They will do anything to get the Trump Administration to approve their merger deal. That's all this is.

I don’t watch his dumb ass anyway, but Colbert is a case study in how to piss off an audience and pander to the likes of Cubans his ilk. 🙄

The problem with all of fucking media or shows like Colbert and Kimmel.

They go too far to the left.  They are all about BASHING.  It isn't comedy anymore.   I think SNL learned its lesson.  Now they still lean left.  But are starting to go back a little towards the middle.  I mean you do parody of everyone.  

Remember comedy is you make fun of EVERYONE.  You are supposed to laugh at yourself and everyone else.   Even political comedy.  yeah you call out the stupid shit your side does too.  I mean you can get serious as well.  If you want to be political fine... but you need to be honest and let both sides speak.  You can still slant or be your side of the political spectrum.

I mean look at Rogan, Shawn Ryan, and other podcasts.  They let their guests speak, don't try to interrupt or if they do it is not to shout down or over talk.  These main stream people are jokes.  It is why main stream is losing out to podcasters.

Even fox is.  I mean Guitfield and those guys I like but they can get annoying too.  They are not too far away from becoming Kimmel and Colbert.  

And just as true about Fox a about Kimmel and Colbert.
Perhaps the best example of a show that skewers left and right equally is "South Park."
They spare no one.

LOL.... and 100% correct.

God you need to fucking wake up.

The reason why PBS is getting shut down is because they were getting federal funding.  If you get federal funding you need to be in the middle.   They were not.

They strayed from what they were.  Sesame Street wasn't about teaching numbers, math, letters, etc.  It changed to teaching gender issues,  sexual issues, etc.   LEAVE FUCKING PRE SCHOOL KIDS ALONE.    A 4 year old doesn't need to know what a pansexual is and who they can be attracted too.  

Also please tell me where on PBS was any "alt right" TV show.  Show me anywhere an Alt Right TV show is getting federal funding?

If you want to bring up aligator alcatraz..... if you are bitching about those conditions.  WHY ARE YOU NOT BITCHING ABOUT THE CONTIDIONS IN ALL THE PRISONS????   They are having better living arrangements than most big "dorm" style prisons.  Many of those have 100 to 150 person bunk units with 5 bathrooms for all of them.  NO A/C and what not.  FUCK those people in congress going there and complaining when actually citizens of the USA have been facing worse conditions for years and they are silent.  This is why I have Congress.... ALL OF THEM.   They are do nothing fuck sticks that just want to point fingers and collect checks and do nothing for citizens.  Blame the other side and jump from the next made up media firestorm and do what their paid masters tell them to be outraged by.

Yet you said Trump is killing PBS???

How is cutting funding censorship????  explain?

Yes it could go right back... but it has to be voted on in a funding bill.  But like i mentioned above.... the issue with all programing is they are straying way to far one way or another.  Everyone is getting sick of that shit.

REALLY???  Show the proof of that?

I am a republican and I love science shows, Nature shows, History, etc.  I am totally against censorship.   Frontline isn't 100% fact based.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  It tries to be but isn't.... it is close I will give them that.  They too are slanted or push agenda at times.  

You are some what correct about the % of people in politics.

I have said this for fucking years.   No matter what side you are on the political spectrum/issues you are in the MINORITY.  35% lean right, 35% lean left, 30% are in the middle on every issue.  So any elected member who votes party lines is a fucking idiot and isn't representing their districts.  They are only representing their party.  They forget that once they get to office they represent the people who voted for them AND the people who didn't vote for them.  THEY REPRESENT THAT WHOLE DISTRICT OR STATE.   So if it was a close race.... they better be in the middle ground on issues.  If vote was a landslide... well you can vote more towards party lines because that shows your district/state is that way.  BUT NEVER ONLY PARTY LINES.

Funny how he can't keep fucking things straight.

He says PBS is getting shut down..... then tells me it isn't.

Then he goes on how Republicans want to censor PBS and everything.... I ask how cutting funding is censorship?

Then he goes into how Republicans dont like science shows.... then we both say we like science/nature/educational shows.

What the fuck... typical liberal crap.... trying to spin things and gets caught in it.

willy: are you familiar with “GIGO?  Garbage goes In your brain from bullshit websites and then the Garbage goes Out of your brain and onto this board.  Your brain doesn’t filter the garbage or check its veracity,  you simply post the garbage.  

 
Here’s the AI Overview, a cold clinical analysis of Colbert’s ratings:

 
In 2025, the late show with Stephen Colbert is averaging around 2.417 million viewers, making it the TOP-RATED LATE NIGHT SHOW in its time slot.  

 
Two years prior, in 2023, the show had seen a decline of viewership compared to his peak, but still maintained a strong position in late night television. While overall late night viewership has declined in the streaming era (as well as digital platforms like YouTube and Tik Tok) , Colbert‘s show has shown resilience and is still winning its show slot among broadcasters.

 
Two years prior to 2025, the show was still a dominant force in late night. Reports indicated that the shows rating was still strong, and it was considered the TOP-RATED program in its time slot.  

 
However, report suggests that Colbert‘s Late Show was down 6% in total viewers and 12% in the 18–49 demographic compared to April 2023.  

 
See willy - Colbert has only lost SIX PERCENT, not “a third” of his viewers.  Always trust science, willy, not some guy with his phone in one hand and his dick in the other.

the four people that still watch him.  They're going to be so disappointed.

Or does toast get smarter when exposed to electrical current?
Is Wanker toast?

Colbert is losing $40,000,000 a year on a show that costs $100,000,000

Of course he’s going to get fired!  

Pearl clutch all you want Jabba 🤷🏻‍♂️

EXACTLY.... it was a business decision.

Timing looked horrible.   But when you are losing 40% compared to cost to make.  Plus ratings dropping.   Also losing 6% of your viewers if big in the 1st quarter. With summer approaching.   Along with 12% in a demographic that CBS might want to be capturing with the with the 18-49 crowd.  

It was a business decision.  

is when you specify Colbert is the top show "in his timeslot."  That's because Gutfeld, which is actually funny, is gaining viewers while Colbert is losing them, but he is in a different hour than Colbert.  As usual, you like to create a context that makes it look like you're right about something.  If you just ask the question, "Which late-night political talk show if doing the best?", it's not Colbert.  6% loss against a 5% gain in audience for Gutfeld is an 11-popint swing.  Of course, the way things are going for Dems lately, they are becoming experts at characterizing losses as wins.  Keep spinning, it keeps me laughing.  

…is your usual bullshit.  When you say:  “Which late-night political talk show…”
it’s an example of your “spinning” bullshit.  

 
Gutfeld IS a political talk show.  Colbert is NOT a political talk show.  His monologue is maybe 25% political and he occasionally has a guest from politics.  

 
Tonight Colbert will have actress Sandra Oh and actor Dave Franco.  
Tomorrow’s guests will be Bad Bunny, actress Leanne Morgan and musician Grace Potter.  
Wednesday - Steve Buscemi and actress Molly Gordon.  
Thursday - GOVERNOR Josh Shapiro and Alex G.  

 
The only guest that is political all week is Josh Shapiro.  

 
Spectrum’s TV schedule refers to Colbert as “talk/comedy.”  Spectrum describes Gutfeld as “News/Entertainment/Comedy.”
Colbert has talk/comedy on a variety of topics.  Gutfeld has News/Entertainment/Comedy ONLY about politics.  

 
Your comment on ratings is also specious.  “Ratings” are determined by competing shows in the SAME timeslot.  

 
Keep spinning; it keeps me laughing.  

25% political (which may be why he is dying out as entertainment) the network is still letting him go.  If they thought Colbert would do any better against Gutfeld, they would schedule them head-to-head.   So, after all of that, what exactly is your point.  I'm sure you wish him well.  Take the "L" gracefully like most of his other fans.

…despite your spurious claim.    Late night shows start at 11:35.  This goes back SEVENTY YEARS.  

 
Gutfeld airs at 10:00 on the East Coast and 7:00 on the West Coast.  A late-night network show will never be moved to that timeslot in prime time.  

 
Did it ever occur to you to have Fox move Gutfeld to 11:35 to directly compete with Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel?  Of course not - you know less about TV programming g than you do about politics.  

 
Fox will never move Gutfeld to 11:35 because their viewers are mostly 65+ like YOU and Fox knows you old farts are sleeping by then.

Late night hours are from 11:00 pm to 2:00 am.  Prime time hours are from 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm.  

 
Gutfeld airs live at 10:00 pm Eastern time, 7:00 pm Pacific time.  The show repeats at 1:00 am Easter, 10:00 pm Pacific.  

 
How’s your math, willy?  As good as your science?  See if you can figure out in which markets Gutfeld competes in late night with Colbert.

You've got it ass backwards. Wind turbines contain magnets, usually some form of permanent magnet. THAT is source of the magnetic field around a wind turbine generator. As the wind turns the rotor, the oscillating fields generate electricity in the windings.  
.
The magnetic field from the turbine generator is equivalent to background at the base of a wind turbine.
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-9
Measuring electromagnetic fields (EMF) around wind turbines in Canada: is there a human health concern?
.
"Conclusions: The results suggest that there is nothing unique to wind farms with respect to EMF exposure; in fact, magnetic field levels in the vicinity of wind turbines were lower than those produced by many common household electrical devices and were well below any existing regulatory guidelines with respect to human health."

Guess again.

…I just googled the info and put up the first reliable thing I could find that showed Colbert’s ratings over the years.”

 
No, willy, what you put up was a link that aligned with your beliefs.  

 
Reddit is “reliable?”  ROFLMAO!!  Here’s what AI Overview says about Reddit:
“Reddit’s content is created… by its diverse user base…(which) introduces the potential for misinformation, rumors and unsubstantiated claims.
Anonymity: it can also lead to the spread of misinformation without accountability.
Verify information: always cross reference information found on Reddit with reputable and independence sources.

 
A REAL scientist ALWAYS verifies information.  You put up the “first reliable thing”  without verifying  that it was true.

…It’s just TV ratings.”

 
Oh, OK willy, NOW it’s not that important.  But the TV ratings were important to you when you posted that “Colbert has lost a third of his audience.”

 
After I proved you were WRONG, all of a sudden you say: “It’s not that important.  It’s just TV ratings.”

 
You’re really firm in your beliefs, aren’t you willy?0

…why you don’t care that much NOW after being proved WRONG about Colbert’s ratings.  Why are you so cavalierly dismissing it NOW?

Sound familiar???

And Coulomb figured out the inverse square law. The magnetic field strength around a turbine generator is already low and drops off with the square of the distance from the magnets. The field strength is smaller than the Earth's natural mag field 3 meters from the turbine. A pigeon would have to be flying next to the turbine to sense the field difference. A whale would have to take a flying leap out of the water and jump over the turbine to sense the field difference.  
.
Q. How many willywonkas does it take to change a light bulb?
.
.
A. It's a trick question. There is no real answer to that Q. willywonka doesn't know how to change a light bulb.

From the article

In Carson’s day, the guests were the stars, and he was the facilitator. In Colbert’s, this successful formula was inverted.

CBS has killed The Late Show. It is possible that, in so doing, it has killed the late show, too.

Since the news was promulgated, entertainment analysts have been busy looking for the murder weapon. Some have suggested Donald Trump. Others have pointed to the political climate, or the state of the TV market, or the economics of producing a spectacle in contemporary New York City. My choice is less complex. The executioner was Stephen Colbert.

As the host of the Late Show, Stephen Colbert was annoying, in a direct and palpable sense. He hectored; he sneered; he gatekept for a narrow, pious worldview; and, above all else, he sacrificed jocosity for ideology — a trade that never, ever pays. Under Colbert’s inadequate leadership, the program came to resemble the sort of bedeviled mutt that one might expect if one were to instruct artificial intelligence to produce a chat show, having trained it solely on old episodes of The View. Not only did the product fail to look like America; its architects neither knew what America looked like nor wanted to know what America looks like. It was insular, smug, and self-serious — and, worst of all, it routinely committed the only mortal sin in show business: It was boring.

Most of this was directly Colbert’s fault. The rest was indirectly Colbert’s fault. Many of the postmortems have noted correctly that Colbert was obsessed with a particular strand of American politics and that, in addition to giving the show a dull, Manichean tone, this obsession led him to offer up a surfeit of left-leaning politicians as his guests. What has received less attention is that his non-political invitees were also habitually dreary. Why? Because, in the environment that the Stephen Colberts of the world have created, they had no choice but to be so. It is, indeed, true that the “death of the movie star system” has made late shows more difficult to stage. But, in the grand scheme of things, that is a red herring. A media universe that was engineered by the likes of Stephen Colbert was always destined to be a media universe in which interesting people sedulously avoided saying anything of consequence, and in which those who tried to say compelling things were swiftly cut off at the pass. Ultimately, the problem was of demand, not of supply.

 
MORE IN STEPHEN COLBERT

The Colbert ‘Conspiracy’
Don’t Publicly Rip the Boss When You’re Losing the Company Money
CBS’s Late Show Dies of Comedy-Deficiency

I have often observed how peculiar it is that the two most cramped and censorial industries in the United States — the media and the universities — are the two that, by rights, one would expect to be the most freewheeling. I shall offer that observation again here. Go back and watch some of Johnny Carson’s interviews from the 1970s, and you will notice how generous the man was in both style and substance. Into his studio came an eclectic parade of guests and interlocutors, and, irrespective of their foibles, eccentricities, or perspectives, Carson treated them all in the same affable way. Night in and night out, he asked gentle, empathetic, open questions, and then waited calmly for the answers — even if those ended up being unusual or harrowing or bizarre. Stephen Colbert did not do this, and, even if he had, the atmosphere that he, his writers, and his audience combined to create would have served as a ruthless prophylactic against spontaneity, candor, and good-natured badinage. There is, I daresay, not a proficient PR agent anywhere in these United States who would have willingly encouraged his client to go on the Colbert-hosted Late Show and “be himself.” The show had rules, and it had an agenda, and everyone implicitly understood what both of those were. In Johnny Carson’s day, the guests were the stars, and he was the facilitator. In Stephen Colbert’s, the guests were the facilitators, and he was the star. Which one of those do you think makes long-term viewing easier?

In the New York Post, Johnny Oleksinski submits that Colbert was as much a bystander as a cause of the Late Show’s failure, and that the more general takeaway from its impending demise ought to be that “network late-night TV is dead.” There is something to this view: Cable and streaming have segmented the market; the internet has atomized us in ways that were not true three decades ago; and the sheer number of entertainment products at our disposal has relegated television from the dominant medium to one of many. But I am not entirely sold on this line. Blockbuster movies were in trouble until, in a stroke of great perspicacity and foresight, Hollywood made one that people actually liked. The presidency was “too big for one man” until Ronald Reagan came along and, unlike his hapless predecessor, actually proved adept at performing the role. All too often, predictions of imminent demise are contravened by figures who refuse to accept the inevitability of the way things currently are, and so it could be here, too. As it was in the 1970s and 1980s, the United States is a big, bustling, fascinating place, full of diverse, innovative, captivating people. The first late-show host to break with the present trend, and to embrace that country and its citizenry on its own terms, might well find that there are more things in heaven and earth than have been dreamt of by our current crop of craven, constrained, constipated arbiters of taste.
 
CHARLES C. W. COOKE is a senior editor at National Review and the host of THE CHARLES C. W. COOKE Podcast. @charlescwcooke
MORE IN FILM & TV

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

??? So your complaint is about magnetic fields around electric power transmission lines? Shut down the entire grid!! We must return to gas lamps and coal oil that do not produce EMFs!! Besides, Mr. Edison has shown that evil electricity can KILL AN ELEPHANT!! (Note to self: investigate possible use of electricity for cooking food.)

Where do you propose to build more hydro? Attach a mini-generator to every flush toilet? There are already lists of the best possible hydro sites with engineering and enviro analyses. What about harnessing tidal energy? How about replacing the grid with superconducting wires (which doesn't get rid of EMFs but reduces losses during transmission.)? There are hundreds of ideas for increasing the electric power supply. But watch out for those EMFs!

Most people don't know how they get the electricity that comes out of the wall socket.  
.
They don't care about magnetic fields. And before you go off on another tangent, they don't care about Faraday, Coulomb, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or Octonions either.