- '60 Minutes': Top News Show, Makes Money - But That Isn't Enough
by
Wayne Friedman
(TV Watch on
06/04/2026)
When the majority of your on air talent is between 60 and 84 years of age, it's hard to argue that changes aren't needed moving forward.
The median age of the 60 Minutes of viewer is 65. Hardly the age group you want to build a future franchise on. A bit too early to see how the long game works out and the people who've been sitting in their anchor seats for 40+ years really shouldn't be complaining that it's tileto start moving in a new direction.
- Speaking Truthiness To Power
by
Joe Mandese
(TV Watch on
05/22/2026)
"It was that he was so focused on keeping the light on Trump's flaws and antics that it reminded us we still live in an America where someone can do that. Until last night."
Late night TV's creation and intention was to entertain people before they zonked out for the night. Leave the office and politics and troubles behind - you tuned in to get a few laughs and be entertained. Nobody was tuning in to hear some schmuchk give his take on "keeping the light" on the President's perceived flaws. That's what the news networks have devolved to 24/7.
Admittedly, I was a fan of Colbert when he was on Comedy Central. I was genuinely excited when he went to Late Nite. After watching him for a month or so, I tuned out as I was incredibly disappointed that he was so partisan and so predictible so quickly. I was tuning in to be entertained. He wasn't entertaining. He wasn't offering an escape from the noise - he was amplifying it.
Colbert was not, and is not, unique. He's just one of many fighting for a decreasing piece of pie of people who somehow want to relish in rage.
What's he going to do next?
He's going to follow the path of Como, Lemon, Joy Reid, etc. He's going to have a YouTube channel that will launch to great fanfare and his views and following will falter without a machine like CBS to promote his repetitive, unoriginal dribble.
It's not satire. It's not sophisticated. It's certainly not original.
It's just repetitive, infantile babble - and the irony is it's not much different than Trump himself.
Now that is funny.
- Colbert Was Adored By Fans, But He Killed CBS Late Night
by
Adam Buckman
(TVBlog on
05/21/2026)
I was a big fan of Colbert before he went to CBS. If anything, I thought he was going to reinvigorate my personal desire to watch this (then) coveted time slot and have a few good laughs before turning in.
Within the first month or so, I was like "WTF, why is this so political?" Not just the monologue, the conversations with the guests. When Colbert was on Comedy Central, his show, while political, was entertaining and absurd and took shots at all sides. The Late Show is an entertainment show first - and he just turned up the partisan, political nonsense by 100% almost out of the gate.
At some point, his comedic jabs turned into flat out hate not only for Trump, but for "the right" in general.
Yes - Colbert certainly killed Late Night, and he made a ton of money doing it. In the process, the networks have lost one of their last great bastions to pull in "must see TV" and appointment viewing.
I'm sure he'll launch a podcast and like his Jon Stewart before him, you'll see that he doesn't pull in the kind of viewing, or revenue, that he was getting on CBS. But he seems perfectly content to yell into his own echo chamber.
- Local TV Broadcasters Need To Take Bigger Role In National Ad Game
by
Dave Morgan
(Media Insider on
05/21/2026)
I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.
National TV buy budgets are separate from local ad budgets - they are not interchangeable. And you could argue that a type of "localization" is already available on national buys with local tags which cable TV led the way many years ago.
Local TV buys are typically more market/region specific in messaging and/or the brand is looking to heavy up reach or frequency in certain markets after the efficiencies from a national buy are in place.
And don't even get me started on how flawed Nielsen ratings have been for the past 20 years.
- Classless Clowns To Network That Paid Them Millions: F-You!
by
Adam Buckman
(TVBlog on
05/19/2026)
He's not being "forced out." His contract is not being renewed because his ratings have decreased significantly and the show loses the network a ton of money and I doubt very much he was hired to rant and b-tch every night about Trump and the republicans.
He doesn't have to show gratitude. But he could show some class.
All he's doing is proving why nobody watches him anymore. Who wants to listen to a bitter old man every night before you go to sleep?
- The Audacity Of 'Baywatch,' Other Upfront Notes
by
Adam Buckman
(TVBlog on
05/13/2026)
If you think a new show (albeit a reboot) is "audastic" because it doesn't reflect "real world" scenarios, are you sure you are a TV critic?
- Unglued Late-Night Host Vs. Unglued President
by
Adam Buckman
(TVBlog on
05/01/2026)
Carson, Leno, Letterman would take occasional, light-hearted jabs at Presidents. The shows focused on entertaining all Americans and politics was rarely a topic. You had an hour of good laughs and fun conversations before dozing off from a long day.
All Kimmel does is rant night after night after night and ensures that if you weren't mad before you turned him on, you probably will be when you turn him off.
As an ex-employee of Disney - the focus was always entertainment for everyone. Kimmel hasn't foot that bill for a long time, but Disney lost its way 10-15 years ago with a honed focus on profit vs. entertainment and family values.
Bottom line is Kimmel and Colbert are not satirists or comediens. They're just bitter, angry men shouting the same repetitive nonsense into a mirror every night. You may as well just read "why I hate Trump" angry tweets for 43 minutes. Both have had major declines in ratings - blame it on whatever you want - but the guys behind the mic have no-one to blame but themselves.
I'd be shocked if ABC didn't want to fire Kimmel long ago, but likely in a tough spot as they don't want to appear as if they are appeasing Trump even though Kimmel has been off-brand with terrible ratings for years.
- I've Got 47 Problems But 86 Ain't One
by
Joe Mandese
(Red, White & Blog on
04/29/2026)
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that even by your own graph, 86 has increasingly meant "to kill" or "eliminate."
The median age of an Instagram user is 27 with 70% of its audience being below the age of 34. Referencing its meaning before most Instagram users were even born is irrelevant as most of them would believe 86 means eliminate or kill.
Regardless of its meaning - it's incredibly immature and irresponsible for the former director of the FBI to post it.
Comey was an idiot for posting it and Trump is an idiot for pursuing it.
- Predictable Irrationality In TV And Streaming Ad-Buying
by
Dave Morgan
(Media Insider on
04/16/2026)
Clients backseat driving media buys has been a practice for half a century. I remember doing large print buys back in the day and having to add magazines that made zero sense because the client just happened to like the magazine.
TV shows, websites, events, whatever - a client bias, right or wrong, will always be a factor.
- As In Days Of Old, TV Took Us To The Moon And Back
by
Adam Buckman
(TVBlog on
04/14/2026)
Here are the companies NASA used (choreographed as you put it). I'd love to hear your rationale as to how they represent the American people while SpaceX does not – keeping in mind that SpaceX is going to be the primary company responsible for the actual moon landing and SpaceX had to save the stranded Boeing ISS astronauts. The jab as SpaceX and Musk seems to be unnecessarily gratuitous. Lockheed Martin Airbus Defence and Space David Clark CompanyBoeingNorthrop GrummanAerojet RocketdyneUnited Launch AllianceAs for the TV broadcast - if you really speak to any casual viewers or even space nerds, the broadcast left many disappointed. No stats as the rocket was lifting off, there was actually a blackout as the rocket was clearing the tower, the chase cameras did a terrible job actually following the rocket after lit off, cutting to the crowd watching instead of showing the booster separation, no shots of the crew I sow, no live speed and altitude tracking, etc.It was an exciting milestone where the coverage should've been amazing and it was subpar doing NASA no favors. These complaints are widespread and many were hoping for what we have come to expect and enjoy with SpaceX launches.
As one person commented online, "NASA sent a $4 billion rocket into space with a four dollar camera."