By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The author reflects on the recent cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a show that he followed after being a long-time fan of Johnny Carson and David Letterman. While CBS cited financial reasons for the decision, the author, with experience in corporate America, believes something more significant is at play. He speculates that the move was a strategic decision to appease Donald Trump, whom Colbert frequently criticized, especially in light of a recent lawsuit settlement and a pending merger requiring governmental approval. The author suggests that the true motivation was not financial, but rather the suppression of dissent and the prioritization of corporate interests over free speech.
Read the original article here
CBS is treating Stephen Colbert’s smart fans like fools by citing a ‘financial decision.’
Let’s be clear: the narrative CBS is spinning about Stephen Colbert’s departure feels more like a poorly executed cover-up than a legitimate business decision. The official line is that the show was losing money, but the timing and the circumstances surrounding the cancellation scream foul play. If it were truly a financial matter, why wouldn’t they have explored the standard corporate cost-cutting measures? Pay cuts, staff reductions, revised budgets, or even just fewer episodes. The abruptness of the decision, especially for a flagship program, raises a lot of red flags. It reeks of something far more sinister.
The crux of the matter is the lawsuit settlement that CBS and Paramount recently reached with Donald Trump. They could have fought it, and legal experts believe they had a strong case, but they chose to settle instead. Now, conveniently, the network’s most prominent critic of Trump is on his way out. This is more than just a coincidence; it’s a pattern of appeasement. The celebration of Colbert’s cancellation by Trump himself confirms that this was no ordinary business decision.
The real motive here points to influence and a desperate attempt by Paramount to secure a massive merger with Skydance Media. This merger would require approval from a Trump-aligned regulatory regime, making Colbert, with his high profile and critical stance, a significant problem. In this scenario, the “financial decision” becomes clear: silence the critic to appease the potential gatekeepers of a lucrative business deal. This is corporate cowardice, plain and simple.
This isn’t about ratings or ad revenue; it’s about influence and self-preservation. CBS is prioritizing its own financial interests, even if it means sacrificing its integrity and the trust of its audience. It’s a decision that betrays the principles of a free press and the importance of holding power accountable. They’re treating their audience like they’re naive, believing that viewers won’t see through their flimsy facade. The outcry is a testament to the intelligence of Colbert’s audience, who recognize the real story behind the manufactured excuses.
The response from the public, including those who now plan to boycott CBS and Paramount+, proves that Colbert’s fans are not fooled. They understand that this is a dangerous precedent, one where criticism can be silenced by the threat of legal action and political pressure. It’s a move that is particularly disappointing given the constant references to freedom of speech.
Moreover, the timing of Larry Ellison’s involvement in the merger, a major Trump supporter, adds another layer of suspicion. The suggestion that Ellison may have been the one to suggest Colbert’s axing further cements the idea that this decision was politically motivated and pre-planned.
There is also the idea that Colbert will run for office, possibly against Lindsay Graham in 2026. That timeline works out almost perfectly.
The notion that CBS is prioritizing financial gain is a superficial cover for a deeper, more troubling truth. They have shown themselves to be willing to bend the knee to political pressure and abandon their commitment to truth and accountability. It’s a betrayal of their audience and a disservice to the principles of a free society. The so-called “financial decision” is a calculated move, a cynical attempt to prioritize business interests over journalistic integrity. The outrage is a natural response to this betrayal. It’s a financial decision in the sense that if the audience doesn’t like it, they can change the channel.