost of the production. The host sports a hefty $15 million annual contract, and the show’s reported 200-member staff leads to a $100 million operating budget. As a result, “The Late Show” is losing $40 million for CBS each year. This is all the reason to yank the power cord on the show.
Recommended
As Gutfeld has explained in interviews before, “Gutfeld!” operates on a smaller budget and crew. He's explained his staff is roughly 10% the size of Colbert’s, and his operating expense is nowhere near $10 million. There is another detail that needs to be ignored. Gutfeld has explained how his show has challenges bringing in writers, as well as having entertainment figures coming on his show because of the rampant fear that they will become blacklisted in Hollywood. So, as these critics are barking about Colbert allegedly being targeted, Gutfeld operates with a constant stream of resistance from these same figures.
The irony of this was realized recently when Hollywood was in shutdown over the WGA writers strike. As all the other late shows had to shut down during the work stoppage, “Gutfeld!” was on the air. Because his program is shunned by the industry, he has a tight-knit group of comedy friends for his writers' room, and since they are not welcomed in the industry, they are not in the guild. The irony now is that the same writers' union wants to investigate the decision behind this cancellation.
What is revealing over all of this wailing is that we need to pretend that shows are not regularly canceled, and that comedians have not been targeted for their views. Anyone recall the outrage delivered to Tony Hinchcliffe for his routine at Donald Trump’s rally in New York during the election? Apparently, that was acceptable silencing of a comedian’s free speech.
The obliviousness in the Colbert outrage is heard from those declaring there needs to be an investigation into whether he was canceled for political reasons. Considering the host only welcomed Democratic politicians and decidedly left-leaning members of the press, politics has always been a feature of the show in recent years. It is also why he has seen his audience dissolving as his repetitive routine of generating clap-ter has tired out the viewers.
The need to build this business decision into a Trump-caused calamity runs into the familiar issue with most complaints about this president; they are sorely lacking in accurate facts.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member