The firing of Stephen Colbert (or, more technically, CBS canceling “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” when his contract expires in May 2026) has become an important flash point in the issue of the Federal Communications Commission weaponizing its regulatory influence, including its merger review process and what price media companies may pay to close deals going forward. Why? Because if Paramount, a Skydance Corporation (or, as it will be known on Wall Street, PSKY) really did cancel “The Late Show” to please President Trump, it represents the most immediate and direct interference with programming to silence a major administration critic that we’ve seen in decades. Paying cash to settle dubious lawsuits and ditching Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives have become old hat. Commitments to “ideological diversity” in the future are vague and, ultimately, unenforceable – even with an ombudsman reporting to Paramount’s CEO (although the FCC left a hook in its Paramount Global/Skydance Media merger approval by refusing to close the news distortion complaint over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024, but we digress). Canceling “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” takes this administration’s censorship regime to a whole new, scary level of real – and happening right now.
Paramount claimed in its press release that it canceled “The Late Show” purely for financial reasons having nothing to do with closing the acquisition. By the weekend, “anonymous sources” and the newspapers that quote them claimed that – despite being the top-rated show in the time slot and with Emmy winning prestige – “The Late Show” was actually losing $40-50 million dollars a year. This has become an important talking point for those defending FCC Chairman Brendan Carr from allegations that he forced Paramount to fire Stephen Colbert before approving the deal. Chairman Carr himself mentioned the $40 million number when asked about it following the FCC’s July 2025 Open Meeting. (See here at 1:33:20) The Order approved the transfer issued that evening, for what it’s worth, with no mention of “The Late Show.”
There are two important points to consider in all this. First, why is it so hard to tell whether or not “The Late Show” was making or losing money? Second, regardless of whether or not Paramount acted to please President Trump and get Chairman Carr’s stamp of merger approval, the industry – and industry investors – believe they did. That fact has huge consequences going forward.
Why Can’t Anyone Prove if “The Late Show” Makes Money or Loses Money?
To know whether or not Paramount’s explanation is credible, we first need to know whether “The Late Show” really loses $40-50 million dollars a year. That turns out to be far more complicated than one would think. The “this show loses $40-50 million” claim was a “leak” from anonymous sources after the ruckus kicked up. No one can actually confirm it – which is itself somewhat suspicious in gossipy Hollywood. Skeptics of the “purely financial” explanation observe that “The Late Show” has all the hallmarks of a successful show. It’s at the top of the ratings in its time slot right now and routinely wins lots of industry awards. Suddenly it’s losing money!? How?
Believers in the $40 million number argue that late night TV generally has hit hard times. Ratings are half of what they used to be pre-pandemic, with an accompanying drop in advertising revenue for late night television – overall. Sure, goes the argument, Stephen Colbert was a big fish – but in an increasingly smaller pond that has shrunk to a mere puddle. Specifically, while late night television as a whole earned $439 million in advertising in 2018, late night television as a whole earned only $220 million in 2024. But while these numbers show a decline for late night television as a whole, they do not tell us anything specific about the Late Show itself. No one has an actual on the record source for the $40 million dollar number. Everyone citing this number takes it on faith from the two stories (one in Puck and one in the New York Post) which both cite to “anonymous sources.” (For what it’s worth, Colbert expressed some skepticism about the $40 million on The Late Show following the leak.)
The real reason to question the $40 million (and why it therefore needs confirmation) is that no one in the industry really has a handle on how to judge the income of television shows anymore. (This is in part what the writers’ strike was about.) In ye olde days of broadcast TV, especially late night TV, it was simple. You charged for ads when the show ran. You knew what you charged for a 30-second slot or whatever. You also had a system for reruns and longer-term residuals. There was also a certain amount of “prestige” value for some shows, or shows with particularly coveted demographics with ad rates higher than their ratings would normally justify. (Other shows also had to deal with cross-over to cable and DVDs, but those didn’t really impact late night TV).
Figuring out how much a television show made was therefore a fairly simple thing. Likewise, determining the actual costs of producing a show was a relatively simple thing. So determining if a show made money, or whether its value as a critical darling and “prestige” show made it worth doing even if it didn’t make money, was pretty straightforward.
These days, it is not at all simple. Most viewing takes place on streaming services or on social media via clips. (“The Late Show” streams on Hulu, for instance, and relies heavily on YouTube clips or clips on the network’s own website.) (CBS also streams full episodes of “The Late Show,” with ads, and streams as part of the “TV Everywhere” package with cable). The monetization of those delivery systems is very hard to figure out. Or, to use the industry term, the way in which networks monetize television shows is “in flux.” How long should you give a clip of Stephen Colbert to count towards the episode revenue on YouTube – a month? A week? The first 24 hours? What even is the financial arrangement between YouTube and CBS? Or Hulu and CBS? What about the revenue from watching the show on CBS.com?
What about the traffic bump to the network generally from clips? If you watch a Stephen Colbert clip, the recommendation software will then suggest other clips of “The Late Show” as well as other CBS programming. As this article notes, “The Daily Show” has had a big bounce from cross-promotion with John Stewart’s podcast. What is the revenue gained by these traffic bumps?
These are all things the industry is in the process of figuring out. As traditional revenue streams fade, other revenue streams emerge – but with even less standard accounting than usual for Hollywood.
Of course, the content industry has adjusted to tech changes before. But when figuring out things like how to handle DVDs or cable revenue, the basic product (the broadcast viewership platform) remained reasonably stable over time. Even as broadcast viewership declined versus cable, it was a slow process and the products were similar (even then the revenue stream was complicated – but I will spare you the cable/broadcast revenue issues).
Here, the transition from viewers primarily watching broadcast to viewers primarily watching through multiple different streaming services – either as clips or as a traditional television show – is much more complicated and is happening much more quickly. So the industry is very much “in flux.” While the consensus of the analysts and things I read that do not simply take the $40 million at face value regard this estimate as, at best, “Hollywood accounting,” it is hard to tell whether “The Late Show” is making or losing money – and if so, by how much.
Was Colbert a “Trump Tax” Sacrifice?
Blair Levin gets credit for coining the term, “the Trump Transaction Tax.” It means needing to do something to get approval from President Trump’s regulators outside the usual bounds of review. An example is T-Mobile needing to foreswear anything vaguely DEI-related to get its acquisition of the U.S. Cellular network and a bunch of that company’s licenses. Levin argues that this “Trump Transaction Tax” has broader industry implications as publicly traded regulated media companies, such as Paramount and Disney, seek to curry favor to grease future transactions and avoid questionable investigations.
To this we must add a pile of circumstantial evidence. Financial analysts and industry executives widely regard the settlement of the lawsuit against CBS over “60 Minutes” as part of the “Trump Tax” for the overall transaction. But there is widespread speculation as to whether additional goodies might be included. (For example, President Trump claims Paramount will run $20 million in public service announcements/advertisements for Trump-supported causes as an unofficial part of the settlement.) On July 15, Skydance CEO David Ellison met with Chairman Carr to promise, among other things, that “New Paramount” would no longer be biased and that “CBS’s editorial decision-making would reflect the various ideological perspectives of American viewers.” (Ellison made further commitments along these lines in a follow-up letter.) Why did Paramount make the announcement now, rather than closer to May 2026 when Stephen Colbert’s contract ends? How, in the gossipy world of Hollywood, did this manage to stay secret, with no negotiation with Colbert to reduce costs? As one industry observer/skeptic of the “financial only” explanation noted, CBS did not even get a quote from Colbert for the cancellation press release – highly unusual for a supposedly amiable breakup over finances.
It does not help that Chairman Carr has separately announced investigations into Comcast/NBC’s and Disney’s negotiations with local affiliates – largely owned by conservative companies such as Sinclair Broadcast Group – around the terms for renewal of their affiliation agreements. These negotiations involve the terms under which local affiliates agree to carry network programming. Chairman Carr specifically warns NBC (as he did Disney) that not only will the FCC protect the independent affiliates from “onerous financial and operational concessions,” but the agency will also “ensure that [the network’s] ability to exert influence over its local broadcast affiliates does not… undermine broadcasters’ ability to comply with their public interest obligations.”
As a general matter, the FCC does not spontaneously investigate the private business negotiations between networks and their independently owned affiliates. Nor can I recall any time the FCC alleged that a network was preventing an affiliate from complying with its public interest obligations – FCC-speak for investigating whether the network is influencing the local affiliates’ content and editorial decisions. Paramount, which just agreed to change its programming to “reflect the various ideological perspectives of American viewers,” and News Corp (which owns Fox Broadcasting), whose cable programming and corporate “perspectives” have won praise from President Trump, have not received any notices of investigation either about “onerous or operational concessions” or about interfering with a local affiliate’s “ability to comply with their public interest obligations.”
Putting these things together, the reasonable investor or CEO might conclude that these investigations are part of a general strategy of harassing networks that criticize President Trump (or that otherwise incur his ire). If one reached such a conclusion, the circumstantial evidence could likewise prompt a similar conclusion about “The Late Show” cancellation. Either it was an unspoken condition of the merger – or at the least a proactive move by Paramount to curry favor by proving the company’s sincerity to reflect more “ideological diversity” by eliminating a vociferous critic of the president.
All of this is circumstantial evidence. Absent a smoking gun (e.g. an email from Chairman Carr to Ellison saying “will no one rid us of this turbulent Late Night host”) we can only speculate. But in finance and in politics, as in entertainment, perception matters more than truth.
What Matters Is That Investors and Industry Believe Chairman Carr Will Go After President Trump’s Critics, and That Has Real Consequences.
I have a saying: “Your political power is directly proportional to your perceived ability to cause pain.” That holds true for financial investment.
Whatever the truth about the cancellation of “The Late Show,” the money believes it came from President Trump. That has consequences. People who spend lots of money placing bets on what transactions will and won’t happen – as well as the companies themselves – believe this was understood and part of the “Trump Transaction Tax.” This impacts merger activity, content creation, free speech, and financial flows accordingly. It impacts the willingness of networks with business before the administration to do critical investigative journalism. Self-censorship (or, as some now call it, “obeying in advance”) deprives us of the news and diversity of views absolutely essential to democracy.
Because even if this was, as Paramount said, a “purely a financial decision” and “not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,” the practical impact remains the same as if it were entirely a political decision. Major companies seeking regulatory approval or conducting other business with the Trump administration, and their investors, believe the action was, or at least could be, politically motivated. They will therefore do what they can to obey in advance.
Going forward, media companies and their investors must factor in political risk as a very real consideration. The end result is identical to an explicitly political announcement because perception drives behavior. (Anyone interested can read a blog post of mine from 2005 called “Outsourcing Big Brother,” which discusses the relationship between companies and presidents – and that was in the old days when you weren’t supposed to say this stuff out loud). The ongoing behavior that reinforces that belief, such as Chairman Carr announcing investigations into President Trump’s personal targets including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Disney, and Comcast, encourages these companies to self-censor, keep their heads down, and avoid either news coverage or entertainment that could anger President Trump. I am assuming I do not have to explain why that is a Bad Thing.
So to conclude:
- The huge number of the $40-50 million dollar cost of producing “The Late Show” is almost certainly a wildly exaggerated Hollywood accounting trick. But, because of the new and fragmented revenue streams for programming, no one can tell these days what the actual numbers are. Put simply, without industry-agreed on metrics for measuring show revenue, no one can say with any certainty what a show earns, and therefore no one can say if it is losing money – and if so, how much.
- The idea that Stephen Colbert was fired to please President Trump has support based on circumstantial evidence. But it is not definitive.
- Whatever the reality, the fact that people who run these companies or invest in these companies either believe it is true, or act like it is true because they don’t dare risk otherwise, has real-world impact. Companies will rush to obey in advance, self-censoring content they fear will be perceived as “woke” or critical of the administration, and will shift to news reporting and entertainment that reflects the “ideological perspectives” they believe will please the administration.
This quiet subservience, where media companies and creators toe the administration’s line, comes with a cost. It limits free expression, shuts down open political discourse, and prevents us from even knowing the educational and entertainment options we’re missing because they’re simply not developed for fear of reprisal from President Trump. Forget about speaking truth to power. We will instead have a media desperate to avoid anything that might offend the powers that be. The administration will have successfully outsourced Big Brother – and no corporate news will dare to contradict them.
Leave a Reply