The End of Stephen Colbert’s Hate Disguised as Comedy By Rajan Laad
The legacy of figures like Stephen Colbert is the sowing of division and hatred across the nation.
The CBS network recently announced that “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” would be concluding in May 2026.
CBS claimed that the move was “purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late-night [television]”; Colbert’s show lost more than $40 million of CBS’s annual investment of over $100 million.
CBS also claimed that the move didn’t reflect “the show’s performance, content, or other matters.” This is a falsehood. The root cause behind financial losses is the lack of viewership, which leads to advertisers’ reluctance.
So what drove CBS to cancel Colbert’s show?
A major factor is that contemporary viewers consume content online at their convenience, rather than watching it on television at a scheduled time.
Another reason is that the very format of the late-night show, with the staged monologue, rehearsed bits, and contrived anecdotes from stars, has become stale.
Since the shows reflect current political events and stars promoting their latest products, they have short shelf life; thus little revenue is generated from retaining these shows for streaming sites. People may want to rewatch classic TV fictional series such as “Seinfeld,” but rewatching a week-old Colbert makes no sense. Sections of these late-night shows may become “viral,” but these clips are freely available on YouTube, hence little revenue is generated.
Once upon a time, the late-night shows were the primary place for stars to promote their products, where viewers learned about an upcoming movie, TV show, or music album. Today, promotions occur on podcasts and other web-based forums.
Now for the content.
Once upon a time, late-night giants such as Jay Leno and Johnny Carson strove to ensure that their political leanings weren’t reflected on their shows. Leno’s monologue was evenly poised, targeting both Democrats and Republicans. Leno’s jibes were jokes, not vicious personal attacks. Letterman was a liberal and occasionally displayed his bias. This explains why Leno dominated the ratings.
The late-night scene radically changed when Jon Stewart began hosting “The Daily Show” in 1998. Stewart’s goal wasn’t entertainment but rather to push the Democrat agenda. “The Daily Show” was no different from Democrat mouthpieces such as the NYT or MSNBC, except that Stewart’s masquerade was comedy.
In his Rules for Radicals, activist Saul Alinsky prescribes ridicule as a potent weapon. “There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
This is what Stewart was doing; whenever he crossed limits, Stewart would scoff at the offended for being oversensitive to “comedy.”
Stephen Colbert gained recognition on Stewart’s show when he played his namesake, but as a fictional conservative TV pundit.
Colbert’s character was smug, arrogant, misinformed, sanctimonious, and generally revolting. This wasn’t merely a mockery of cable news punditry but of right-leaning individuals in general. The character emanated from the hate of its creator; in that sense, it was similar to Alec Baldwin’s foul caricature of President Trump.
Colbert described his character as “well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot.” Ironically, Colbert’s character was reflecting the sanctimonious attitude and demeanor of liberal “elites.”
This character was tedious and should have been retired after one skit, but instead secured his show ‘The Colbert Report’ in 2005. This was due to approval among a niche liberal audience consumed by abject contempt for dissenters, hence hateful characters such as Colbert’s creation became popular enough to secure a show.
Colbert’s character became a darling of the establishment. In 2010, Colbert’s character — not Colbert himself — was invited to testify before Congress and received praise for his “performance.”
Despite being vicious to the Bush regime, Colbert’s character appeared alongside President Bush during the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Colbert taking over from Letterman in 2014 to host “The Late Show” was perhaps the first major instance of the entertainment industry blatantly rejecting right-leaning audiences.
Colbert began by attempting apolitical comedy, and ratings were dismal. Colbert’s niche base, who tuned in for his snobbery and condescension, rejected the attempted fairness. Audiences, seeking entertainment, were also disappointed because, without being hateful, Colbert simply cannot function, and hence, the show was tiresome.
Colbert’s “Late Show” trailed in the ratings behind his rivals, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel.
Trump’s entry into politics was a lifeboat for Colbert’s flailing show. By the time President Trump was inaugurated in 2017, Colbert’s “Late Show” devolved into Democrat propaganda. The hate was back, and so was his niche audience.
Colbert became a blatant propagandist for the D.C. Democrat establishment.
He pushed the Trump Russia collusion hoax and even visited the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow to push the golden showers hoax. Colbert promoted vaccines and covered up Biden’s obvious incapacity.
When Colbert told his liberal audience that President Trump had fired rogue FBI director James Comey in 2017, they erupted into cheers and applause. In November 2016, they were told that Comey was a villain and the reason Hillary had lost the election. But months later, the groupthink had changed; now, Comey was a hero because he was attempting to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency.
Colbert displayed his lack of empathy when he boasted about being unaffected by high petrol prices because he drives an expensive EV.
Colbert developed a narrow lead in the ratings over his rivals, Fallon and Kimmel. In the land of the blind, Colbert was the one-eyed king.
But an expensive show with a niche audience cannot be profitable for long, and hence Colbert’s show was axed.
The reaction to Colbert’s show being cancelled was hysterical, with the hysteria emanating from the corridors of the flailing establishment, including D.C., the news media, and Hollywood.
Some crestfallen mourners characterized Colbert as a martyr by insinuating that CBS has ended the show for political reasons.
Paramount Global and CBS had recently settled Trump’s $20 billion election interference lawsuit against CBS. The settlement came after “60 Minutes” was caught deceptively editing the 2024 interview of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear articulate leading up to the election.
Colbert slammed the settlement as a “big fat bribe” because, he claims, “Paramount’s owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance!”
Days later, Colbert’s show was canceled.
Perhaps Colbert had advance knowledge of the impending cancellation and hence attacked CBS, knowing that his ignominious sacking could be given a righteous color while CBS’s move could be spun as vindictive.
Senators Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders baselessly claimed that Colbert’s cancellation was intended to appease President Trump and silence a dissenting voice. The Writers Guild of America called for an investigation into the firing of Colbert. Letterman attacked CBS. Liberals are even pretending to support free speech. Some have signed online petitions to save the show.
So what happens now?
The hysteria manufactured by liberals has emboldened Colbert to attack CBS with more viciousness. Liberal “stars” are likely to appear on his show and perhaps even shed tears.
If he continues on this path, Colbert’s show may end well before next year. This will enable the Left to push the claim that the U.S. under Trump is a dictatorship where dissenters are suppressed. Other networks may emulate CBS and dismiss their liberal hatemongers that cause losses, hoping the blame will be placed on “dictator” Trump. Colbert won’t suffer from this cancellation; he will secure a lucrative podcast deal and a book deal, and he will continue to be hateful and secure an audience of deranged liberals.
However, the legacy of figures like Colbert is the sowing of division and hatred across the nation.
Once upon a time, people from diverse backgrounds found common ground in the admiration of the latest Hollywood blockbuster or sports event or TV series. This is why it was referred to as “soft power.” Alas, now almost every aspect of soft power is infected by hateful propaganda.
Colbert was among the founders of this tendency; he mainstreamed vicious hatefulness in “entertainment,” which is unpardonable.
Comments are closed.
