Comment: America depends on late night hosts like Colbert

By Jason Bailey / Bloomberg Opinion

The role of a late-night talk show host has always occupied a uniquely liminal space in American life, traversing the uncertain territory between comedian, social commentator, political pundit and moral compass.

Among these roles, the first quality is always the most important: audiences tune in to be entertained. But the lines between satire and political commentary have always blurred on the late-night format, and America has benefited greatly from the overlap. So when Paramount Global’s CBS announced the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” it was clear that the move would be a disservice to the public.

Despite the obvious — Colbert’s frequent criticism of Trump and Paramount’s need for FCC approval amid a high-profile merger — the network framed the decision as simply a dollar-and-cents issue. “This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,” its statement read. “It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

That explanation has drawn skepticism, given “The Late Show” topped its competitors last quarter and was the only late-night program to gain viewers.

To CBS’s credit, some have pointed out that in a rapidly evolving media landscape, late-night television is no longer as profitable or culturally relevant as it once was. The network reinforced that stance by not just removing Colbert but canceling “The Late Show altogether,” a flagship franchise since David Letterman’s high-profile debut in 1993. If Colbert’s sharp-edged critiques of Trump were really the only problem, the argument goes, then CBS would have simply replaced him with a more innocuous host.

But looked at from another angle, the network’s deep-sixing of the entire enterprise makes its decision even more troubling. The message being relayed is that the suits who are making these calls not only want to eliminate the Colbert problem, but the mere possibility of such a platform for political commentary of dissent. It’s as if they’re ensuring they won’t have any mouthy personalities jeopardizing their future deals.

If this becomes standard practice among media conglomerates, then we should all be concerned about what would be lost. But it’s not the first time late-night censorship has taken center stage in the nation.

Jack Paar, the late ’50s and early ‘60s-era “Tonight Show” host who essentially created the blueprint for the traditional talk show format, was known for his thoughtful, searching and often pointed monologues and commentaries. When a joke was cut from a 1960 show without his knowledge, he walked off the set during a live broadcast and didn’t return until nearly a month later, with the first words out of his mouth: “As I was saying ….”

Johnny Carson frequently made monologue hay of his battles with the NBC censors, as did David Letterman, and entire books could be written on the controversies of salty guests like George Carlin and Buddy Hackett (to say nothing of the prime-time battles of the Smothers Brothers and Richard Pryor).

Since the heyday (and dominance) of Carson, there has been a peculiar, and often fascinating, tension between the talk show host’s parallel responsibilities of entertainer and commentator. Carson would mercilessly razz the likes of presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, while maintaining cordial and even collegial relationships with them offstage.

The big difference now versus then, however, is that most of the more recent presidents have had the good sense to at least pretend to be good-natured about it, understanding that the host’s critique was often simply a barometer for public sentiment. (And from Bill Clinton’s paradigm-shifting appearance on “The Arsenio Hall Show” in 1992, a free-wheeling, self-deprecating appearance on a late show couch has become as much of an obligatory campaign stop as the Iowa state fair.)

The tension — between affection and criticism, between respect and ridicule — isn’t just par for the course in late night. It’s a particularly American quality, a tangible demonstration of the nuanced thinking, free speech and philosophical complexity that allows us to not only protest the actions of our government, but to position such protests as explicitly patriotic.

And, so, the silencing of jokes and jabs on network airwaves marks the shattering of yet another norm by this administration; by no means its most frightening, but an unsettling one nevertheless.

Anyone who thinks Trump will stop at Colbert and “The Late Show” is fooling themselves. Before being sworn in for his current term, he was already threatening Comcast Corp. — NBC’s parent company — over Seth Meyers’ critical commentary. It was a continuation of his actions back in 2018, when he reportedly pressured Walt Disney Co. executives to silence Jimmy Kimmel. And in a post on this social media platform on Tuesday, he wrote: “The word is, and it’s a strong word at that, Jimmy Kimmel is NEXT to go in the untalented Late Night Sweepstakes and, shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone.”

Even the kings of olden times kept a jester around to keep them humble and honest. Late-night hosts have carried on that tradition in many ways. Silencing them isn’t just about protecting power; it’s about eliminating one of the last spaces where it’s still publicly challenged.

Jason Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. He is the author, most recently, of “Gandolfini: Jim, Tony, and the Life of a Legend.”