Stephen Colbert returned to original episodes Monday night, which to my DVR was particularly good news. One of the biggest reasons I maintain a subscription to a traditional MVPD, aside from the increasingly pious hope that I might yet again be hired to consult for them, is to record and play back late night talk shows that I can control with a remote–something my overworked laptop can’t provide on either the schedule or bandwidth I tend to have when I’m working through yet another bout of insomnia. He and CBS chose to give him a vacation week against the first week of the Winter Olympics, which I suppose could have been considered a shrewd strategic move at some point–although I’d be curious why what is largely a “best of” highlight package of events already seen twice earlier in the day is considered as big a deal to avoid as is “Primetime in Milan”. (Incidentally, for the record, that’s essentially a highlight package itself and indeed a misnomer, since when it’s technically the middle of the night in Milan when it airs on the East Coast).
But the daunting competition of 20-hour-old bobsledding aside, Colbert triumphantly returned to the airwaves seemingly well-rested and especially feisty, especially in light of what he was forced to deal with leading up to it. CHRON’s
Late-night TV host Stephen Colbert is lambasting the Trump administration and the Federal Communications Commission after they conspired to axe a planned interview with U.S. Senate hopeful James Talarico.
“I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on,” Colbert said of his interview with the state representative on Monday night. “I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to not talk about this, let’s talk about this.”…”Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows because he said that some of them were motivated by partisan purposes,” Colbert said Monday night. “Well, sir, you’re chairman of the FCC. So FCC you. Because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself.”…CBS reportedly killed the interview, citing concerns that it would trigger the Trump administration. Colbert pointedly called Trump a “toddler with too much screen time.
He also used a signature “seen here as” graphic to reference Carr as a “smug bowling pin”, which admittedly was kinder than the one his staff Photoshopped that grafted his punim onto a clearly less bloviated body to produce a “tasteful nude” that helped to fill the precious air time he was forced to fill by the capitulation of CBS lackeys apparently hell bent on kissing someone’s ass. I for one subscribe to the theory that the real tea culpa more than likely was a middle management business affairs executive determined to curry internal favor during a week where the Ellisons’ campaigning (a.k.a. whining, bitching and half-assed legal threats) have at least reopened a negotiating window with the fine folks at Warner Brothers Discovery to work out a deal that would net them their latest hunting trophy. I, for one have dealt with plenty of similar mollusks over the years who got in my way with far less at stake. And unlike Colbert, this person is under the impression they may still have a job at the company after Memorial Day.
But with that freedom, and frankly a lot more real knowledge of FCC law than said BA executive seems to possess, Colbert found a loophole that I suspect probably resulted in that smug bowling pin being given a tongue-lashing. Because as Colbert referenced with Carr’s own words to FOX NEWS that his jurisdiction didn’t extend to online platforms he went ahead with the interview anyway, posting the nearly 14-minue conversation to You Tube. And in the segment that replaced it on CBS, he was particularly shrewd in making note of the fact that even a graphic could would have been considered a violation. A graphic that first identified Talarico as he read his riot act was later revealed not to be Talarico at all, which to a majority of his viewers not living in Texas was likely an aha moment. Unless, of course, they happen to be among my readers.
The fact that I’m already on the Talarico bandwagon makes this bowling pin a bit more smug. I’m also “toldja”-ing a bit more than usual as I’m also on record in opining that Colbert’s future lies in the online world. Which means that the well-received interview they did was essentially a de facto POC for that eventuality. And according to FORBES’ Mike Stuntson, it’s already being augmented by some quantitative proof of performance:
Stephen Colbert’s conversation with the Senate candidate is finding life on YouTube, where it has become his most watched interview in months…By 12:45 p.m. EST, more than 1.3 million people had watched Colbert’s interview, which was posted on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” page on YouTube late Monday despite the host telling his audience that CBS’ lawyers would not allow him to have Talarico on the broadcast… The Monday interview is on pace to shatter clips of Colbert’s December interview with pop superstar Taylor Swift, all watched by at least 1.4 million people. By banning the interview, it’s possible CBS put more eyes onto it; his show was the second most watched late-night show last week with an average of 2.32 million viewers, though it’s unclear how many people stay tuned past his monologues that open the show.
Breaking news: During the opening of last night’s show, Colbert updated this figure via a screenshot grab that revealed that the YT clip was up to 3.279 million views–which even allowing for restarts would indicate he’s already eclipsed the self-limiting CBS universe. And he didn’t need the financial constraints of a huge supporting cast to pull it off. Indeed, the other little nugget dropped Monday night would indicate that the preparations for such an afterlife have already begun. LATE NIGHTER’s Jed Rosenzweig took note of that:
With just three months left to go at The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, the show has a new band. Or rather, a new band name. The group formerly known as “Louis Cato and The Late Show Band” is now “Louis Cato and the Great Big Joy Machine.” Bandleader Louis Cato announced the new name on Monday night’s broadcast…Pointing to a new graphic emblazoned on the set behind him, Cato revealed the updated moniker.
When you’re already to the point where you’re updating part of your name, the road to divorce would seem to be paved in stone. Trust me, I know.
Which means that for as long as Colbert and CBS continue to co-exist we’re probably going to get more newsworthy eye-poking and one-upsmanship. As DEADLINE’s Peter White observed last night we already got another chapter in the soap opera:
The network, in a slightly unusual approach, hit back against its on-air star Tuesday, saying it didn’t “prohibit” The Late Show from broadcasting the Talarico interview. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options,” the company noted in a statement.
And White went on that tonight or tomorrow we’re likely to get what some thin-skinned Washingtonians might well perceive as yet another poke from the Eye:
All of this comes as The Late Show is set to welcome another politician to the Ed Sullivan Theater this week: Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, who made noise this weekend by calling President Trump “spiritually broken….(I)f Colbert thinks CBS lawyers wouldn’t let him air an interview with Talarico on broadcast television (even if CBS has pushed back slightly), why is he still plotting ahead with an interview with Ossoff, who is running for reelection in November?
The answer is in the FCC’s own details…In January, Carr issued guidance that highlighted that Congress put “protections in place to ensure equal access to broadcast station facilities for legally qualified candidates.”…Ossoff, however, isn’t a “legally qualified candidate” — yet. While the former documentary filmmaker, who was first elected to the seat in 2021, has announced he is running for reelection, the qualifying period for the primaries in Georgia doesn’t kick in until the start of March. This means he is free to appear on The Late Show without CBS having to invite his rivals on as well(.)
In your Eye-hole, dude.
I’m hoping against hope this will continue through the show’s current May 21st final broadcast, but I’m enough of a realist to note that between said Washingtonians and the Ellisons’ Holy Grail-like pursuit possibly getting new life something’s likely to give. Which means Colbert might borrow from the playbook of a different late night pioneer besides the interviewing savvy of Johnny Carson and the absurdist satire of David Letterman. He could choose to emulate Jack Paar. Take a look at how EYES OF A GENERATION told the story of how he once chose to deal with overly niggly bosses:
On February 11, 1960, Jack Parr (sic) walked off The Tonight Show for a month after NBC censors edited out a segment, taped the night before. As he left his desk, he said, “I am leaving The Tonight Show. There must be a better way of making a living than this.” Parr’s (sic) abrupt departure left his startled announcer, Hugh Downs, to finish the broadcast himself.
(Here) is the text of the four minute bit in question which is based on an innocent mix-up involving the initials W.C. The NBC censors decided it was dirty and cut it from the broadcast without bothering to consult or even notify Paar.
Parr (sic) returned to the show on March 7, 1960, strolled on stage, struck a pose, and said, “As I was saying before I was interrupted…” After the audience erupted in applause, Parr (sic) continued, “When I walked off, I said there must be a better way of making a living. Well, I’ve looked… and there isn’t.”
Fortunately, Colbert is living in more opportunistic times than did Paar. And so is his staff, who will no doubt be motivated to prove their own worth as they look to forge their next career oppotunities. We suspect they’re capable of writing far better jokes than the meandering diatribe that Paar once foisted upon America. We KNOW they’re way better when it comes to dealing with lawyers.
Until next time…