CBS shocking move

[JoeB131]

Looks like the Spew is gone too.

Seems that mindless hate doesn't sell as well as democrats thought.

They go on hiatus every year for a few weeks.

This is nothing new

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Looks like the Spew is gone too.

Seems that mindless hate doesn't sell as well as democrats thought.

Oh NOOO. Think of the Karens Joy. Think of the Karens, the liberal Karens. Now where will they get their news from? How will they know what to be outraged about anymore?

 

[cAPSLOCK]

What's shocking is that so many Dems, Libs, and Progs wrongly mischaracterize this as any sort of threat to free speech. It most certainly isn't.
What's shocking is that so many Dems, Libs, and Progs think that anything they like needs to be subsidized and needs to be free from fiscal and financial realities.
They behave like spoiled children.

It's exactly like the NPR thing that's going on right now. I listen to my local public radio. I used to even donate to them now and then.

If you don't help us, rural Americans will be in peril of not being able to understand democracy anymore!

Nature is healing.

Also, everybody going around somehow blaming this on Trump... at the very most Trump has set a tone, but the culture was already tired of all this stuff to begin with.

The Colbert show is losing double-digit millions.

The View is ranked number 35 in talk, number 75 on CBS, and number 1436th for shows watched online. LOL

And NPR defended themselves not long ago as not being state-sponsored media claiming that only 1% of their funding from the US government. They can find a way to make it up. They've been running ads for years disguised as, I don't know, some smooth voiced pitch that "isn't really an ad."

These stupid chickens have flown a long way to get to this roost, but here they come.

CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert's Late Show This Year - LateNighter

Sources inside CBS have suddenly become much more forthcoming about the economics of late-night television—go figure!— revealing that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million.

latenighter.com

The View (TV) - Stats, Ratings, Viewership

Daily data and stats for The View. Television Stats helps you understand viewership and ratings trends by comparing online TV performance data on all shows.

televisionstats.com

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168158549/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media

 

[Pyrite]

Colbert's anger and rage was funny

When? Not on the evening he calmly explained what had happened and what would happen.

It looks as if you failed to tune in that night.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's exactly like the NPR thing that's going on right now. I listen to my local public radio. I used to even donate to them now and then.

If you don't help us, rural Americans will be in peril of not being able to understand democracy anymore!

Nature is healing.

Also, everybody going around somehow blaming this on Trump... at the very most Trump has set a tone, but the culture was already tired of all this stuff to begin with.

The Colbert show is losing double-digit millions.

The View is ranked number 35 in talk, number 75 on CBS, and number 1436th for shows watched online. LOL

And NPR defended themselves not long ago as not being state-sponsored media claiming that only 1% of their funding from the US government. They can find a way to make it up. They've been running ads for years disguised as, I don't know, some smooth voiced pitch that "isn't really an ad."

These stupid chickens have flown a long way to get to this roost, but here they come.

CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert's Late Show This Year - LateNighter

Sources inside CBS have suddenly become much more forthcoming about the economics of late-night television—go figure!— revealing that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million.

latenighter.com

The View (TV) - Stats, Ratings, Viewership

Daily data and stats for The View. Television Stats helps you understand viewership and ratings trends by comparing online TV performance data on all shows.

televisionstats.com

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168158549/twitter-npr-state-affiliated-media

Indeed, anything and anyone who spews the left's propaganda must be supported by the public.
A ridiculous idea from the get go. Ridiculous entitlement attitude.
But how else are they going to brainwash the rest of the electorate? They aren't going to brainwash themselves of their own free will, are they?

 

[Daisy]

I quit watchin' late night TV when David Letterman retired...that last of the greats...

 

[Uncensored2008]

When? Not on the evening he calmly explained what had happened and what would happen.

It looks as if you failed to tune in that night.

See, that's the thing. 99% of television viewers "failed" to tune in for Colbert's little hate fest - ever. Same with Kibbles & Bits and Fallon.

Cold Burt belongs on MSNBC with the other hate mongers. Hate sells to the extreme left - but the left is a tiny market.

 

[Maidenrules29]

I used to tune in from time to time depending on what guests he had on, but he jumped the shark with those dancing needles. That was it for me.

 

[Str8shooter]

And now Joyless Behar and the Shrews are history as well.

Every job has a level of incompetence that will get a person fired. For example, in the State of Illinois, if you receive two teacher evaluation ratings of "proficient," you can be fired. Also, if a person walks the line per their actions or statements, employers have to make a decision about whether to keep that person employed. For Colbert, don't forget that he verbally attacked his bosses on national TV. If any of us verbally attacked our bosses in public, we should expect to be fired.

 

[Pyrite]

See, that's the thing. 99% of television viewers "failed" to tune in for Colbert's little hate fest - ever. Same with Kibbles & Bits and Fallon.

Cold Burt belongs on MSNBC with the other hate mongers. Hate sells to the extreme left - but the left is a tiny market.

See, that's the problem with your claim Colbert indulged in a "hate fest" on the night he announced his departure: you didn't watch the show.

There was no "hate fest". Colbert was amazingly matter-of-fact. Quite calm. No histrionics, not even drama.

Too bad you didn't see it....then you wouldn't have shown your ignorance on this matter.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

See, that's the problem with your claim Colbert indulged in a "hate fest" on the night he announced his departure: you didn't watch the show.

There was no "hate fest". Colbert was amazingly matter-of-fact. Quite calm. No histrionics, not even drama.

Too bad you didn't see it....then you wouldn't have shown your ignorance on this matter.

Was he making the claim about that specific show?

My problem with Colbert is he does the left leaning outrage rant type stuff, but he does it like he has a constipated bile duct, or perhaps an overflow of it, I don't know.

Same with The View, it's a lot of shrieking and outrage, and just distasteful to at least half, if not more than half, of the American population. Works well with a certain sliver, but not a lot of us.

I enjoy watching Jon Stewart and Bill Maher who both do what Colbert was doing but with more grace and less bile.

 

[Pyrite]

Was he making the claim about that specific show?

My problem with Colbert is he does the left leaning outrage rant type stuff, but he does it like he has a constipated bile duct, or perhaps an overflow of it, I don't know.

Same with The View, it's a lot of shrieking and outrage, and just distasteful to at least half, if not more than half, of the American population. Works well with a certain sliver, but not a lot of us.

I enjoy watching Jon Stewart and Bill Maher who both do what Colbert was doing but with more grace and less bile.

Who knows? He wasn't specific, just accusatory about....whatever.

Colbert's demeanor that evening was far from that of a "hate fest".

I know, because I watched him that evening. which is something it seems the accuser failed to do.

 

[jmotivator]

Who knows? He wasn't specific, just accusatory about....whatever.

Colbert's demeanor that evening was far from that of a "hate fest".

I know, because I watched him that evening. which is something it seems the accuser failed to do.

To be fair, almost nobody watches Colbert, which is why he was fired. Firing Colbert is kind of like a buyer demanding that the seller fix the busted drywall before the sale. In other words, Skydance wanted CBS to cut the dead weight from their lineup before the sale.

 

[JMR]

To be fair, almost nobody watches Colbert, which is why he was fired. Firing Colbert is kind of like a buyer demanding that the seller fix the busted drywall before the sale. In other words, Skydance wanted CBS to cut the dead weight from their lineup before the sale.

He has an audience of 2.5 million a night. What rerun do you think ABC can put in that slot?

 

[jmotivator]

He has an audience of 2.5 million a night. What rerun do you think ABC can put in that slot?

It will be up to Skydance to decide what goes in that slot. Hell, they could put NCIS or CRIMINAL MINDS reruns in that time slot and probably get better ratings.

As for his audience pull of 2.5 million, that is a 9 share, so 10 in 11 late night viewers are watching something else. The alternative would be cutting down the bloated staff at late night (which last I heard was something like 200 people) but that likely wouldn't close the $40 million annual shortfall. I think what we are seeing is that the late night market is now divided into too many slices to support overproduced shows like Late Night. Those kinds of shows made more sense when the audience was locked into essentially 3 options and your share was 33+ if you were winning late night ratings, which is why they killed the show all together rather than just fire Colbert.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

It will be up to Skydance to decide what goes in that slot. Hell, they could put NCIS or CRIMINAL MINDS reruns in that time slot and probably get better ratings.

As for his audience pull of 2.5 million, that is a 9 share, so 10 in 11 late night viewers are watching something else. The alternative would be cutting down the bloated staff at late night (which last I heard was something like 200 people) but that likely wouldn't close the $40 million annual shortfall. I think what we are seeing is that the late night market is now divided into too many slices to support overproduced shows like Late Night. Those kinds of shows made more sense when the audience was locked into essentially 3 options and your share was 33+ if you were winning late night ratings, which is why they killed the show all together rather than just fire Colbert.

This is true. And as to your thought of them cutting to avoid the $40 million shortfall, I believe Colbert's annual salary is about half of that amount.

And on top of what you said about the splintering late show scene, the internet has also wounded network television and we are at the cusp of a lot of the big networks and even smaller ones failing, I think.

Case in point... Joe Rogan's average audience size in 2024 was 11 million. And not only does he not have the support (and also dead weight) of the network behind him, when Spotify tried to create that circumstance they failed.

Times they are a changin.

 

[JoeB131]

To be fair, almost nobody watches Colbert, which is why he was fired. Firing Colbert is kind of like a buyer demanding that the seller fix the busted drywall before the sale. In other words, Skydance wanted CBS to cut the dead weight from their lineup before the sale.

yeah, guy, I don't buy that.

First, I doubt this claim that Colbert was losing 40 million a year.

Revenues were 70 million a year.

‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ Was Losing $40 to $50 Million A Year According to Reports As Cord Cutting Grows | Cord Cutters News

CBS has announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a cornerstone of late-night television, citing insurmountable financial losses of approximately $40 million annually, as reported by sources in a New York Post article and a New York Times report that says its $50 million...

cordcuttersnews.com

Now, they are claiming the show had a staff of 200 people. However, with 200 people having an average salary of $ 70,000, that only works out to $14 million. Put on top of that Colbert's salary of $15 MM, you have tops, 29 million in salary costs. Add another $ 5 million for space, props, and production materials... So let's say, $34 million to produce.

That's still $36 million in profit.

But even that said... they just completed a 1.5 BILLION deal with the South Park Creators for five years to create 50 episodes.

How is that fiscally responsible?

And I go back to my complaint about Star Trek: Section 31, a show that not even Trekkies wanted, which cost $80,000,000 to produce.

 

[jmotivator]

yeah, guy, I don't buy that.

First, I doubt this claim that Colbert was losing 40 million a year.

Revenues were 70 million a year.

‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ Was Losing $40 to $50 Million A Year According to Reports As Cord Cutting Grows | Cord Cutters News

CBS has announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a cornerstone of late-night television, citing insurmountable financial losses of approximately $40 million annually, as reported by sources in a New York Post article and a New York Times report that says its $50 million...

cordcuttersnews.com

Now, they are claiming the show had a staff of 200 people. However, with 200 people having an average salary of $ 70,000, that only works out to $14 million. Put on top of that Colbert's salary of $15 MM, you have tops, 29 million in salary costs. Add another $ 5 million for space, props, and production materials... So let's say, $34 million to produce.

That's still $36 million in profit.

But even that said... they just completed a 1.5 BILLION deal with the South Park Creators for five years to create 50 episodes.

How is that fiscally responsible?

And I go back to my complaint about Star Trek: Section 31, a show that not even Trekkies wanted, which cost $80,000,000 to produce.

I'm guessing that the $70K is a fairly low average and you are only counting salary, not benefits.

Also "$5 million for space, props and production materials" is comically under estimating.

I've seen estimates that an episode of The Late Show cost between $700k and $1 million an episode. That would make an annual costs $140 to $200 million.

As for the money paid for South Park, South Park is the top streamed content on Paramount+ and in the 5 years of that contract, even if their subscription numbers don't change, will gross ~$3 billion. So essentially they are paying them half of the gross revenue of the platform.

I don't know how they plan to make money that way either, but South Park is the king of their streaming service and Colbert is not.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm guessing that the $70K is a fairly low average and you are only counting salary, not benefits.

Also "$5 million for space, props and production materials" is comically under estimating.

I've seen estimates that an episode of The Late Show cost between $700k and $1 million an episode. That would make an annual costs $140 to $200 million.

Again, that sounds like Hollywood Accounting, not real accounting.

Do you think an usher in the theater is making $ 70,000 with benefits? Or the cameraman? Or, heck, even a writer who writes one joke that might be used that week.

I was actually being generous with $70K.

I also don't see how, once you take out staffing costs, it costs that much to make the show. It has one set. It has one theater. Things don't really change that much.

As for the money paid for South Park, South Park is the top streamed content on Paramount+ and in the 5 years of that contract, even if their subscription numbers don't change, will gross ~$3 billion. So essentially they are paying them half of the gross revenue of the platform.

Again, I just don't see it, especially since South Park stopped being trendy years ago. I also don't see how paying 80 million to make a single streaming Star Trek movie that even the Trekkies hated makes sense. "Oh, look, we got Michelle Yeoh, and she won an Oscar for some reason, even though you can't understand what she's saying half the time!"

I don't know how they plan to make money that way either, but South Park is the king of their streaming service and Colbert is not.

It seems they are getting rid of something that consistently makes money with 200 episodes of content a year for something that's only going to provide 10 episodes of conent a year, and costs far more.

This is CBS/Paramount taking a knee for Mango Mussolini, and we should all be horrified by it.

 

[jmotivator]

Again, that sounds like Hollywood Accounting, not real accounting.

Do you think an usher in the theater is making $ 70,000 with benefits? Or the cameraman? Or, heck, even a writer who writes one joke that might be used that week.

I was actually being generous with $70K.

I also don't see how, once you take out staffing costs, it costs that much to make the show. It has one set. It has one theater. Things don't really change that much.

Yes, it's a low estimate. Roughly a third of employee cost is benefits, so your average salary of $70k would equate to a take home pay of $42k, which is low. It's slightly above NYC average income of $41k, but it's not a average business for NYC. Also the contrast in salary from the low end to the high end on The Late Show is almost certainly very stark.

Again, I just don't see it, especially since South Park stopped being trendy years ago. I also don't see how paying 80 million to make a single streaming Star Trek movie that even the Trekkies hated makes sense. "Oh, look, we got Michelle Yeoh, and she won an Oscar for some reason, even though you can't understand what she's saying half the time!"

Just because YOU haven't heard people talking bout South Park doesn't mean a lot of people aren't watching it. As I already pointed out, it is the flagship show of Paramount's $3 billion a year streaming service. It is the most watched Paramount show currently.

I agree with you that making awful and expensive shows like that Star Trek garbage makes no sense, but Deck 31 was a mini-series so it doesn't need to be canceled. Let's hope that Skydance decides to use Paramount IPs to make the kinds of shows that fans of those IPs want to see. *crosses fingers*

It seems they are getting rid of something that consistently makes money with 200 episodes of content a year for something that's only going to provide 10 episodes of conent a year, and costs far more.

It doesn't make make, that's the point. That you can't fathom where all the money is going isn't an argument.

This is CBS/Paramount taking a knee for Mango Mussolini, and we should all be horrified by it.

Nope. What you have done is declare you are ignorant of the numbers and then use your ignorance to fuel a conspiracy theory. Bad look.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it's a low estimate. Roughly a third of employee cost is benefits, so your average salary of $70k would equate to a take home pay of $42k, which is low. It's slightly above NYC average income of $41k, but it's not a average business for NYC. Also the contrast in salary from the low end to the high end on The Late Show is almost certainly very stark.

Sorry, just not seeing it. 200 people, even making $100,000 is only 20 million. And if that were the case, they should do what every company does when expenses are too high, they simply cut staff. Perhaps the show can get by with only 100 staff members.

Just because YOU haven't heard people talking bout South Park doesn't mean a lot of people aren't watching it. As I already pointed out, it is the flagship show of Paramount's $3 billion a year streaming service. It is the most watched Paramount show currently.

That's like being the leper with the most fingers. Paramount+ still loses 100 million a year, even before they gave 1.5 billion to the South Park guys. That's why they need that Skydance money.

I agree with you that making awful and expensive shows like that Star Trek garbage makes no sense, but Deck 31 was a mini-series so it doesn't need to be canceled. Let's hope that Skydance decides to use Paramount IPs to make the kinds of shows that fans of those IPs want to see. *crosses fingers*

Actually, it was called "Section 31", and it was a movie, not a miniseries. The only reason why it got made was because they had Michelle Yeoh on a play-or-pay contract, and they decided to go through with it, hoping her name recognition would boost the show.

It doesn't make make, that's the point. That you can't fathom where all the money is going isn't an argument.

Until someone shows me an accounting budget, I am going to assume CBS is just lying their asses off.

Nope. What you have done is declare you are ignorant of the numbers and then use your ignorance to fuel a conspiracy theory. Bad look.

Or, I can just see the obvious. That Paramount wants the Skydance deal to go through, and Trump is using the FCC to get them to bend a knee.

 

[jmotivator]

Sorry, just not seeing it. 200 people, even making $100,000 is only 20 million. And if that were the case, they should do what every company does when expenses are too high, they simply cut staff. Perhaps the show can get by with only 100 staff members.

Again, your inability to comprehend the costs of TV production that you don't understand isn't really a firm argument.

There is no doubt that the entertainment industry spends exorbitantly and without fiscal responsibility. Trying to down play that reality by focusing on a guessed salary average is just silly.

That's like being the leper with the most fingers. Paramount+ still loses 100 million a year, even before they gave 1.5 billion to the South Park guys. That's why they need that Skydance money.

TV producers rightly see streaming as the future, rather than Cable, so they are investing heavily in that area. The Late Show was not a popular streaming title while South Park is. None of that is to say that they will end up making money off of Paramount+, but to compare Paramount+ potential to The Late Show is not very compelling. No doubt Skydance will make a lot of changes to Paramount+, including removing a lot of unwatched streaming content that generates cost while not generating subscriptions.

Actually, it was called "Section 31", and it was a movie, not a miniseries. The only reason why it got made was because they had Michelle Yeoh on a play-or-pay contract, and they decided to go through with it, hoping her name recognition would boost the show.

I didn't watch it. Your example of Section 31 is pointless in either case since it isn't an ongoing loss, except the cost of hosting it on the cloud. Skydance might very well, as I stated, purge Paramount+ of all the content that isn't generating views, including Section 31.

Until someone shows me an accounting budget, I am going to assume CBS is just lying their asses off.

As is the position of all conspiracy theorists.

Or, I can just see the obvious. That Paramount wants the Skydance deal to go through, and Trump is using the FCC to get them to bend a knee.

Except that you examples are pulled out of your ass, or have little bearing on the profitability of Paramount under Skydance moving forward. Past Paramount Mistakes are being left in the past. Skydance almnost certainly puts most of the valuation of Paramount on their established Streaming service. They will almost certainly make major changes to it to try and improve profitability, but they will be starting with 80 million subscribers.

There was no upside to the Late Show no matter how much you want to believe it made money based on your ignorance of the show's budget.

But yeah, companies usually acquire companies that are losing money, which is why the company is for sale in the first place, and they do it because they see the existing assets as valuable if run more reasonably. They want the things they think they can turn a profit on, and don't want to take on assets that they think are doomed. That's how acquisitions work.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, your inability to comprehend the costs of TV production that you don't understand isn't really a firm argument.

There is no doubt that the entertainment industry spends exorbitantly and without fiscal responsibility. Trying to down play that reality by focusing on a guessed salary average is just silly.

I understand it just fine. I just don't believe what CBS is saying. Now, being a MAGAt, you'd probaly believe anything that Cheeto Hitler tells you to believe, but some of us can smell bullshit.

TV producers rightly see streaming as the future, rather than Cable, so they are investing heavily in that area. The Late Show was not a popular streaming title while South Park is. None of that is to say that they will end up making money off of Paramount+, but to compare Paramount+ potential to The Late Show is not very compelling. No doubt Skydance will make a lot of changes to Paramount+, including removing a lot of unwatched streaming content that generates cost while not generating subscriptions.

The late show was getting 2 million viewers every night. 200 nights a year. Now, I'm not sure how many people are watching South Park at this point, but they are only going to produce 10 episodes at a cost of $30 million per episode.

I didn't watch it. Your example of Section 31 is pointless in either case since it isn't an ongoing loss, except the cost of hosting it on the cloud. Skydance might very well, as I stated, purge Paramount+ of all the content that isn't generating views, including Section 31.

Again, Paramount+ (or before that, CBS All Access), the whole reason for being was to be the source of new Star Trek content. So having an expensive Star Trek movie flop and flop hard is a big deal. Seems a much bigger deal than a show that was still pulling in a reliable audience.

You forget the other reason for a show like The Late Show- Cross Promotion. You get celebrities to talk about their upcoming movies or TV shows.

As is the position of all conspiracy theorists.

It's not a conspiracy when they do it in the open.

Except that you examples are pulled out of your ass, or have little bearing on the profitability of Paramount under Skydance moving forward. Past Paramount Mistakes are being left in the past. Skydance almnost certainly puts most of the valuation of Paramount on their established Streaming service. They will almost certainly make major changes to it to try and improve profitability, but they will be starting with 80 million subscribers.

Then why not discontinue CBS in its entirety? Seems to me that a show like NCIS which costs 4.2 million an episode, and is only averaging 2.6 Million viewers, would be a far better thing to cut.

NCIS Ratings

Latest Nielsen ratings of NCIS television program on CBS.

ustvdb.com

Colbert seems like a bargain in comparison.

There was no upside to the Late Show no matter how much you want to believe it made money based on your ignorance of the show's budget.

Except no one was complaining about it losing money until they had to try to rationalize cancelling it.

Quite the contrary, CBS was boasting about it's profitability.

But yeah, companies usually acquire companies that are losing money, which is why the company is for sale in the first place, and they do it because they see the existing assets as valuable if run more reasonably. They want the things they think they can turn a profit on, and don't want to take on assets that they think are doomed. That's how acquisitions work.

Right, Skydance, run by one of Trump's Cronies, is acquiring Paramount out of the goodness of their hearts, and not trying to squelch dissent.

Not sure why you are so keen to live in a Plutocracy.

 

[jmotivator]

I understand it just fine. I just don't believe what CBS is saying. Now, being a MAGAt, you'd probaly believe anything that Cheeto Hitler tells you to believe, but some of us can smell bullshit.

You really don't. You don't even understand that I'm not MAGA. Your whole argument from start to finish is bullshit you make up.

The late show was getting 2 million viewers every night. 200 nights a year. Now, I'm not sure how many people are watching South Park at this point, but they are only going to produce 10 episodes at a cost of $30 million per episode.

South Park is a show that garners numerous rewatches by fans. How many old episodes of Colbert are you rewatching in your down time?

Again, Paramount+ (or before that, CBS All Access), the whole reason for being was to be the source of new Star Trek content. So having an expensive Star Trek movie flop and flop hard is a big deal. Seems a much bigger deal than a show that was still pulling in a reliable audience.

That argument is pointless when, in reality, the #1 streaming content on Paramount+ is South Park.

You forget the other reason for a show like The Late Show- Cross Promotion. You get celebrities to talk about their upcoming movies or TV shows.

Then you could consider Late Show as a loss leader. The problem then goes back to the fact that only 1 in 11 late night viewers are watching The Late Show, and a fraction of that is realized new viewers in cross promotions.

But then that points out the other insanity of the Late Show and why it was failing. The prime guest on The Late Show the day before it was canceled was... Adam Schiff. So much of the Colbert Late Show wasn't even cross promoting.

It's not a conspiracy when they do it in the open.

It's not in the open when your entire argument is based on speculation.

Then why not discontinue CBS in its entirety? Seems to me that a show like NCIS which costs 4.2 million an episode, and is only averaging 2.6 Million viewers, would be a far better thing to cut.

NCIS Ratings

Latest Nielsen ratings of NCIS television program on CBS.

ustvdb.com

Colbert seems like a bargain in comparison.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote? NCIS reruns have no production cost.

Except no one was complaining about it losing money until they had to try to rationalize cancelling it.

Quite the contrary, CBS was boasting about it's profitability.

HAHAHA!! So you choose to believe them when they agree with you, and they are shameless liars when they are not.

What happened was that CBS defended Colbert's show when it was theirs, but now that they are selling off to Skydance and have to open the books they were forced to admit the truth.

Right, Skydance, run by one of Trump's Cronies, is acquiring Paramount out of the goodness of their hearts, and not trying to squelch dissent.

Not sure why you are so keen to live in a Plutocracy.

Yeah, let's get some Democrat Comedy on Late Night!! Oh wait, we had that with Colbert was, and it sucked.

 

[JoeB131]

You really don't. You don't even understand that I'm not MAGA. Your whole argument from start to finish is bullshit you make up.

I can see why being a MAGAt would be embarrassing.

You apparently didn't read what I wrote? NCIS reruns have no production cost.

And very little viewership. It's just filler, I guess.

What happened was that CBS defended Colbert's show when it was theirs, but now that they are selling off to Skydance and have to open the books they were forced to admit the truth.

Or they are just lying because they realize that selling out to Trump is a bad look for them.