It’s interesting to look at the reasons behind the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show, particularly since his guest on the night of the announcement was Adam Schiff.
Yes, Adam Schiff—who, let’s be honest, has been labeled a serial liar. The California senator, known for his understated persona, has spent more time than many discussing troubling misinformation about alleged Russian conspiracies than a lot of people care to admit.
CBS is reported to be paying Colbert around $15 million annually. Yet, perhaps bafflingly, he’s requesting a large crew for a show that has, well, not exactly made waves nationally, reaching less than one percent of viewers. It seems a strange choice to host a divisive figure sharing relatively unexciting points about divisive topics.
This seems, frankly, a bit arrogant.
Since the show’s cancellation, there’s been a variety of theories as to why CBS, a network that has been around since 1993 with David Letterman, decided to pull the plug on Colbert’s program.
Naturally, some are suggesting that the infamous Donald Trump must have something to do with it…
Questions arise: Is Colbert’s show ending in May 2026 linked to the merger with Paramount? Or perhaps it stems from Colbert’s criticism of Trump? That’s a matter of speculation.
The fact is, it doesn’t seem just to blame Colbert for the show’s decline. I mean, there’s a whole different issue with “Late Night TV Economics” at play here:
It’s a tough situation for late-night shows, particularly as CBS has struggled since replacing the previous host, James Corden, with Taylor Tomlinson.
But really, the crux of the matter seems to lie in one straightforward observation: people just aren’t tuning in to Colbert.
At the end of the day, it’s quite as simple as that.
He seems to be using prime broadcasting time to promote his own political views.
And, notably, his audience apparently consists of just 2 million people in a country of over 330 million. That’s pretty striking.
It’s not merely a question of late-night economics. The question is really about the viability of Colbert’s brand.
To put it bluntly: Colbert’s consistent push of his political ideology hasn’t managed to pull in sufficient viewers to justify the considerable budget behind his show, including his hefty salary and crew costs.
He possibly should consider a spot on CNN or MSNBC, where the production expenses might better align with a more niche audience.
Meanwhile, Greg Gutfeld’s late-night show, airing on Fox News, reaches significantly more households compared to CBS. Still, Gutfeld consistently manages to outperform Colbert in ratings. It’s amusing to think how much money CBS may be wasting allowing Colbert to continue without significant viewership.
Colbert’s appeal seems to be diminishing, to say the least. Before his show transitions to whatever platform it may land on next, it feels reminiscent of a previous host who may have lost sight of his audience.
Johnny Carson left a lasting legacy, as did David Letterman and Arsenio Hall. However, as Colbert bids farewell next May, likely heading towards a podcast with limited listeners, what impressions will remain?
One could argue that Stephen Colbert has become a caricature—someone overly focused on elite validation rather than entertaining a broader audience.
In essence, he may not be remembered in ideal light.
In conclusion, it’s hard to overlook the perception that Colbert has drifted far from entertaining the masses, chiefly catering to a narrower political audience.
