Kimmel and Colbert Losers not Victims
Segment #602
It sounds like a script from a bad movie. Colbert and Kimmel have purposefully been driving away an audience representing half the country. Still entitled to their bloated salaries (about 15 million each) these hosts arrogantly ignored the pleas from their bosses to tone it down. So they get fired and can now be liberal martyrs. This is not a free speech issue.. a boss has a right to fire an employee. The FCC did express its displeasure over the manner in which ABC and CBS were ignoring the terms of their federal broadcast licenses. Fair point but if you want that kind of show, you can go to cable or podcasts and say whatever you like. These are two narcissistic entitled arrogant spoiled children that just got spanked. Go off and enjoy your martyrdom. There will be plenty of people ready to soothe your wounds. But we still have video tape to understand the real reason why you were both fired.
The Events Leading to the Suspension
Kimmel's Comments: The controversy began after Kimmel made remarks on his show regarding the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.2 In his monologue, Kimmel accused what he called the "MAGA gang" of "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" and "doing everything they can to score political points from it." He also criticized the reaction from figures close to the administration.3
Affiliates' Response: In response to these comments, two of the largest ABC affiliate owners, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group, publicly announced they would preempt the show on their stations.4 These two companies operate dozens of ABC affiliates across the country.5 In a statement, Nexstar's president of broadcasting called Kimmel's comments "offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse."6 Sinclair similarly stated it would not air the show until it was "confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."7
Government Pressure: This affiliate backlash was fueled by an ominous warning from a top federal regulator, who called Kimmel's remarks "truly sick" and suggested that the network and its local affiliates could face repercussions, including the possibility of license revocation.8 This added a layer of government pressure to the situation.
ABC's Decision: Shortly after these announcements from the major affiliate groups, ABC's parent company, Disney, announced it would suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely.9 This decision was a direct response to the pressure from the affiliate owners and the regulatory body.10
The Broader Context
Political and Business Intertwined: The affiliates' decisions were not solely about their feelings on Kimmel's commentary. Both Nexstar and Sinclair have significant business dealings that require federal approval. Nexstar, for example, is in the process of a major acquisition that requires the approval of the same federal agency whose chair was publicly criticizing Kimmel. This has led to widespread speculation that the affiliates' actions were a form of self-preservation, aimed at avoiding a public conflict with the government and showing a willingness to align with its political interests.
The "Late-Night Wars" Take a New Turn: The situation is a stark illustration of how the traditional business model of broadcast television is under pressure. While networks have historically been at odds with their affiliates over things like carriage fees, this is an unprecedented example of affiliates publicly turning on a network's star host over political content, leading to the show's suspension.11 This reflects a new reality where political commentary, especially on late-night TV, can carry significant financial and regulatory risk.
The Argument for Financial Losses
High Operating Costs: It's a fact that producing a nightly talk show is expensive.2 Reports indicate that the annual operating budget for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was around $100 million.3 A significant portion of this goes to the host's salary, with both Colbert and Kimmel reportedly earning around $15-16 million annually.4 Other major costs include the salaries of a large staff of writers, producers, and crew (some estimates put the staff at over 200 people for Colbert's show), as well as studio upkeep, guest fees, and production expenses.5
Declining Advertising Revenue: The traditional model of late-night television relies heavily on advertising.6 However, as viewership shifts to streaming and on-demand platforms, linear TV ratings have been in a long-term decline.7 Data from EDO Ad EnGage showed that while The Late Show brought in an estimated $59.9 million in ad revenue from July 2024 to July 2025, this was a 2% decrease year-over-year.8 Jimmy Kimmel Live! saw an even more significant drop, with ad revenue falling 16% to an estimated $46 million in the same period.9
Network Justifications: CBS, in its announcement to cancel The Late Show, explicitly stated that the decision was "purely financial."10 The network's chair of TV media, George Cheeks, said the "economics made it a challenge" and that the show was losing a "significant" amount, with reports citing a loss of over $40 million annually.11 This narrative was widely picked up by media outlets.
Shifting Business Models: The recent decisions by both CBS and ABC may be less about the shows being "revenue losers" in an absolute sense, and more about a strategic shift toward a new, more cost-effective model for late-night content. As audiences move online, networks may be less willing to invest in the high-cost, high-budget broadcast format, and instead, are looking to create cheaper, digitally focused content.
Political Considerations: While networks have cited "financial reasons," some observers have pointed to the political climate as a contributing factor.15 Both Kimmel and Colbert have been vocal critics of the current administration. The recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! came after he made comments about a controversial political figure, leading to pressure from a group of ABC affiliates and a top federal regulator.16 This has fueled speculation that the financial arguments are, at least in part, a convenient pretext for networks to distance themselves from politically charged content.
There's a strong argument to be made that the political activism of both Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel alienated a portion of their potential audience. This is a key factor in the broader debate about their shows' financial viability and recent network decisions.1
The Audience for Political Comedy
Both shows developed a reputation for being politically left-leaning, and their audiences reflected this. Studies have shown that a large majority of their viewers identify as liberal or left-of-center.2 A 2025 study found that 99% of the political guests on late-night shows in the first half of the year were left-leaning.3
Stephen Colbert: His show, The Late Show, had the highest percentage of liberal viewers among the major late-night shows. His entire comedic persona, both on his old show, The Colbert Report, and his current one, was built around political commentary and satire.4 This approach was highly successful with his core audience but was less appealing to viewers who did not share his political views or who were tired of political discourse.
Jimmy Kimmel: While traditionally more of a celebrity-interview host, Kimmel's show became increasingly political, especially in recent years.5 His emotional monologues on healthcare and other social issues, as well as his sharp criticism of conservative figures, cemented his show's political identity. This was celebrated by his fans but, as recent events suggest, it also made him a target for political backlash.6
The Impact on Ratings and Viewership
Viewership Trends: While The Late Show consistently led in total viewership, its audience was largely made up of viewers who were already in agreement with the show's political stance. Conversely, shows that either avoided politics (like Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show) or had an explicitly conservative bent (like Greg Gutfeld's Gutfeld!) sometimes performed better with a wider audience.7 In fact, Gutfeld! has consistently beaten Jimmy Kimmel Live! in key viewership demographics.
The "Preaching to the Choir" Problem: The primary criticism leveled against political late-night shows is that they are "preaching to the choir." Their political commentary solidifies the views of their existing audience but does not attract new viewers. In a deeply polarized country, this approach may have limited their growth potential and, over time, alienated a significant segment of the population that might have otherwise watched a less political show.
The Role of Political Backlash
The recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! highlights how political commentary can have tangible, negative consequences for a show and its network. Kimmel's comments about a controversial political figure led to public criticism from high-profile political figures and a regulatory official.8 This quickly escalated, with major network affiliates threatening to preempt the show.9 While the official reason for the suspension was not explicitly political, many observers, including former President Barack Obama, viewed it as an act of political censorship and a direct result of government pressure.10
This incident, and the less-publicized but similar financial struggles of Colbert's show, suggest that the networks' decisions were not solely about declining ratings or revenue. The political controversy surrounding the hosts may have created an unacceptable level of risk and a perception that the shows were no longer worth the trouble, especially as their traditional business model was already in decline.