An opinion column in the New York Post argues that late-night television has effectively died, blaming its two marquee hosts, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, for a drift toward partisan, politically charged monologues that alienate broad audiences. The piece contends the format once defined by breezy topical humor now suffers from a self-imposed mission to lecture viewers rather than entertain them at the end of a long day. It frames the current turbulence as both a cultural shift and a business problem, with networks reevaluating the costs and benefits of high-profile, politically tinged late-night fare.
According to the column, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live after a Monday monologue that linked Charlie Kirk to MAGA, prompting local affiliates to decline airing the show. Disney, the network's parent company, suspended the program on Wednesday as executives weighed feedback from affiliates and advertisers. Meanwhile, CBS canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in July, but the show is scheduled to air new episodes through May 2026, a milestone that underscores broader upheaval in late-night scheduling. The author notes that Colbert's program has reportedly lost as much as forty million dollars a year, illustrating the severe financial pressures that have accompanied the shift away from the traditional late-night model.
From the column's perspective, Kimmel evolved from an affable host into a figure described as bitter and sanctimonious, more focused on scoring political points against Trump than offering light relief for weary viewers. The piece argues that his monologues shifted toward a political crusade, at times targeting GOP voters and those who questioned public health guidance, rather than delivering the breezy topical humor that defined earlier eras of late-night. The op-ed emphasizes that such turns in tone can corrode a show's wide appeal and accountability to advertisers and local affiliates.
Colbert is depicted as having transformed The Late Show into a Democratic-leaning forum, featuring guests such as California Representative Adam Schiff and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, while leaning into pointed political commentary. The column contends that this approach, paired with jabs at political opponents, contributed to growing dissonance with a broad audience and with advertisers who seek broader appeal. It also cites examples from Kimmel's and Colbert's recent material, including references to political figures and public health policy, to illustrate a trend toward partisan lecturing rather than social satire. The piece notes that Kimmel has not commented on his suspension.
The article frames these developments against a backdrop of a changing media landscape where audiences splintered across platforms and monetization models have shifted. It highlights how viewer habits have migrated to streaming services, short-form clips, and social feeds, reducing the traditional late-night audience that sustained years of network-backed talk shows. The column also points to regulatory and distribution complexities, including the involvement of the Federal Communications Commission and the economics of local-affiliate ownership, such as Nexstar, as factors shaping what networks can air and when. In this view, the form faltered not only because of host personalities but also because its business model struggled to adapt to a fragmented market.
A retrospective thread runs through the piece, invoking a widely cited sentiment from Johnny Carson about the role of late-night hosts. In a 1979 clip cited by the author, Carson argued that late-night should not be a battlefield for serious public discourse, warning that treating the format as a megaphone for grand ideas risks excessive self-importance. The op-ed uses that reflection to suggest a historical tension within late-night: the balance between entertainment and influence, and the danger of letting politics eclipse humor. Carson’s cautionary note is presented as a touchstone for evaluating what late-night was meant to be and what it has become in a polarized era.
Industry context also frames the discussion. Observers note that the accounting does not merely reflect shifting tastes but also the realities of a crowded media marketplace where ad revenue has cooled and viewers mindfully curate their feeds. The column cites rising costs, competitive pressures from digital-first programs, and the challenge of sustaining long-form interviews and celebrity appearances when audiences can access shorter, punchier content elsewhere. It raises questions about how networks might recalibrate late-night to recapture a broad cross-section of viewers while preserving editorial independence and humor. The piece does not propose a single cure but argues that the current trajectory risks further marginalizing traditional late-night as a cultural artifact rather than a daily ritual.
The author wraps the assessment in a wariness about what happens when entertainment and politics become indistinguishable in the late-night space. The piece contends that the moment of reckoning was self-inflicted and, for now, seemingly inevitable if the format continues down a path of partisan emphasis at the expense of broad appeal. Whether any new model can restore the balance remains an open question as networks weigh cost, audience reach, and the enduring appetite for a nightly respite that blends humor with democratic vitality. In the near term, the questions outnumber definitive answers, and the future of late-night TV may hinge on a willingness to recalibrate what counts as acceptable discourse, what audiences expect from a late-night host, and how the industry balances entertainment with the pressures of a rapidly evolving media ecosystem.
As a visual reminder of the ongoing upheaval, a separate image captures the broader chatter surrounding late-night shifts and cancellations across the network landscape.
Looking ahead, observers say the question is not whether late-night will vanish entirely but how it will reemerge. Some suggest a retooled, less partisan format that foregrounds interviews and human-interest moments with a lighter touch may appeal to audiences fatigued by constant political commentary. Others argue that the very concept of a nightly monologue anchored to a network timetable is dated in an era of on-demand and streaming options. Whatever form it eventually takes, the debate over late-night television reflects broader tensions about taste, influence, access, and the business realities of modern entertainment.