Is There a Future for Late-Night Talk Shows?

[anotherguyTN]

and on Roku TV there is a whole channel devoted to just running old Carson Tonight shows

I wish there was something like that with Letterman.

 

[davideduardo]

I think the reason for this is that the American right has taken for granted a "status quo" that works in their favor.

With the risk of taking this away from a discussion of media, I'd say that is not an accurate statement. Traditionally, the "right" has favored smaller government and greater power for the individual states which are closer to their citizens than a national government can be.

In other words, the right disfavors the nanny state and looks for less federal intervention in that which belongs to the states.

These hosts, right after the local news, are working to shift the tide away from that.

No, they don't have that agenda. They simply reflect the almost universal attitudes of national television hosts, newscasters and producers. They reflect their environment, which is not the environment of Dallas or Tulsa or Knoxville. Again, one of the reasons why local issues should be decided on at the state level in the opinion of Republicans.

Since the right tends to be intellectually lazy,

Having a divergent opinion is not being lazy. It is being different. About half of the US is hardly to be considered "lazy".

hosts and newspapers can readily shape a status quote that is away from the idiocy and lunacy the right has taken for granted for so long. And...seriously. Those people raided our capitol. Who cares about them?

Again, half of all Americans don't seem to think that way, and that is why the three network late night talk shows have lost about half of their audience. If all three hosts insult you every day, why would you watch them?

 

[Mikey Radio]

Since the right tends to be intellectually lazy,

Having a divergent opinion is not being lazy. It is being different. About half of the US is hardly to be considered "lazy".

If I may, I don't believe @tall_guy1 was referring to those on the right who simply have a different opinion. By "intellectually lazy", I believe he's referring to the masses who allow themselves to be spoon-fed whatever Rush, Hannity, Fox News or their talk hosts or "news" channels of choice would feed them, without doing any fact checking, verification or even looking into issues to form an educated opinion of their own.

Though I tend to lean left depending on the issue, I know plenty of republicans who's opinions may differ from mine, yet I consider (some of them close) friends. We've had some really good conversations as I'm always interested to understand why those who may have an opinion that differs from mine, believe the way they do. In many cases it's not a situation where I'm right and they're wrong or vice-versa; it may just be a case where their experiences or values systems differ from mine, which I can fully respect. What I don't have respect for is the "intellectual laziness" that I believe tall_guy is referring to..The ones who simply throw out one right-wing talking point after the other, with nothing to back it up, no true understanding of the facts or issue, and when you press them, they simply move on and throw out their next talking point, generally becoming more and more angry with each talking point they bring up, again, flailing because they have nothing to back it up except for "Because that's what I heard Trump/Hannity/Carlson say!"

 

[tall_guy1]

With the risk of taking this away from a discussion of media, I'd say that is not an accurate statement. Traditionally, the "right" has favored smaller government and greater power for the individual states which are closer to their citizens than a national government can be.

In other words, the right disfavors the nanny state and looks for less federal intervention in that which belongs to the states.

No, they don't have that agenda. They simply reflect the almost universal attitudes of national television hosts, newscasters and producers. They reflect their environment, which is not the environment of Dallas or Tulsa or Knoxville. Again, one of the reasons why local issues should be decided on at the state level in the opinion of Republicans.

Having a divergent opinion is not being lazy. It is being different. About half of the US is hardly to be considered "lazy".

Again, half of all Americans don't seem to think that way, and that is why the three network late night talk shows have lost about half of their audience. If all three hosts insult you every day, why would you watch them?

I think you're thinking of traditionalist conservative views, not the absolutist viewpoints which were at least present during the tea party up until now with their very core base (i.e. "the far right") like "Obama is a socialist," "The second amendment guarantees my right to an AR-15," "life begins at conception", "criticizing our leaders is unpatriotic", "the election was stolen,", ect.

 

[Kelly A]

With the risk of taking this away from a discussion of media, I'd say that is not an accurate statement. Traditionally, the "right" has favored smaller government and greater power for the individual states which are closer to their citizens than a national government can be.

Okay, I can't resist...

In other words, the right disfavors the nanny state and looks for less federal intervention in that which belongs to the states.

You mean like the fed's telling women what they can do with their personal health?

They simply reflect the almost universal attitudes of national television hosts, newscasters and producers.

I think it's become the other way around. You get guys like Tucker or Sean on Fox News telling people what they should be thinking. Or, at the least, ask it as a hypothetical question. That includes topics like promoting 'replacement theory'.

They reflect their environment, which is not the environment of Dallas or Tulsa or Knoxville. Again, one of the reasons why local issues should be decided on at the state level in the opinion of Republicans.

Tell that to Lindsey Graham.

Having a divergent opinion is not being lazy. It is being different.

Kind of like QAnon followers?

About half of the US is hardly to be considered "lazy".

You mean the one's that parrot Fox News or right wing talk radio? No, that's not lazy-thinking at all.

Again, half of all Americans don't seem to think that way, and that is why the three network late night talk shows have lost about half of their audience.

Actually that's been the case with all TV talk shows. Research indicates the loss is attributed to the pandemic "ending" and too many talk shows in a broadcast day. It's a genre that's just burned out.

If all three hosts insult you every day, why would you watch them?

Mainly, from what I've seen, they insult MAGA's, QAnon-followers, and Mike Lindell. All deserve to be heckled for being slightly one level above pond scum anyway.

 

[davideduardo]

You mean like the fed's telling women what they can do with their personal health?

No, telling the states that such decisions rest with their voters and legislatures.

I think it's become the other way around. You get guys like Tucker or Sean on Fox News telling people what they should be thinking. Or, at the least, ask it as a hypothetical question. That includes topics like promoting 'replacement theory'.

I include a FoxFix in my viewing, along with public television, BBC and others. But I have no idea what "replacement theory" is.

Tell that to Lindsey Graham.

Neither all Democrats not all Republicans think identically. Graham's ideas are antiques.

Kind of like QAnon followers?

Another example of extreme fringe. Same exists among Democrats, such as the Wisconsin candidate who wants instant citizenship for illegals.

You mean the one's that parrot Fox News or right wing talk radio? No, that's not lazy-thinking at all.

No different than those who parrot Warren and Sanders. Each party has subsets with lots of partisans who follow them.

Actually that's been the case with all TV talk shows. Research indicates the loss is attributed to the pandemic "ending" and too many talk shows in a broadcast day. It's a genre that's just burned out.

Nearly all the TV shows are left of center on the commercial networks. That burned out about half of all potential viewers. But there is always a thinning of the herd at some point, and either we get new genres or different focus points.

Mainly, from what I've seen, they insult MAGA's, QAnon-followers, and Mike Lindell. All deserve to be heckled for being slightly one level above pond scum anyway.

I don't see any problem with the MAGA slogan, just with some of the partisans. With several Latin American nations now refusing to talk with our delegate to their meetings and the Saudis turning on us on oil production while China takes over Africa, Indonesia and South America, a change in American diplomacy and behavior are warranted.

QAnon is a bunch of noisy nutcakes, and people who make ground up foam pillows should stay out of politics... just as equally ignorant and nutty Hollywooders like Streisand.

 

[Will_H_69_9]

truth be told, today's late night TV reflects on a bigger problem in American Society and that is the extreme political divide that is so bad that one side is a borderline nearing "Terrorist Group" status with it's views on certain topics. and late night now leans left and the conservative are always gonna get offended cause they are always the butt of late night's jokes. my political views are closer to that of Late Night TV today and the shows i watch are Trevor Noah's Daily Show (which i'll give Trevor's successor a shot after he leaves), Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel Live and the weekend shows of SNL (when in season) and recently (after getting access via a HBO Max account that is being shared by my older brother who is paying for it) Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, basically, watching then dunk on Republicans is worth a laugh and sometimes they make fun of people in their own party too, especially the DINOs like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

 

[Kelly A]

No, telling the states that such decisions rest with their voters and legislatures.

So, Lindsey Graham and other legislators wanting to make abortion laws federal is in line with that?

I include a FoxFix in my viewing, along with public television, BBC and others. But I have no idea what "replacement theory" is.

Always glad to help: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pd

Neither all Democrats not all Republicans think identically. Graham's ideas are antiques.

But, that's not consistent with leaving such laws to states is it?

Another example of extreme fringe. Same exists among Democrats, such as the Wisconsin candidate who wants instant citizenship for illegals.

Not many agree though. By comparison, many anti-choice members of the GOP agree with Lindsey.

No different than those who parrot Warren and Sanders. Each party has subsets with lots of partisans who follow them.

That includes Lauren Bobert, MGT, Mitch McConnell, Matt Gaetz, Ron Johnson, and several other legislators too?

Nearly all the TV shows are left of center on the commercial networks. That burned out about half of all potential viewers. But there is always a thinning of the herd at some point, and either we get new genres or different focus points.

If you consider reporting the news with actual truth, left of center.

I don't see any problem with the MAGA slogan, just with some of the partisans. With several Latin American nations now refusing to talk with our delegate to their meetings and the Saudis turning on us on oil production while China takes over Africa, Indonesia and South America, a change in American diplomacy and behavior are warranted.

Sure, here are some MAGA members you would be proud of. Real salt of the earth.

QAnon is a bunch of noisy nutcakes, and people who make ground up foam pillows should stay out of politics... just as equally ignorant and nutty Hollywooders like Streisand.

We agree there. But I think there are a lot more QAnon followers than Barbara Steisand.