There are numerous ways quid pro quo can be pulled off without explicitly asking/demanding. For instance, Carr simply not meeting with Ellison to discuss/approve the merger for months on end is one way to send a clear message. Funny how when Paramount finally decided to settle, Carr finally decided to meet with Ellison. Crazy how that worked out!
Colbert cancelled
31,916 Views |
587 Replies |
Last: 24 days ago by captkirk
The Original Houston 1836
Joined:
Feb 6, 2025
Posts:
2,919
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RangerRick9211 said:20ag07 said:
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
It took a 3-way vote to approve, friend.
Your beef is now with: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/olivia-trusty .
Who approved it alongside the Chairman. She's pretty smart. But go for it.
Edit: OMG, TexAgs, handle periods at the end of links.
Chris Rock looks weird in this wig.
The Original Houston 1836 said:RangerRick9211 said:20ag07 said:
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
It took a 3-way vote to approve, friend.
Your beef is now with: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/olivia-trusty .
Who approved it alongside the Chairman. She's pretty smart. But go for it.
Edit: OMG, TexAgs, handle periods at the end of links.
Chris Rock looks weird in this wig.
She the real deal. Actually should be pulling the strings of America. I bet you look look like Shrek. Post it here, fam.
TCTTS said:
There are numerous ways quid pro quo can be pulled off without explicitly asking/demanding. For instance, Carr simply not meeting with Ellison to discuss/approve the merger for months on end is one way to send a clear message. Funny how when Paramount finally decided to settle, Carr suddenly finally decided to meet with Ellison. Crazy how that worked!
OK dude. Sorry your money losing, ancient format, buggy whip of shows got cancelled in connection with mounting losses and a pending merger. There's obviously some nefarious plot by boogeyman Trump administration officials trying to stick it to the libs, because your AI search told you so. Sometimes bad shows just get cancelled, so buck up little camper. I'm sure Disney+, or some other money losing enterprise will fill the void for you.
I'd be more worried about how AI displaces Hollywood, than relying on AI for support for your conspiracy theories
TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
Teslag said:TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
But, but AI supports muh conspiracy theories
I have already explained this like 5 times. A 30 year old show leading its timeslot gets RE-TOOLED first.Quote:
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
A cancellation isn't announced without saying "here's what we're putting there instead."
A 1-5 year money loser gets straight axed. A 30+ year one does not.
20ag07 said:Quote:
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
I have already explained this like 5 times. A 30 year old show leading its timeslot gets RE-TOOLED first.
Your assertion would appear wrong based on facts in evidence. Ask Ed Sullivan.
A cancellation isn't announced without saying "here's what we're putting there instead."
Not in the face of a pending merger with new owners
A 1-5 year money loser gets straight axed. A 30+ year one does not.
Lolwut?
You don't know what your talking about, so should stop talking
captkirk said:TCTTS said:
There are numerous ways quid pro quo can be pulled off without explicitly asking/demanding. For instance, Carr simply not meeting with Ellison to discuss/approve the merger for months on end is one way to send a clear message. Funny how when Paramount finally decided to settle, Carr suddenly finally decided to meet with Ellison. Crazy how that worked!
OK dude. Sorry your money losing, ancient format, buggy whip of shows got cancelled in connection with mounting losses and a pending merger. There's obviously some nefarious plot by boogeyman Trump administration officials trying to stick it to the libs, because your AI search told you so. Sometimes bad shows just get cancelled, so buck up little camper. I'm sure Disney+, or some other money losing enterprise will fill the void for you.
I'd be more worried about how AI displaces Hollywood, than relying on AI for support for your conspiracy theories
I've never once watched an entire episode of Colbert's show and could not care less that it was cancelled. I care WHY it was cancelled, in so much as it either did or didn't have anything to do with our president's typical, litigious/extortion/bully behavior.
Also, nice hot take you have there, re: AI. Anymore cliche, ill-informed takes you've got up your sleeve?
TCTTS said:captkirk said:TCTTS said:
There are numerous ways quid pro quo can be pulled off without explicitly asking/demanding. For instance, Carr simply not meeting with Ellison to discuss/approve the merger for months on end is one way to send a clear message. Funny how when Paramount finally decided to settle, Carr suddenly finally decided to meet with Ellison. Crazy how that worked!
OK dude. Sorry your money losing, ancient format, buggy whip of shows got cancelled in connection with mounting losses and a pending merger. There's obviously some nefarious plot by boogeyman Trump administration officials trying to stick it to the libs, because your AI search told you so. Sometimes bad shows just get cancelled, so buck up little camper. I'm sure Disney+, or some other money losing enterprise will fill the void for you.
I'd be more worried about how AI displaces Hollywood, than relying on AI for support for your conspiracy theories
I've never once watched an entire episode of Colbert's show and could not care less that it was cancelled. I care WHY it was cancelled, in so much as it did or didn't have to do with our president's typical, litigious/extortion/bully behavior.
Also, nice hot take you have there, re: AI. Anymore cliche, ill-informed takes you've got up your sleeve?
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist like you are. Sure you have more
captkirk said:TCTTS said:
There are numerous ways quid pro quo can be pulled off without explicitly asking/demanding. For instance, Carr simply not meeting with Ellison to discuss/approve the merger for months on end is one way to send a clear message. Funny how when Paramount finally decided to settle, Carr suddenly finally decided to meet with Ellison. Crazy how that worked!
OK dude. Sorry your money losing, ancient format, buggy whip of shows got cancelled in connection with mounting losses and a pending merger. There's obviously some nefarious plot by boogeyman Trump administration officials trying to stick it to the libs, because your AI search told you so. Sometimes bad shows just get cancelled, so buck up little camper. I'm sure Disney+, or some other money losing enterprise will fill the void for you.
I'd be more worried about how AI displaces Hollywood, than relying on AI for support for your conspiracy theories
Lol
Teslag said:TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
Yes, we've been over this countless times. We all agree that money was the main factor. But once again, for the cheap seats, it's highly suspect that they didn't at least try to first engage in cost cutting measures first (especially for such a major TV institution), as has been the case with numerous times other talk shows/similar shows prior. Also, the fact that the cancelation came three days after Ellison's meeting with Carr (in which "a commitment to unbiased journalism" was the main topic of discussion) and four days prior to Carr's merger approval, is undeniably suspect as well. Never mind Carr's multiple, heavily-handed quotes as of late.
TCTTS said:Teslag said:TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
Yes, we've been over this countless times. We all agree that money was the main factor. But once again, for the cheap seats, it's highly suspect that they didn't at least try to first engage in cost cutting measures first (especially for such a major TV institution), as has been the case with numerous times other talk shows/similar shows prior. Also, the fact that the cancelation came three days after Ellison's meeting with Carr (in which "a commitment to unbiased journalism" was the main topic of discussion) and four days prior to Carr's merger approval, is undeniably suspect as well. Never mind Carr's multiple, heavily-handed quotes as of late.
Quote:
Ellison met with Carr, his chief of staff Greg Watson, and Ben Arden, special counsel in the Office of the Bureau Chief of the Media Bureau, on Tuesday, July 15.
Colbert's manager knew of show's cancellation weeks before host, show axed for financial reasons
Report:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/colberts-manager-knew-shows-cancellation-weeks-before-host-show-axed-financial-reasons-report
20ag07 said:I have already explained this like 5 times. A 30 year old show leading its timeslot gets RE-TOOLED first.Quote:
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
A cancellation isn't announced without saying "here's what we're putting there instead."
A 1-5 year money loser gets straight axed. A 30+ year one does not.
You don't retool it if the format is dying. That's why they aren't even bothering to replace him and keep the show with another host.
TCTTS said:Teslag said:TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Because it's unnecessary. Occams Razor applies here.
A show losing $40 million a year in a dying format gets cancelled. The end. It's the answer with the least number of assumptions necessary.
Yes, we've been over this countless times. We all agree that money was the main factor. But once again, for the cheap seats, it's highly suspect that they didn't at least try to first engage in cost cutting measures first (especially for such a major TV institution), as has been the case with numerous times other talk shows/similar shows prior. Also, the fact that the cancelation came three days after Ellison's meeting with Carr (in which "a commitment to unbiased journalism" was the main topic of discussion) and four days prior to Carr's merger approval, is undeniably suspect as well. Never mind Carr's multiple, heavily-handed quotes as of late.
You've been over it countless times. You need too many assumptions for your conspiracy theory. You have an obvious and clear answer. That's the correct one.
And you will find on the politics board that I absolutely loathe conspiracy theories, be it right or left.
So let me get this straight… you fully believe, without question, the media/reporters when their takes support your opinion, otherwise, when I use them as sourcing, it's all agenda-driven and they're just a bunch of lairs and hacks? Is that really how this works?
If so, I'm going to do exactly what you guys do to me and say "lol" to that. Because if you believe that Baby Doll Dixon either couldn't find a way, or inexplicably waited - for WEEKS - to tell one of his most coveted clients that his job was cancelled as the host of one of the most prestigious talk shows of the last three decades, I don't know what to tell you. Other than you're beyond gullible.
If so, I'm going to do exactly what you guys do to me and say "lol" to that. Because if you believe that Baby Doll Dixon either couldn't find a way, or inexplicably waited - for WEEKS - to tell one of his most coveted clients that his job was cancelled as the host of one of the most prestigious talk shows of the last three decades, I don't know what to tell you. Other than you're beyond gullible.
I can't believe this topic has gone on for 13 pages. The guy is an unfunny idiot that that is a loser in the market place of ideas as well as finance. An absolute sheep of the highest order that very few people give a rat's ass about.
https://instagr.am/p/DMf-6G0xLjC
https://instagr.am/p/DMf-6G0xLjC
Right, like Megyn Kelly, of all people, has any room to talk about anyone being a loser when their talk shows get canceled on broadcast TV.
20ag07 said:
Right, like Megyn Kelly, of all people, has any room to talk about anyone being a loser when their talk shows get canceled on broadcast TV.
Did she attribute it to a whacked out conspiracy theory?
She has 1000% talked plenty about how she got culture-canceled, when the reality is her NBC shows were money losing disasters.
RangerRick9211 said:The Original Houston 1836 said:RangerRick9211 said:20ag07 said:
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
It took a 3-way vote to approve, friend.
Your beef is now with: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/olivia-trusty .
Who approved it alongside the Chairman. She's pretty smart. But go for it.
Edit: OMG, TexAgs, handle periods at the end of links.
Chris Rock looks weird in this wig.
She the real deal. Actually should be pulling the strings of America. I bet you look look like Shrek. Post it here, fam.
He has a menu of options to choose from. We'll see who it is this time
20ag07 said:
She has 1000% talked plenty about how she got culture-canceled, when the reality is her NBC shows were money losing disasters.
Culture canceled is viewer driven, not back room shady men making deals with Trump conspiracy theory driven.
If you are going to "retool" to deal with a $40mm problem, I start with the guy making $15mm who is doing his first gig where he actually is himself and his true personality. Again, the format is a dinosaur and the host has proven to be been so politically divisive that half the country isn't interested in anything he does. Contract is up; perfect time to come back with something different and at a much different cost structure. Also gives you a head-start on your 2 chief competitors at whatever that is
I agree 100%. It's why I keep coming back to the fact they didn't replace him, they outright canceled the whole show.
The show is just as much or more the problem as the host. If you have two problems like that you can't retool. It's beyond that. You don't retool the horse and buggy, you buy a model T.
The show is just as much or more the problem as the host. If you have two problems like that you can't retool. It's beyond that. You don't retool the horse and buggy, you buy a model T.
Cliff.Booth said:
'Cept you don't know that. That's why this back and forth is pointless. You don't know. It feels nice for the anti-trump crowd to claim, and it feels especially nice for a failed comedian who ran a show into the ground, but the settlement was reached for reasons none of us are privy to.
Yeah, I know the settlement was absolutely not driven by merits of the lawsuit . . . at all. I practice in this area and can't tell you how many DTPA/Lanham Act cases I've handled. I also know the lawyers who represented CBS and there is no possibility that they recommended any form of settlement, let alone a significant pay off.
Trump's claims are laughable and I'm not exaggerating. I'm not talking about the substance of what he complains about regarding alleged editing - the legal claims have no merit. Binding case law is clear that the acts the claims were brought under relate to commercial speech and not editorial comment. Trump did not even allege an actual transaction or purchase that relied upon the allegedly false editing done by CBS. His summary argument that he gets to step into the shoes of voters to assert claims on their behalf is, just, not a thing. And there was no cognizable injury to Trump personally. And that's not even getting into the ridiculous forum shopping to bring the case in an improper venue (remember, Trump had to add Ronny Jackson as a plaintiff for . . . reasons?).
So, yes, I can say with absolute certainty that the settlement was not driven by any concerns regarding the lawsuit. Now how far the capitulation went and whether the late show cancellation was part of it may be up for some debate. But not the handling of the lawsuit itself.
The Original Houston 1836
Joined:
Feb 6, 2025
Posts:
2,919
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looking like Shrek would be a massive improvement on my looks, but wow are you sensitive about your favorites.
Another great Epstein monologue.
I'm keeping the popcorn out.
I'm keeping the popcorn out.
Perhaps you should post this in the lawsuit settlement thread instead of the Colbert show cancellation thread
rgvag11 said:
Another great Epstein monologue.
I'm keeping the popcorn out.
Oh man so brutal. I wonder if they are only in the hole $39,999,999 now.
I would be embarrassed to even show my face if I was him. Now that the whole world knows he's so unpopular and he's just a drain on his employer.
Josh Shapiro as the primary guest lol. How is this show losing so much money again? Advertisers have to be climbing over each other to get on this train. Definite conspiracy to shut this cash flow valve off.
DannyDuberstein said:
Josh Shapiro as the primary guest lol. How is this show losing so much money again? Advertisers have to be climbing over each other to get on this train. Definite conspiracy to shut this cash flow valve off.
Bernie Sanders has been on the show 20 times. What a barrel of laughs that guy is
There's a lot of money in advertising to old people and incels.
So much Colbert Derangement Syndrome.
This guy really wrecked some people.
Same people crying about the new South Park.
This guy really wrecked some people.
Same people crying about the new South Park.
It hasn't wrecked people. It's wrecked CBS' P&L. It's not derangement to laugh at a show featuring Josh Shapiro and trying to pass it off as quality entertainment while wondering why it's getting canceled.
And where have I whined about Southpark? Great show that hammers everyone.
And where have I whined about Southpark? Great show that hammers everyone.
Featured Stories
See All
32:52
15h ago
4.3k
5:21
15h ago
5.4k
25 Players in 25 Days: #1 Le'Veon Moss
by Billy Liucci
Maroon Goons aim for Moore as fall camp in Aggieland closes
by Olin Buchanan
89:14
1d ago
12k
ol'Porkbelly
What 241 TXHSFB Coaches Really Think About Football's Future - Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
DeepEastTxAg
What 241 TXHSFB Coaches Really Think About Football's Future - Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
Norton_12
What 241 TXHSFB Coaches Really Think About Football's Future - Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
3
URDeparted
What 241 TXHSFB Coaches Really Think About Football's Future - Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
3