Commentary
One of my earliest memories is sneaking into the living room after bedtime, captivated by the sound of Johnny Carson’s late-night antics. I didn’t comprehend the narratives unfolding before me, but the music—led by the vibrant Doc Severinsen and his big band—left a lasting impression. It was a thrilling experience, far superior to the musical offerings that would later accompany subsequent hosts on “The Tonight Show.”
While I’ve never been a dedicated television viewer as an adult, it’s widely acknowledged that no host has matched Carson’s unique ability to encapsulate the American spirit, navigate serious topics, and maintain a relatable voice. Literary critic Walter Kirn aptly notes that Carson arguably contributed more to the American identity than even the legendary Walter Cronkite.
Stephen Colbert, a late-night host who once amused me, became increasingly unwatchable after 2015. His show morphed into a platform that primarily catered to a singular narrative: an anti-Trump stance and unwavering support for the left’s resistance. At times, it felt less like entertainment and more like a psychological operation designed to convince viewers that dissenting opinions were virtually nonexistent.
During this period, major news outlets faced a critical juncture. They could either strive to represent a diverse spectrum of American opinions or choose to embrace a more partisan approach. Initially, The New York Times attempted to uphold journalistic integrity, even issuing apologies for failing to predict the 2016 election outcome accurately. However, this commitment to objectivity quickly waned, as the newsroom became inundated with activists shaped by elite educational institutions, who valued activism over impartiality. According to the tenets of so-called “woke” ideology, objective truths became mere subjective interpretations—each colored by personal experiences.
In this climate, media channels ceased to act as neutral arbiters of national discourse, instead becoming aggressive advocates for specific causes. The New York Times, for instance, went so far as to dismiss its newly hired op-ed editor in favor of a more overtly partisan stance. Once a source of authentic biases, it devolved into a mouthpiece for doctrines that alienated a significant portion of the American middle class.
Colbert’s late-night show became emblematic of this trend, losing its humor and becoming predictable, expecting audiences to laugh at the new president and anyone who might dare suggest he deserved a fair hearing. Consequently, a decline in viewership was almost a foregone conclusion.
Yet, Colbert’s supporters argue otherwise. The New York Times even published a piece asserting that the cancellation of his show exemplified “authoritarian coercion” stemming from the Trump administration. However, this claim lacks substantiation. The victim mentality does little to mask the reality: the collective solidarity of legacy comedians in defense of Colbert underscores an awareness of their precarious situation in a changing media landscape.
Ben Sasse succinctly points out the stark numbers: Colbert’s audience averages 2.4 million viewers most nights—less than 1 percent of the population, a tiny fraction compared to Carson’s audience during a time when the nation was smaller. Over the past five years, The Late Show has seen its viewership plummet by more than 30 percent, particularly among the crucial 18- to 49-year-old demographic. Moreover, the production reportedly costs over $100 million annually, with substantial losses—$40 million last year alone, nearly half attributed to the host’s salary.
This “wokeification” of late-night television and mainstream media has coincided with a surge in interest for alternative programming. Podcasts, Substacks, and outlets like The Epoch Times have gained traction, not solely due to technological advancements but also because the mainstream has become so extreme that it alienates those seeking diverse viewpoints.
It became painfully obvious that “The Late Show” was on borrowed time, much like National Public Radio, which has become so biased that taxpayer support seems increasingly untenable. For years, I have found much of its content intolerable—not because I lean towards Trump, but because I seek engaging and informative media.
Following 2016, much of the media landscape adopted a homiletic tone, akin to a church sermon, which is not what audiences expect from mainstream outlets.
What is particularly striking is the lack of self-awareness among these institutions post-Trump. They seem to have entered a state of denial not just regarding the election outcome but about the values and sentiments that propelled his supporters. There remains an intriguing question: How did these institutions persist with such a losing strategy for so long, oblivious to the consequences that awaited them? This phenomenon can largely be attributed to a media elite that has evolved into a self-referential subculture, firmly convinced of their doctrines while vilifying dissenters.
This shift traces back to academia. The days when journalism thrived on meritocracy and the pursuit of truth have faded. As educational institutions became feeder systems for the industry, new entrants prioritized careerism and groupthink, often sidelining disruptive and honest reporting.
Comedy, too, fell prey to this fate among the elites. In an environment where offense is to be avoided at all costs, the only permissible humor becomes that which aligns with prevailing ideologies. A once-entertaining publication, The Onion, transformed into an unfunny shadow of its former self, overshadowed by The Babylon Bee, which, despite facing censorship attempts, has thrived in this new media landscape.
Colbert’s cancellation represents a broader trend affecting the late-night format. Other hosts rallied in a show of solidarity, akin to schoolchildren banding together in the face of adversity. This behavior suggests a reluctance to confront the reality of the changing media environment, where profitability must take precedence over ideological fidelity.
This aspect of the media transition is perplexing: how legacy institutions can witness the rise of successful and profitable alternative media yet refuse to adapt their programming to include a wider array of perspectives.
This unwavering adherence to ideology is a testament to its influence; its followers cling to it, even at the cost of their own viability. Once these institutions made the choice to trade their credibility for partisan objectives—an apparent turning point around 2016—there was no turning back.
Now, we can only observe as others follow suit, with historians poised to document the decline of these voices and platforms. Colbert’s cancellation stands as a prominent, albeit recent, illustration of this trend. The silver lining, however, is the plethora of alternatives emerging to fill the void.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have faced threats, arrests, and assaults, yet our commitment to independent journalism remains unwavering. This year marks our 25th anniversary of reporting free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why you’re invited to a limited-time introductory offer—just $1 per week—to join millions already celebrating independent news.
