dataflow a day ago

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 a day ago

Colbert will end up bigger than before.

Paramount probably can’t afford him anyway.

  • ahartmetz a day 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 a day 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 a day 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 a day ago

Good riddance. Just a bunch of CIA psyops anyway.

  • zaphod420 a day ago

    It's true. Research Project Mockingbird. It's still happening, and Colbert is one of them.

j45 a day 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.