• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot

michael hagerty said:
is utter foolishness.

Your antipathy toward late-night hosts critical of Donald Trump has caused you to make some of the least-informed comments about late night with breathtaking confidence on this board.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm so hurt.

Jimmy basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show. He further has no direct information on the finances of the CBS show, so I absolutely stand by my comment. Kimmel has zero idea of what the finances of the Late Show were. For him to declare otherwise is an outright lie.
 
umfan said:
Oh, I'm so hurt.

Jimmy basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show. He further has no direct information on the finances of the CBS show, so I absolutely stand by my comment. Kimmel has zero idea of what the finances of the Late Show were. For him to declare otherwise is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

I've seen doubling down before, but damn.

That is breathtaking confidence with literally nothing to back it up.

It's your credibility. Shred it at your own discretion.
 
umfan said:
The inability to back it up was Kimmel's ill informed comment with you dying on the hill to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Tell me, apart from your opinion, how you know Kimmel's comment was ill-informed. More to the point, defend your comment that Jimmy "basically gets to sit in a chair and not concern himself with the business of staffing and funding his show." Support that with facts and I'll apologize publicly and concede the point.
 
Wait, you’re seriously suggesting the hosts who have clearly established a friendly competitive relationship supportive of each other have no insights into the broader business. That…cannot be a serious take.

Nor, from earlier in this thread, is that “none of the big three networks” — which yet again ignores the well established Fox News and endlessly promoted One America, Mews Max etc—have a “conservative view.” Two still have a fact-based view. Sometimes facts aren’t to the liking of the administration. The same networks pointing out, in remarkably restrained terms, issues with the current regime were, two years ago, repeatedly leading their programs with negative Biden stories. The third used to be in that mold, but is now in full “we salute you” mode to the fascists.
 
CTListener said:
It took less than three years from the 1965 start of the draft for Vietnam protest songs to make their way on to Top 40 playlists, which would certainly jibe with your timeline of American popular opinion. We went from Sgt. Barry Sadler's big hit "Ballad of The Green Berets" and Pat Boone's lesser-known, but pro-war (or at least anti-draft dodger) "Wish You Were Here, Little Buddy" in 1966 to the Animals' "Sky Pilot" and Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man." By 1969, just four years in, Top 40 radio was very much anti-war in its sound -- "Sweet Cherry Wine" and "Bad Moon Rising" -- followed in 1970 by Edwin Starr's snarling "War." None of these songs would have been the AM hits they were if the war was receiving anything close to majority support.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that top-40 radio was heavily playing even then to a younger audience whose members were praying that their number wouldn't be picked in the draft lottery. There was a lot more support for the Vietnam War among older people who were no longer qualified for the draft. The fact that antiwar songs were popular on both the radio and the record charts (and they were all great songs by the way) *only* signaled how younger audiences felt about the war and not necessarily how their parents and teachers felt about the same war.
 
Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, of course, but it defies any sort of sense to suggest that Kimmel is just "a guy who sits in a chair."

There's a very long history of entertainers who are also shrewd businesspeople, and it predates television itself - go back more than a century to Fairbanks and Pickford and the formation of United Artists for one very good example, or Desi and Lucy a generation later, or Carson or Letterman another few generations afterward.

You don't spend 23 years both hosting and owning one of the premiere late-night franchises on a major network without developing a pretty deep understanding of exactly how the business works. Does Kimmel have access to the precise numbers that Ellison does? Probably not. Does he have a very good ability to figure out what those numbers are, based on his own dealings with Disney and his behind-the-scenes ties to Colbert (through a shared agent, etc.?) Absolutely, and it's just ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 


Back
Top Bottom