The cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show by CBS, set for May 2026, has ignited a firestorm of speculation and debate. While many observers, including Colbert himself and iconic figures like David Letterman and Jon Stewart, have pointed to potential political motivations, particularly in the wake of Paramount Global’s controversial settlement with Donald Trump and its high-stakes merger with Skydance Media, a different perspective is now emerging. Veteran late-night host Samantha Bee, who successfully ran Full Frontal with Samantha Bee for seven seasons on TBS, offers a blunt assessment: the decision was, fundamentally, a financial “no-brainer.”

Bee, a former correspondent on The Daily Show and a respected voice in the comedy world, weighed in on the Breaking Bread with Tom Papa podcast, acknowledging the political optics but emphasizing the dire economic realities faced by “legacy shows” like The Late Show. In her view, the program was “hemorrhaging money,” a problem common across the late-night landscape, and this financial drain, coupled with the impending Paramount-Skydance merger, made the cancellation an almost inevitable business move. Her insights, stemming from her own experiences navigating network dynamics during mergers, shed a crucial light on the complex interplay of financial pressures, audience shifts, and corporate strategies that dictate the fate of even the most popular television programs.

The financial woes of late-night television are not a new phenomenon. For years, the traditional model, heavily reliant on linear TV viewership and corresponding advertising revenue, has been under immense pressure. As Bee points out, “people are just not tuning in” to these shows on traditional broadcast in the same way they once did. The rise of streaming services, on-demand content, and ubiquitous social media platforms has drastically altered how audiences, especially younger demographics, consume news, entertainment, and comedy. Instead of waiting for a nightly recap, viewers are “literally on their phones all the time,” already “very well-versed in what has happened” throughout the day. This fundamental shift in consumption habits means that the primary value proposition of late-night talk shows – providing a digestible summary and humorous commentary on the day’s events – has been significantly eroded.

Data supports Bee’s assessment of the financial bleed. While The Late Show with Stephen Colbert consistently held the top spot in linear ratings for its time slot, its financial performance tells a starker story. Reports indicate the show was losing approximately $40 million annually, with production costs soaring above $100 million per year. This includes Colbert’s considerable salary and the expenses of a large staff of around 200 people. Advertising revenue for late-night programs across the board has plummeted, with the segment seeing a 50% decline from $439 million in 2018 to an estimated $220 million in 2024, according to ad-tracking firm Guideline. Even the most-watched show isn’t immune when the overall advertising pie shrinks so dramatically.

The challenge for late-night shows isn’t just about declining linear viewership; it’s about translating audience engagement into profitable revenue streams in the digital age. While clips from shows like Colbert’s may go viral on YouTube or other social media platforms, this digital engagement, as one CBS insider reportedly described it, is often “digital dimes versus network dollars.” The ad rates and monetization models for online content simply don’t generate the same level of revenue as traditional broadcast advertising. This disconnect means that even highly demanded shows, like The Late Show, which generated nearly $60 million in streaming revenue for Paramount+ between Q1 2021 and Q1 2025, are still far from offsetting the massive production costs of a nightly broadcast television show.

Bee’s experience as a former late-night host provides a valuable insider perspective on the pressures faced by networks. She noted that during her time at TBS with Full Frontal, navigating network mergers and avoiding controversy was a “constant source of conversation.” This highlights a crucial, often unspoken, aspect of television production: network executives are constantly evaluating the financial viability and potential liabilities of their programs, especially when major corporate deals are on the horizon. A show, no matter how critically acclaimed or popular, becomes a liability if it’s bleeding money, particularly when the parent company is trying to present a streamlined and profitable image to potential investors or regulators for a multi-billion dollar merger.

The Paramount-Skydance merger, valued at $8.4 billion, required federal approval, a process that inherently scrutinizes the financial health and future projections of the merging entities. Shedding a high-cost, money-losing asset like The Late Show would, from a purely business perspective, make the company’s balance sheet appear more attractive and less burdened by unprofitable ventures. As Bee succinctly put it, “It’s so much easier for them to cut it loose with this merger coming down the pike. It makes the decision such a no-brainer.” This pragmatism, while potentially jarring for fans and commentators who see deeper political motives, aligns with the cold, hard logic of corporate finance.

Of course, the timing of the cancellation – coming just weeks after Paramount Global settled a $16 million lawsuit with Donald Trump and as the merger sought final approvals from an administration that included Trump appointees – is undeniably provocative. Jon Stewart’s sharp critique, suggesting the cancellation was a move to “censor and control” hosts and make the network “so innocuous” as to avoid the ire of powerful figures, resonates with many. David Letterman, the show’s original host, even blasted the decision as “pure cowardice.” These concerns about editorial independence and political appeasement are valid and cannot be entirely dismissed.

However, Bee’s perspective suggests that these political considerations, while present, might have acted as an accelerant rather than the sole cause. If The Late Show had been a wildly profitable venture, it’s plausible that Paramount might have been more willing to absorb any political blowback or simply find ways to mitigate it. But when a show is already a significant financial drain, the added complexity of political controversy and the need to present a clean balance sheet for a major merger could push executives to make decisions that appear politically motivated but are fundamentally rooted in economic survival.

The reality, as Bee implies, is often a blend of factors. “I think both things are true,” she said, acknowledging both the financial hemorrhaging and the potential desire to “curry favor with the president” amidst the merger. This nuanced view recognizes the multi-layered pressures on modern media companies. They must navigate a rapidly evolving consumption landscape, where traditional revenue streams are drying up, while simultaneously dealing with intense political scrutiny and the demands of massive corporate transactions.

The cancellation of The Late Show serves as a stark warning signal for the entire late-night genre. If the most-watched program in its slot can’t sustain itself financially, what does that mean for its competitors? Some shows have already begun adapting, reducing live bands or cutting broadcast nights. However, CBS’s decision to entirely pull the plug on a franchise that has been a late-night staple for decades suggests a more fundamental re-evaluation of the format’s viability in the current media ecosystem. It raises questions about whether the traditional model of a nightly, hour-long talk show with a live band and large staff is simply no longer sustainable in an era where audiences are fragmented and attention spans are shorter.

While the emotional impact on fans and the political implications for free speech in media are profound, Samantha Bee’s candid assessment cuts to the core business reality. The decision to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was, in her professional view, a “no-brainer” when viewed through the lens of a company grappling with immense financial pressure and the strategic imperatives of a multi-billion dollar merger. It underscores that in today’s media landscape, even popular, culturally significant shows are ultimately beholden to the bottom line, and the cost of staying on air is often far higher than the entertainment value they provide. The ultimate legacy of this decision might be a stark lesson in the unforgiving economics of modern television.