N※N

Show Politics and Government Publications

Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics

Liberal Media Outlets Attribute Colbert's Late-Night Exit to Format Fatigue, Not Political Bias

In a media landscape increasingly polarized by politics, the announcement of Stephen Colbert's departure from "The Late Show" has sparked intense debate. However, columns from prominent liberal-leaning publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times are pushing back against claims that Colbert's exit stems from his outspoken progressive views. Instead, these pieces argue that the real culprit is the obsolescence of the late-night talk show format itself—a relic of a bygone era in television that no longer resonates with modern audiences fragmented by streaming services and social media.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple, a media critic known for his sharp analyses of journalism ethics, penned a column dismissing the notion that politics played a role in Colbert's cancellation. Wemple contends that the decision by CBS to end "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" after its current season is not a referendum on the host's liberal leanings but rather a symptom of broader industry shifts. He points to the declining relevance of traditional late-night programming, which has struggled to adapt to the rise of on-demand content. "The format is tired," Wemple writes, emphasizing how shows like Colbert's rely on a predictable structure of monologues, celebrity interviews, and musical performances that feel increasingly out of step with how people consume entertainment today. He draws parallels to the fates of other late-night staples, such as "The Tonight Show" and "Late Night," which have also seen viewership erode over the years, regardless of their hosts' political affiliations.

Wemple's argument is bolstered by data on viewership trends, noting that late-night TV as a whole has been hemorrhaging audiences since the advent of platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and TikTok. These digital alternatives offer bite-sized, personalized content that viewers can access anytime, rendering the rigid 11:30 p.m. slot archaic. He recalls the golden age of late-night under icons like Johnny Carson and David Letterman, when such shows were cultural touchstones that united millions in shared laughter. But in 2023, with cord-cutting on the rise and attention spans shortened by endless scrolling, the format's rigidity has become its downfall. Wemple insists that Colbert, despite his Emmy-winning tenure and sharp satirical edge, is simply caught in this inexorable tide. To suggest otherwise, he argues, is to ignore the economic realities facing broadcast networks like CBS, which are pivoting toward more profitable ventures such as reality TV and scripted series that can be syndicated or streamed globally.

Echoing this sentiment, The New York Times' James Poniewozik, a television critic with a keen eye for cultural shifts, offers a similar defense in his column. Poniewozik frames Colbert's exit as part of a larger "extinction event" for late-night comedy, one driven by technological disruption rather than ideological backlash. He highlights how the genre, once a nightly ritual for insomniacs and night owls, has lost its monopoly on humor and commentary. In an era where viral memes and podcasts deliver instant gratification, the hour-long format feels bloated and unnecessary. Poniewozik points out that even apolitical or centrist hosts have faced similar challenges; for instance, James Corden's departure from "The Late Late Show" in 2023 was met with little fanfare, attributed more to format fatigue than any personal controversies.

Poniewozik delves into Colbert's evolution as a host, tracing his roots back to "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central, where he masterfully parodied conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly. Transitioning to CBS in 2015, Colbert brought his signature wit to a broader audience, often using his platform to lampoon figures like former President Donald Trump. While this approach garnered acclaim from liberal viewers and critics, it also drew ire from conservatives who accused him of bias. Yet, Poniewozik argues, it's unfair to pin the show's demise on this partisanship. He notes that ratings for "The Late Show" have indeed dipped in recent years, but so have those of competitors like "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"—shows that lean less aggressively into politics. Fallon, known for his lighthearted, game-show-style segments, has seen his audience shrink by similar margins, underscoring that the issue transcends ideology.

Both columns subtly critique the conservative narrative that has emerged in response to Colbert's announcement. Outlets like Fox News and right-leaning commentators have suggested that Colbert's relentless focus on anti-Trump humor and progressive causes alienated a significant portion of the American public, leading to viewer fatigue and advertiser hesitancy. They point to moments like Colbert's controversial monologues during the Trump era, including his infamous 2017 rant that drew FCC complaints, as evidence of overreach. Critics argue that late-night TV, once a neutral ground for escapism, has become a battleground for cultural wars, with hosts like Colbert, Kimmel, and Seth Meyers forming a liberal echo chamber that turns off moderate and conservative viewers.

However, Wemple and Poniewozik counter this by emphasizing empirical evidence over anecdotal outrage. They reference Nielsen ratings showing a steady decline across the board: late-night viewership is down more than 50% from its peak in the 1990s, a trend that predates the current political polarization. The rise of streaming giants has fragmented the market, with shows like "Saturday Night Live" surviving only through viral clips rather than full episodes. Moreover, the economic model of late-night—reliant on live ads and network affiliates—has been upended by ad-skipping DVRs and cord-nevers. Poniewozik speculates that future comedy might thrive in shorter, digital-native formats, perhaps on platforms like YouTube or TikTok, where creators like Hasan Minhaj or John Oliver have found success with targeted, on-demand content.

This defense from WaPo and NYT isn't without its ironies. Colbert himself has often positioned his show as a bulwark against right-wing misinformation, using humor to dissect political absurdities. His 2021 special on the January 6 Capitol riot, for example, blended comedy with serious commentary, earning praise for its boldness. Yet, as these columns note, even such innovative efforts couldn't stem the tide of declining interest in the format. Wemple argues that blaming politics distracts from the real conversation: how can late-night evolve? Suggestions include hybrid models incorporating social media interaction or shorter episodes, but the consensus seems to be that the traditional setup is on life support.

Broader industry voices have weighed in, supporting this view. Executives at CBS have publicly stated that the decision was strategic, aimed at reallocating resources amid a challenging media environment. Competitors like NBC and ABC face similar dilemmas, with rumors swirling about potential overhauls for their late-night lineups. The end of Colbert's run marks a poignant chapter in TV history, signaling perhaps the twilight of an era when hosts like him could command national attention night after night.

In conclusion, while conservative critics may see Colbert's exit as a victory against perceived liberal bias in media, the analyses from The Washington Post and The New York Times paint a more nuanced picture. They insist that the cancellation is not a political reckoning but a casualty of an evolving entertainment ecosystem. As audiences continue to migrate online, the late-night talk show—once the king of after-dark TV—may indeed be facing its final curtain call, regardless of who's behind the desk. This shift invites reflection on how comedy and commentary will adapt in a post-broadcast world, where relevance is measured in likes and shares rather than Nielsen points. Whether Colbert's departure heralds a new beginning for him—perhaps in podcasts or specials—or simply underscores the format's decline, it underscores a fundamental truth: in media, adaptation is survival. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Fox News Article at:
[ https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-ny-times-columns-insist-colbert-cancelation-due-obsolete-format-not-politics ]