STLtoday.com

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 20:07 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:54 pm

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:47 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 11:57 am I’ve never seen anything funny from it.

Oh seriously, get over yourself.

If you think this was some premium content that is only getting cancelled cause of TrUmP, then your self righteous, “critic” shtick holds even less weight with me. And that’s saying something, belie me.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of Colbert's show. He was #1 in his time slot.

The options are A) he was too expensive for the dying network or B) his bosses succumbed to political pressure.

In neither case is it relevant whether you personally find him funny. But it is telling that your gut reaction to claims of censorship is to check your feelings to see if agree with the message (allegedly) being censored.

His show lost $40 million a year.

He is not funny. He is a preaching bore who makes himself the center of his show rather than guests, and invites too many unfunny/uninteresting

So what, he is the biggest late night host on broadcast tv. Yeah, the tallest midget at the Little People’s convention.

Gutfield rakes in a LOT more $.

But the worst thing about Colbert is they chose *him* of all people to replace Letterman. Letterman. Colbert.

It doesn’t compute.

GelatinousEndive wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 17:16 pm

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 20:07 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:54 pm

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:47 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 11:57 am I’ve never seen anything funny from it.

Oh seriously, get over yourself.

If you think this was some premium content that is only getting cancelled cause of TrUmP, then your self righteous, “critic” shtick holds even less weight with me. And that’s saying something, belie me.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of Colbert's show. He was #1 in his time slot.

The options are A) he was too expensive for the dying network or B) his bosses succumbed to political pressure.

In neither case is it relevant whether you personally find him funny. But it is telling that your gut reaction to claims of censorship is to check your feelings to see if agree with the message (allegedly) being censored.

His show lost $40 million a year.

He is not funny. He is a preaching bore who makes himself the center of his show rather than guests, and invites too many unfunny/uninteresting

So what, he is the biggest late night host on broadcast tv. Yeah, the tallest midget at the Little People’s convention.

Gutfield rakes in a LOT more $.

But the worst thing about Colbert is they chose *him* of all people to replace Letterman. Letterman. Colbert.

It doesn’t compute.

MikoTython wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 18:05 pm

GelatinousEndive wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 17:16 pm

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 20:07 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:54 pm

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 19:47 pm

DJ Davis wrote: ↑18 Jul 2025 11:57 am I’ve never seen anything funny from it.

Oh seriously, get over yourself.

If you think this was some premium content that is only getting cancelled cause of TrUmP, then your self righteous, “critic” shtick holds even less weight with me. And that’s saying something, belie me.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of Colbert's show. He was #1 in his time slot.

The options are A) he was too expensive for the dying network or B) his bosses succumbed to political pressure.

In neither case is it relevant whether you personally find him funny. But it is telling that your gut reaction to claims of censorship is to check your feelings to see if agree with the message (allegedly) being censored.

His show lost $40 million a year.

He is not funny. He is a preaching bore who makes himself the center of his show rather than guests, and invites too many unfunny/uninteresting

So what, he is the biggest late night host on broadcast tv. Yeah, the tallest midget at the Little People’s convention.

Gutfield rakes in a LOT more $.

But the worst thing about Colbert is they chose *him* of all people to replace Letterman. Letterman. Colbert.

It doesn’t compute.

Beat me to it.

"It's possible Trump used his leverage to get CBS to cancel Colbert."
"But I don't think Colbert is funny."
"That's not the point. The point is that it might be honest-to-goodness censorship."
"But...Colbert isn't funny."

Its totally fair to diss on Colbert - he is rather monotonously partisan ( but then... consider the material thrown at him), and the show is losing money. But consider the timing, consider the context and consider that

They are cancelling THE PROPERTY, not just Colbert, and when you put in the factors like - CBS throwing 16M at Trump rather than standing against a suit they were certain to win, parent corp Paramount on the threshold of a YUGE merger Trump is in a position to put the kabosh on, the OBVIOUS intimidation & coercion & propitiation at work for anyone with eyes to see (Trump is an omnidirectional intimidator, lets not quibble about that, please), to ignore all THAT context and pretend this is simply a 'financial decision' is beyond disingenuous. It doesn't pass a reasonability smell test.

Letterman was mentioned. He thinks you can't say CBS without the BeeEss, so we know where he stands

Ok, I'm done on this subject Unless something else weird & outrageous & corrupt crops up down the road.