Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s the most articulated of all the comedians, and would be a superb presidential candidate.

Or he could run for Senate against Lindsey Graham.

Because it worked out so well for his sister.

Apples and oranges

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s the most articulated of all the comedians, and would be a superb presidential candidate.

Or he could run for Senate against Lindsey Graham.

Because it worked out so well for his sister.

Anonymous wrote:He’s the most articulated of all the comedians, and would be a superb presidential candidate.

Or he could run for Senate against Lindsey Graham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it cost too much (I been to it live and that studio and set was way over the top) AND he was too mouthy. Sad to see it go, though.

oh because you think it costs too much it should end? Got it.

Good. Sleep tight!

Stilll profitable.

He’s educating us. Therefore, it’s profitable.

He’s the most articulated of all the comedians, and would be a superb presidential candidate.

Not profitable. And the production sounds like a graft pit of epic proportions. Only 2.4 million viewers, most of them older than dirt, for a whopping sum of money. This insufferable a-hole has a team of a hundred comedy "writers" making big bucks and there's literally nothing on the average show that makes anyone chuckle? Everywhere there is stealing money.

"Mr. Colbert has 2.4 million viewers most nights—less than 1% of the country. It’s a tiny fraction of Carson’s viewership at a time when the nation was smaller. The Late Show’s audience has fallen more than 30% in the past five years, and even more among the critical 18- to 49-year-old demographic. Mr. Colbert’s operation reportedly costs north of $100 million annually, and hemorrhaged $40 million last year, nearly half being the host’s salary."

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/colbert-and-the-end-of-late-night-tv-cancelled-entertainment-2305ae1c

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it cost too much (I been to it live and that studio and set was way over the top) AND he was too mouthy. Sad to see it go, though.

oh because you think it costs too much it should end? Got it.

Good. Sleep tight!

Stilll profitable.

His family name is Colbert with a hard t. He changed the pronunciation when he went to college. He’s always been a pompous effeminate weirdo.

Colbert for president 2028.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it cost too much (I been to it live and that studio and set was way over the top) AND he was too mouthy. Sad to see it go, though.

oh because you think it costs too much it should end? Got it.

Good. Sleep tight!

Anonymous wrote:Had terrible ratings and will certainly not be the last of these late night shows to be cancelled. The problem is the show just became an I hate Trump program and that turns off more than half of the country. More men watch late night anyway and they are not buying what is being sold. The last skit on the fake Melania was plain mean spirited. No way they would be done to Michele Obama. Colbert used to be funny but he just became bitter and mean. John Carson is never to be replaced. He understood that his role is not politics. These late night guys could learn something. Kimmel will be the next to go. He just goes on and on and on and not funny.

Hahahaha ha
Ok if you say so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His show couldn’t possibly be getting cancelled because it loses $40 million a year. Nope, that’s not it. Has to be something to do with Trump. Never change, DCUM.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/colbert-is-latest-casualty-late-night-tvs-fade-out-2025-07-19/

Please go back and read the article. Ad revenue is down. It doesn’t mean the show is not profitable.

This is all about Trump and his tantrums.

OMG. I suggest *you* go back and read the article. Ad revenue is what makes a show profitable. Good grief. They're bleeding to the tune of $40 million a year. But sure, continue blaming every single thing that you don't like on Trump. You look absurd.

you look absurd. Revenue is down, doesn’t mean the show is not profitable. They just aren’t making as much money as previous years.

And yes you can blame Trump for ad spending going down because of the uncertainty with the economy and tariffs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Absolutely no one, nowhere, has reported that this show was profitable. That's the whole issue. It's not making the network any money. I'm not sure why you can't understand this simple fact, but JFC - deal with it.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/cbs-colbert-late-show-cancel-profit-tv-1236319484/

Based on the article it sounds more like mismanagement of the show. The number one show is making less than others and the others have a bigger audience on YouTube. And not sure why the show can’t be licensed or sold internationally (I assume this means the other two are international?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That show has been bleeding money and ratings for years. I’m surprised it lasted this long!

What fox news told you? Sigh….

Not the pp here. I’m very liberal. Every available piece of data indicates the show was losing money and viewers. I still think it was worthwhile to have on the air.

I hate when fellow liberals ignore provable facts. Let’s leave that to the other side.

Revenue down is not the same as not profitable.

Do better.

And you seriously think this is a coincidence given the merger? Pathetic.

My god, you are not bright.
DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His show couldn’t possibly be getting cancelled because it loses $40 million a year. Nope, that’s not it. Has to be something to do with Trump. Never change, DCUM.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/colbert-is-latest-casualty-late-night-tvs-fade-out-2025-07-19/

Please go back and read the article. Ad revenue is down. It doesn’t mean the show is not profitable.

This is all about Trump and his tantrums.

OMG. I suggest *you* go back and read the article. Ad revenue is what makes a show profitable. Good grief. They're bleeding to the tune of $40 million a year. But sure, continue blaming every single thing that you don't like on Trump. You look absurd.

you look absurd. Revenue is down, doesn’t mean the show is not profitable. They just aren’t making as much money as previous years.

And yes you can blame Trump for ad spending going down because of the uncertainty with the economy and tariffs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Absolutely no one, nowhere, has reported that this show was profitable. That's the whole issue. It's not making the network any money. I'm not sure why you can't understand this simple fact, but JFC - deal with it.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/cbs-colbert-late-show-cancel-profit-tv-1236319484/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That show has been bleeding money and ratings for years. I’m surprised it lasted this long!

What fox news told you? Sigh….

Not the pp here. I’m very liberal. Every available piece of data indicates the show was losing money and viewers. I still think it was worthwhile to have on the air.

I hate when fellow liberals ignore provable facts. Let’s leave that to the other side.

I agree, but liberals do that just as much as "the other side."