On Thursday, Stephen Colbert will deliver his final monologue as host of “The Late Show.” The moment has been a long time coming after CBS announced last July that it would sunset the storied franchise, pioneered by the inimitable, iconic and famously irritable David Letterman. In this final week of episodes, Colbert’s performances have been characterized by melancholy, anger, gratitude, relief and comedy of uneven quality. “Final week Steve,” as Colbert has been calling himself, has understandably appeared to have resigned to his fate, even seeming ready to move on.
The reasons for the cancellation of “The Late Show” are the subject of intense partisan dispute. CBS and assorted figures on the right say ratings were flagging and the show was losing money. Defenders of the program, however, — and people on the left in general — tell a very different story. In their view, the axing of Colbert is a grim tale of how media conglomerates and authoritarian leaders have joined forces to erode freedom of speech.
Shutting down Colbert, critics allege, was one excellent way for both Skydance and Paramount to ingratiate themselves to Trump’s Federal Communications Commission.
These critics challenge the right’s narrative that “The Late Show” was a drag on CBS’s bottom line. As they see it, the program was top-rated among its kind and helpful to local CBS affiliates. They attribute Colbert’s canning to a devious quid pro quo.
It all started when CBS’ parent company, Paramount, settled with President Donald Trump over a lawsuit he filed against the network over its “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Colbert was all over that settlement, calling it an act of capitulation and a “big fat bribe.”
Enter David Ellison’s Skydance Media, which sought a merger with Paramount. Shutting down Colbert, critics allege, was one excellent way for both Skydance and Paramount to ingratiate themselves to Trump’s Federal Communications Commission. And ingratiate themselves they did when the merger was approved.
This brings us to Trump himself, whose thumbprints seem to be all over this ordeal. As with many of Trump’s obsessions, it’s difficult to comprehend why late-night comedians in particular send him off the rails. Picking a fight with Colbert and Jimmy Fallon seems like a very niche preoccupation for the alleged leader of the free world. Deploying federal agencies to menace Kimmel is equally bewildering and concerning.
One explanation is that Trump is locked in the mediasphere of the 1980s and 1990s, when a host like Johnny Carson had as many as 17 million regular viewers. It was a time before the rise of cable television, when network late night talk shows commanded truly huge national audiences. Today’s programs are far more siloed and far more limited in viewership and cultural cachet.
Yes, these shows tend to be critical of Trump — but if he was really worried about impact, he would likely sic his government on more influential targets. (The progressive MeidasTouch podcast, for example, gets up to 124 million views and downloads a month.) But as we have learned, the president’s attacks are often more vindictive and petty than they are logical. Then again, there is a feral rationale to Trump’s take down of Colbert. It sends a message to media titans and oligarchs: Don’t platform my detractors.
As subdued, however, as he has been for his final shows this week, Colbert, as well as his guests, has not refrained from skewering both Trump and CBS. Letterman (who hosted the show from 1993 until 2015) appeared last week, and half of his interview was conducted seated among the audience, in an interesting flourish. His salty sign-off was, “Good night, and good luck motherf—–s!”
On Tuesday night, Jon Stewart got in on the fun and pounded the “ubiquitous bloviating of the commander in chief.” He made a prediction: “The day that the electorate in this great nation we call home repudiates this putrid administration … my brother … there will be … a joyful noise from the bowels of this great country that will make Hungary’s repudiation of Orbán look like an Amish sabbath.” On Wednesday, Bruce Springsteen added, “You’re the first guy in America who lost his show because we have a president who can’t take a joke.”
That being said, it’s easy to forget that Colbert’s engagement with Trump has not always been one of pure, principled resistance. He did platform candidate Trump in 2016. He even apologized for the language of some of his harsher takedowns. A skillful media manipulator, Trump used his appearance to moderate his views and tamp down the malicious conflagrations he himself ignited over former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Trump was quite poised in this interview (the difference in his Anglo-coherence between 2016 and 2026 is striking). The Atlantic suggested that Trump beat Colbert at his own game.
The whole episode raises questions I have often asked about comedians, namely: How close to power do these guys want to get? How engaged in politics and partisanship do they want to be? And at what cost? Colbert, a persistent and principled critic of Trump, once flew very close to that orange sun. Too close.
Perhaps the proper ethical stance for the comic is to maintain a critical distance from all those in power. Skewer from a distance and skewer them all. That means no Trump on the show, and no James Talarico either (Colbert hosted the Texas Democrat and senate candidate on YouTube because CBS blocked him from having him on his own show).
That said, the bigger story remains: a government and a media conglomerate shook hands, slapped backs, puffed cigars and each got what they wanted. Trump won. Skydance won. Thin-skinned conservatives won.
Colbert lost, of course. I sensed in his subdued effect this week that the legendary comic recognized the checkmate that CBS and Trump issued, not just to him, but to free speech in general.
Jacques Berlinerblau is a professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University.