Yes, a business decision more than outrage over the remark, which - taken by itself - was inappropriate but shouldnt have been enough to fire Kimmel.
So, ABC seems to be using the politics to justify a business decision. - rather than being honest about it - probably to reduce any payment obligations?
i agree, i haven't seen the video but i'm sure it is well within any free speech objections
some might have considered it in poor taste but the government should not intervene in any way here
not a justification unless there was a direct threat of violence or maybe imminent harm
i'm not sure if he was fired or suspended
but could they use it as an excuse to terminate him? i don't know
i think if the show was wildly popular and profitable that he wouldn't miss a beat
i'm certain that there's an established upward trend toward digital streaming
it is probably more than just some big box news that are feeling the change
probably an exception or two to that trend
however, advertisers follow the eyes, ears and clicks
what role does content/format play?
online podcasting can be less restrictive
Yes, a business decision more than outrage over the remark, which - taken by itself - was inappropriate but shouldnt have been enough to fire Kimmel.
So, ABC seems to be using the politics to justify a business decision. - rather than being honest about it - probably to reduce any payment obligations?
i think jay leno pointed out the obvious cost of alienating half of your potential audience
True, but the alienation is the cause, not the effect.
Humor is calling out the irony, weakness, stupidity... of something so obvious that the majority "get the joke". Obvious and facts are no longer friends.
Carson and Letterman and whomever else used to make fun of everyone, because the issues where universally agreed. If Nixon said "I am not a crook" now, a third of the country would believe him. They aren't going to get the joke.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday Gender:
Posted:
Sep 18, 2025 - 10:10am
You are watching the beginnings of the Uncivil War that will officially split this nation and propel Jhina as the new world order leader. Couldnât have done any better from outside sources.
So grab your can goods, power supplies, solar panels, and water and any weapons needed to defend your families.
This is not a drill! Just bend over and kiss your and Freedom and Liberty bye bye. ðð»
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Sep 18, 2025 - 9:28am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Jay Leno inherited a franchise that still watched TV across all political persuasions. TV Networks know who's watching and they must have figured out that their audience skewed left and all sorts of other loyalty metrics are factored in. Will this middle-of-the-road joke retain viewership? If we move to the right, will we lose more viewers than moving to the left? None of this was Kimmel or Colbert acting without information.
Nota bene: Regardless of politics (or lack thereof), Jay Leno was simply not particularly funny.
if interesting or comedic entertainment is the goal
there is plenty of material out there to do a show
and you are correct, confirmation bias and accuracy are problems
i think jay leno pointed out the obvious cost of alienating half of your potential audience
Jay Leno inherited a franchise that still watched TV across all political persuasions. TV Networks know who's watching and they must have figured out that their audience skewed left and all sorts of other loyalty metrics are factored in. Will this middle-of-the-road joke retain viewership? If we move to the right, will we lose more viewers than moving to the left? None of this was Kimmel or Colbert acting without information.
Problem here is that it intensifies are already existing silo/echo chamber problem. Also, there is little/no mechanism for determining the validity of a source or it's integrity.
if interesting or comedic entertainment is the goal
there is plenty of material out there to do a show
and you are correct, confirmation bias and accuracy are problems
i think jay leno pointed out the obvious cost of alienating half of your potential audience
i'm certain that there's an established upward trend toward digital streaming
it is probably more than just some big box news that are feeling the change
probably an exception or two to that trend
however, advertisers follow the eyes, ears and clicks
what role does content/format play?
online podcasting can be less restrictive
Problem here is that it intensifies are already existing silo/echo chamber problem. Also, there is little/no mechanism for determining the validity of a source or it's integrity.
Ahhh...the old maximizing shareholder value "adage".
Perhaps worse than even our politics...we shall see.
i'm certain that there's an established upward trend toward digital streaming
it is probably more than just some big box news that are feeling the change
probably an exception or two to that trend
however, advertisers follow the eyes, ears and clicks
what role does content/format play?
online podcasting can be less restrictive
Editorâs note: This post was originally published on 8/5/25. It was updated on 8/22/25 to include an addendum on retransmission fees (see bottom of post)
When CBS announced that it was cancelling The Late Show with Stephen Colbertafter the 2025â26 season, the decision stunned most industry observers. The Late Show is still the highest-rated program in its time slot, outperforming The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel Live! in total viewers and in the key demos more often than not. To even most insiders, Colbertâs Late Show seemed untouchable.
So why would CBS cancel it?
The timing, of course, is impossible to ignore. Colbert has been a known thorn in the side of Donald Trump, who himself called for Colbertâs termination last fall. And at the time that CBS announced The Late Showâs cancellation, the networkâs parent company, Paramount, was in the final stages of seeking regulatory approval for its merger with Skydance from the Trump-controlled FCC. (That approval was granted a week later.)
CBS, in its announcement, termed its decision to cancel The Late Show as âpurely financial.â Subsequently, insiders at the network leaked that the show was losing moneyâto the tune of $40 million dollars.
We asked a network TV research analyst familiar with the financial realities of late night television from the inside (at networks other than CBS) for their thoughts on whether that number rang true.
Their response was a qualified yes: âI would believe anywhere between $25M-$40M.â
âRevenues have dropped at a pace that far outstrips the speed at which costs can be reduced,â added the analyst, who asked to remain anonymous but shared financial modeling with LateNighter for this story.
Though the analyst is bound by non-disclosure agreements from sharing any proprietary network research data, using blended Nielsen ratings, ad pricing estimates, and reported historical production costs for The Late Show, The Tonight Show, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, they built a hypothetical but (based on their experience) realistic model that lays bare the harsh economic realities faced by the average 11:35pm talk show. Their conclusion: 2022 was the last year most (if not all) of the traditional network late-night television shows likely turned a profit.
As for how we got here, the story begins and ends with the decline in linear ratings.
Ratings for the big three 11:30pm network talk shows have dropped sharply since 2015.
According to Nielsen Live+7 data, all three network 11:35pm showsâCBSâs The Late Show, NBCâs The Tonight Show, and ABCâs Jimmy Kimmel Live!âhave seen declines of 70â80% in the key 18â49 demographic since 2015. That year marked the beginning of a new era: Colbert took over from David Letterman, Fallon had just succeeded Jay Leno, and Kimmel had moved up to 11:35pm.
By 2018 the writing was on the wall that the time period that was once a cash cow was in free fall. According to one frequently cited report from the advertising data firm Guideline, brands spent $439 million advertising on network late-night television that year. By 2024, that number had been cut in half.
YouTube views and digital extensions helped fill the void for a time, but they werenât nearly enough to stop the bleeding. âDigital is a band-aid, not a cure,â the analyst explained. âIt helps, but it doesnât scale at the level that network TV would need to backfill for what has become a significant loss of traditional ad revenue.â
Another problem unique to the time period: late-night talk shows have almost no library value. Unlike procedural dramas, sitcoms and even some reality programming, they arenât easily syndicated, streamed, or licensed internationally. âLast yearâs jokes about Mitch McConnell arenât going to be binge-watched in Thailand,â the analyst notes. âYou make it, you air it, and itâs done. Thatâs a very expensive way to run a TV show in the current climate.â
While the production costs of network late-night shows have historically paled in comparison to primetime scripted shows, as audiences and ad revenues have contracted, even those budgets that were once perceived as relatively modest have a largesse thatâs out of step with the economic realities of the time period.
Viewing those costs in the context of shrinking ad revenues, a clear tipping point emerges.
In 2015, the typical 11:30pm talk show brought in well over $200 million in revenue and made a healthy profit. By 2023, the same show was underwater, and by 2025, losses are well into the tens of millions of dollarsâeven with cost controls that have been put into place by most of the major shows in recent years (in aggregate, those cuts have done little to offset the usual salary bumps and other annual cost increases of a long-running show).
By 2023, the average 11:30pm talk show was already losing money.
Looking ahead, the picture looks even more dire.
Ahhh...the old maximizing shareholder value "adage".
Perhaps worse than even our politics...we shall see.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 17, 2025 - 8:13pm
kcar wrote:
+1
+2
rgio articulated very well many of the points I might have made.
Broadening it out, I would add that the fight over whether Robinson is a product of the left or right is a political one, more inflammatory than relevant.