Late Show ending May 2026

[Cold Coffee]

Let's face it. His ratings will go up sky high now. People will be watching expecting Colbert to go off the rails with freedom of speech and get the axe very soon. We'll all be watching now. Do you think he'll toe the line or will he cross over it?

 

[michael hagerty]

Let's face it. His ratings will go up sky high now. People will be watching expecting Colbert to go off the rails with freedom of speech and get the axe very soon. We'll all be watching now. Do you think he'll toe the line or will he cross over it?

If you go back three pages and start from there, you'll see most of our answers.

 

[gopher101media]

Finally, a direct question.

If I had the authority to decide about late night at ABC, knowing that CBS will no longer be competing in that daypart at the point where Kimmel's contract is up for renewal, also seeing that NBC is worried (hence the changes in the Meyers show)...

I would take the chance on Kimmel, provided his terms for renewing or extending his contract were reasonable in light of what the projected revenue would be with CBS out of that daypart.

At the very least, I would want to sit down with him, have the conversation about the changes at CBS and potentially NBC, and ask him what he thought about continuing. Given the obvious difference in revenue expected in the 2026-27 season, I would likely ask him if he would consider an extension at his current salary plus a percentage of the ad revenue.

So I would take a carefully-reasoned chance. I wouldn't make a decision before I put all the cards on the table with Kimmel, and I would give him enough time to think about it before giving me an answer.

If I was in a similar position a Kimmel would be required to accept number of changes (Which would be put in Kimmel's contract) before any decision is made to take any chance on him.

A number of those changes for example would be.

1. - Nothing related to or anything involving Politics anywhere at all will be permitted on the show (And that means no Trump bashing ever).
2. - No politicians will be permitted to appear on the show.
3. - Kimmel will be required to keep his politics to himself.
4. - Certain other individuals will not be permitted to appear on the show either.
5. - Celebrity interviews will not be permitted to involve politics or their personal opinions and the celebrities will not be allowed to say what they think people should be doing (Violators who do so will be permanently banned from appearing on Kimmel again).

Kimmel would be required to read the list of changes before any discussion proceeds

 

[michael hagerty]

If I was in a similar position a Kimmel would be required to accept number of changes (Which would be put in Kimmel's contract) before any decision is made to take any chance on him.

A number of those changes for example would be.

1. - Nothing related to or anything involving Politics anywhere at all will be permitted on the show (And that means no Trump bashing ever).
2. - No politicians will be permitted to appear on the show.
3. - Kimmel will be required to keep his politics to himself.
4. - Certain other individuals will not be permitted to appear on the show either.
5. - Celebrity interviews will not be permitted to involve politics or their personal opinions and the celebrities will not be allowed to say what they think people should be doing (Violators who do so will be permanently banned from appearing on Kimmel again).

Kimmel would be required to read the list of changes before any discussion proceeds

Well, isn't it refreshing to see someone willing to stifle free speech and castrate a popular show before the administration even looks sideways at them?

This answers the question I've had all morning about whether to use the "ignore" function. I don't think I'll be missing anything going forward.

 

[K.M. Richards]

If I was in a similar position a Kimmel would be required to accept number of changes (Which would be put in Kimmel's contract) before any decision is made to take any chance on him.

A number of those changes for example would be.

1. - Nothing related to or anything involving Politics anywhere at all will be permitted on the show (And that means no Trump bashing ever).
2. - No politicians will be permitted to appear on the show.
3. - Kimmel will be required to keep his politics to himself.
4. - Certain other individuals will not be permitted to appear on the show either.
5. - Celebrity interviews will not be permitted to involve politics or their personal opinions and the celebrities will not be allowed to say what they think people should be doing (Violators who do so will be permanently banned from appearing on Kimmel again).

Kimmel would be required to read the list of changes before any discussion proceeds

With those kind of restrictions, I would support Kimmel walking away. Such a program would no longer get the viewership needed to sustain its existence, because it would be 180° out of phase with what the viewers expect. And it is the existing show which is receiving advertiser support, and I can hear the cancellation orders from the agencies already just thinking about it.

May we have your real name for the record when we write the history of who finished killing late night?

 

[Larry]

We have seen CBS cut/slash costs before in an effort to not have to cancel a show. Their daytime soap lineup is a mess perfect example. Even though costs were reduced on ATWT and GL (including asking cast to take pay cuts) they didn’t survive but Y&R and B&B did, largely by quickening the pace of production and filming more than one episode per day.

What doesn’t quite smell right is it doesn’t appear CBS is trying to make any changes to cut costs and save the show. They seem be be throwing in the towel too quickly and waving the white surrender flag “we can’t make this work” before trying to make it work.

 

[michael hagerty]

We have seen CBS cut/slash costs before in an effort to not have to cancel a show. Their daytime soap lineup is a mess perfect example. Even though costs were reduced on ATWT and GL (including asking cast to take pay cuts) they didn’t survive but Y&R and B&B did, largely by quickening the pace of production and filming more than one episode per day.

What doesn’t quite smell right is it doesn’t appear CBS is trying to make any changes to cut costs and save the show. They seem be be throwing in the towel too quickly and waving the white surrender flag “we can’t make this work” before trying to make it work.

If you're losing $40 million a year on a $100 million a year show that gets $30 million in tax credits, you're in VERY deep. Pair that with the available advertising dollars in the timeslot having fallen by nearly half in less than a decade---to $220 million split between four shows---and it's really not fixable. Not in a way that wouldn't hurt the show with viewers and thus further devalue it for advertisers.

The New York Times piece @Mark Roberts posted is an excellent read that gives some valuable perspective.

 

[K.M. Richards]

We have seen CBS cut/slash costs before in an effort to not have to cancel a show. Their daytime soap lineup is a mess perfect example. Even though costs were reduced on ATWT and GL (including asking cast to take pay cuts) they didn’t survive but Y&R and B&B did, largely by quickening the pace of production and filming more than one episode per day.

"As The World Turns" had its last airing September 17, 2010. "Guiding Light" bit the dust a full year earlier (September 18, 2009).

It's now (checks calendar) 2025. The business of broadcasting has changed considerably in those 15 years and what happened then has no relevance to a discussion today.

 

[davideduardo]

All it does is further the perception that the people on that side of the aisle have underdeveloped taste.

And the show is a hit, so I guess FOX and Gutfeld are right.

I liked Hee Haw, too.

There are moments when slapstick comedy is kinda' fun. I can not take Gutfeld! more than once or twice a week, but it is amusing to me as it makes fun of issues and people that I find frighteningly scary such as Sshiff, The Squad, Weingarten and Mamdani. It's a way of venting frustration.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I can not take Gutfeld! more than once or twice a week, but it is amusing to me as it makes fun of issues and people that I find frighteningly scary such as Sshiff, The Squad, Weingarten and Mamdani. It's a way of venting frustration.

David, I have long known that we are at different ends of the spectrum politically. I have deliberately not talked about it with you because I value our friendship and respect our differences.

But I must politely suggest that as a moderator/administrator, you are crossing a line here which degrades your authority.

 

[gopher101media]

Well, isn't it refreshing to see someone willing to stifle free speech and castrate a popular show before the administration even looks sideways at them?

This answers the question I've had all morning about whether to use the "ignore" function. I don't think I'll be missing anything going forward.

Actually it's trying to make the show Politically neutral so it would appeal to all viewers regarding any political opinion and to require Kimmel to solely focus only on doing Comedy and making the viewers laugh which is what Late Night talk shows should be doing.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Actually it's trying to make the show Politically neutral so it would appeal to all viewers regarding any political opinion and to require Kimmel to solely focus only on doing Comedy and making the viewers laugh which is what Late Night talk shows should be doing.

You don't get it. It's not about what you think late night should be, it's about what attracts an audience.

In late night, skewering politics is what the audience considers comedy.

And with that, I follow Mike's lead on the Ignore function. So don't bother replying.

 

[davideduardo]

If you're losing $40 million a year on a $100 million a year show that gets $30 million in tax credits, you're in VERY deep.

I thought that the tax credits were based on a list of issues that are "too expensive" in New York City" unless they are reimbursed. I can't remember where I read it years ago, but I recall that the net credits were closer to the $10 to $12 million and deepened on some job maintenance levels and the like.

In any case, that means that, no matter where the show is done, there is no way to make it profitable in today's environment. We also see the same thing with the Big Three webs in morning shows... huge salaries being tossed out with no real, measurable results... while overall network viewing is eroding and expenses are increasing.

Pair that with the available advertising dollars in the timeslot having fallen by nearly half in less than a decade---to $220 million split between four shows---and it's really not fixable. Not in a way that wouldn't hurt the show with viewers and thus further devalue it for advertisers.

And we have to remember that that gross revenue figure is reduced by agency and sales commissions even before it gets out of the gate!

 

[michael hagerty]

I thought that the tax credits were based on a list of issues that are "too expensive" in New York City" unless they are reimbursed. I can't remember where I read it years ago, but I recall that the net credits were closer to the $10 to $12 million and deepened on some job maintenance levels and the like.

It's a 30% state tax credit on the budget for the show. So if the show's $100 million, the tax credit is $30 million. It's why Lorne pulled Tonight out of Burbank.

In any case, that means that, no matter where the show is done, there is no way to make it profitable in today's environment.

Exactly...if you cut the budget of the show, you cut the tax credit along with it.

 

[michael hagerty]

I liked Hee Haw, too.

Hee Haw never suggested that LBJ wanted to f**k Muriel Humphrey.

 

[gopher101media]

And regarding political neutrality on Late Night talk shows every host should follow what Johnny Carson had done and make all political humor if any focus on all politicians regardless of their political positions and no host should take any political position when doing their show.

Regarding some of my previous posts Kimmel has real options if he wants to speak his political views which is keep the views off-the-air and just post it on YouTube on his own channel where nobody except him has any say on what is posted.

 

[gopher101media]

Hee Haw never suggested that LBJ wanted to f**k Muriel Humphrey.

And that proves that Hee Haw had some real principals even though Broadcast standards were different then.

 

[Rusty Muck]

And that proves that Hee Haw had some real principals even though Broadcast standards were different then.

Hee Haw was cornpone humor that Fred Silverman cancelled in CBS's Rural Purge of '71.

 

[tall_guy1]

And regarding political neutrality on Late Night talk shows every host should follow what Johnny Carson had done and make all political humor if any focus on all politicians regardless of their political positions and no host should take any political position when doing their show.

Regarding some of my previous posts Kimmel has real options if he wants to speak his political views which is keep the views off-the-air and just post it on YouTube on his own channel where nobody except him has any say on what is posted.

Jon Stewart and Letterman used to let their political views known

 

[gopher101media]

Hee Haw was cornpone humor that Fred Silverman cancelled in CBS's Rural Purge of '71.

And Hee Haw managed to continue on in syndication well until the June of 1993 when production had ceased (Coincidentally around the same time Letterman had left NBC to go to CBS).

The Rural Purge was done so CBS can replace those shows with those who appealed tom the demographics that the Advertisers wanted to target.

Jon Stewart and Letterman used to let their political views known

Was those political views mentioned on their respective shows or elsewhere like on a Daytime talk show.