Some facts seem impossible to ignore, let alone cover with a blanket.
Yet Legacy Media outlets are expert of shoving some inconvenient truths under the rug. Wait ... the murder rate across the U.S. dropped dramatically after President Donald Trump slammed the border shut?
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
That's also the case with the biggest nugget behind Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" cancellation. Blame low ratings, viewer disinterest or an evil president bent on silencing him.
Yes, we're playing Devil's Advocate, but just to make a point.
The reason why "The Late Show" is now a relic of the past is simple. The show was losing CBS $40 million a year.
Maybe more.
The Wall Street Journal shared that harsh truth last July. No one has repudiated the information in nearly a year since the news broke. A viral snapshot from the show's final episode features the whole cast and crew.
One of the great group shots of "The Late Show" staff posing on stage: pic.twitter.com/L2oknhvyos
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 22, 2026
Now, suddenly, it's clear why the show was losing millions. Colbert needed a small army to bring each "Late Show" installment to life.
Yet that critical information started to disappear from news reports of the show's demise. Instead, journalists began peddling the lie that President Donald Trump forced the show off the air, without evidence.
This USA Today mash note to Colbert omits the critical data entirely. So does this Poynter commentary.
These weren't outliers. Reporters couldn't bring themselves to honor Colbert while telling the ugly truth.
Never mind that President Trump didn't cancel shows critical of him during his first term. Or that Colbert's absence leaves a crush of like-minded comics who also skewer Trump nightly.
Yet they remain on the air. Hmmmm.
That $40 million factoid does more than debunk the "Trump had Colbert fired" narrative. It opens up two critical questions left unanswered.
Why would CBS put up with those losses for so long? What's in it for the Tiffany Network beyond promoting progressive narratives, to air a show that costs the company millions?
Have we said too much?
More importantly, what does that say about Colbert's late-night competition?
Colbert, to his credit, generated the most eyeballs with his "Late Show" series. He routinely beat Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon and others in the ratings race. Yet Kimmel recently signed a year-long extension on ABC.
Does "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" lose money, too? If so, how much? And why would ABC keep it on the air if that's the case? If I'm an ABC/Disney stockholder, I'd like the answers to those questions.
Poor Jimmy Fallon. He took over "The Tonight Show" from Jay Leno, a host who kept the iconic showcase atop the ratings heap for two decades.
Now? Fallon's "Tonight Show" trails both Colbert and Kimmel, week after week. Is Fallon losing NBC millions, too?
Late-night TV is dying. Ratings are down. Revenue is way, way down. Cultural clout is ebbing. Advertisers are putting their money in new media platforms.
That change was inevitable with the rise of streaming and YouTube based competition. Colbert and co. may have hastened its downfall.
The least the media could do is tell us the whole truth.
