The landscape of late-night television is undergoing a seismic shift, with traditional hosts grappling with declining viewership and the rise of new voices challenging their dominance. At the center of this upheaval is Jimmy Kimmel, whose public reaction to Stephen Colbert’s recent firing from CBS’s The Late Show has sparked heated discussions about the state of the industry. Meanwhile, Greg Gutfeld’s record-breaking appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon has highlighted a growing audience demand for diverse perspectives, exposing the vulnerabilities of the progressive echo chamber that has long defined late-night comedy.

Kimmel’s Denial and Desperation

Jimmy Kimmel’s response to Stephen Colbert’s cancellation has been nothing short of a public meltdown. Reports indicate that Kimmel has been struggling to process the news, clinging to denial as he attempts to rally support for his former colleague. Kimmel’s recent shows have featured a parade of guests who echo his political sentiments, particularly his outspoken criticism of former President Donald Trump. This approach, however, appears to be a desperate attempt to maintain relevance in an industry that is rapidly evolving beyond the one-sided narratives of the past.

Kimmel has gone so far as to propose an honorary Emmy for Colbert, describing it as “the least we could do” to honor his contributions. Critics argue this gesture is less about celebrating Colbert’s legacy and more about Kimmel’s attempt to shore up support among Hollywood’s liberal elite. The suggestion has been met with skepticism, with many pointing out that an award under these circumstances would feel hollow—a symbolic gesture that underscores the decline of Colbert’s show rather than its success. After nine consecutive Emmy nominations without a win, such an award risks being perceived as a pity prize, further highlighting the struggles of The Late Show.

The Financial and Cultural Cost of Partisanship

The cancellation of The Late Show was driven by staggering financial losses, with CBS insiders reporting that the show was hemorrhaging between $40 and $50 million annually. Kimmel has publicly disputed these figures, calling them “beyond nonsensical” and questioning the credibility of the sources. However, CBS’s own statements confirm the show’s dire financial situation, exacerbated by a sharp decline in viewership. Industry analysts suggest that Colbert’s unrelenting focus on progressive politics and criticism of Trump alienated a significant portion of the audience, costing the network millions of viewers and, consequently, advertisers.

A recent study by the Media Research Center underscores the extent of this partisanship. In the first half of 2025, 99% of political guests on major late-night comedy shows were liberal or Democratic, with The Late Show hosting 29 liberals and zero conservatives. This trend extends back to 2022, with Colbert’s show featuring 176 liberals and only one Republican—former Representative Liz Cheney, who appeared primarily to criticize Trump. This imbalance has fueled viewer fatigue, turning programs like The Late Show into what critics describe as “therapy sessions for liberals,” further eroding their appeal.

Gutfeld’s Ratings Triumph

In stark contrast to the struggles of progressive late-night hosts, Greg Gutfeld’s appearance on The Tonight Show delivered a massive ratings boost, drawing 1.7 million viewers—a 57% increase over the show’s 2025 average of 1.1 million. The episode marked the strongest regular episode for The Tonight Show since December 2023, with a 13% increase in the coveted 25-to-54 demographic. Gutfeld’s own program, Gutfeld! on Fox News, continues to dominate the late-night landscape, averaging over 2.7 million viewers nightly and consistently outpacing competitors on NBC, CBS, and ABC.

Gutfeld’s success lies in his ability to appeal to a broad audience. Unlike his counterparts, who have leaned heavily into partisan commentary, Gutfeld’s lighthearted approach avoids heavy political rhetoric, making his content accessible to viewers across the political spectrum. His crossover appeal has exposed a growing appetite for diverse perspectives in late-night television, challenging the dominance of progressive hosts who have long relied on one-sided lineups to cater to a niche audience.

The Broader Implications for Late-Night TV

The contrasting fortunes of Kimmel, Colbert, and Gutfeld reflect a broader crisis in late-night television. Progressive hosts have faced mounting criticism for their echo-chamber approach, which has alienated large swaths of viewers. The financial implications are clear: shows that fail to attract a diverse audience struggle to justify their high production costs, which in Colbert’s case reportedly reached $100 million annually, including his $30 million salary. Had these shows embraced a more inclusive approach, they might have doubled their viewership and significantly reduced their losses.

Kimmel’s defense of Colbert’s financial losses also raises questions about the sustainability of late-night television in its current form. He has suggested that affiliate fees, which he claims number in the “hundreds of millions, probably billions,” offset the reported losses. However, without concrete evidence, these claims appear to be speculative at best. Moreover, Kimmel’s assertion that the media misunderstands how affiliate fees are allocated to late-night shows does little to address the core issue: viewers are tuning out, and advertisers are following suit.

The Role of External Factors

Some speculate that external factors, such as shifts in funding or sponsorship, may have contributed to the cancellation of shows like The Late Show. During the COVID-19 pandemic, late-night programs heavily promoted public health measures, including vaccination campaigns, often with significant financial backing from pharmaceutical companies and government initiatives. As these funding sources have dried up, networks may be reevaluating the viability of shows that rely on such subsidies to remain afloat. While Kimmel dismisses these connections, the timing of the cancellations raises questions about the influence of external funding on the industry.

A Path Forward?

The success of Gutfeld’s appearance on The Tonight Show suggests a potential path forward for late-night television: inclusivity. By inviting a diverse range of voices and avoiding the divisive rhetoric that has characterized much of the genre, hosts can attract a broader audience and restore the cultural relevance of late-night comedy. Gutfeld’s ability to draw 2.7 million viewers on his own program, even on nights when he is not hosting, underscores the demand for content that resonates with a wider demographic.

For Kimmel and others, the lesson is clear: pandering to a narrow, ideologically driven audience is a losing strategy. The industry must adapt to survive, embracing a more balanced approach that reflects the diversity of its viewership. Failure to do so risks further cancellations and a continued decline in relevance.

Conclusion

The late-night television industry stands at a crossroads. Jimmy Kimmel’s emotional defense of Stephen Colbert and his denial of the financial realities facing The Late Show highlight the challenges of clinging to an outdated model. Meanwhile, Greg Gutfeld’s record-breaking ratings demonstrate the potential for a new approach that prioritizes inclusivity and broad appeal. As networks grapple with declining viewership and mounting losses, the future of late-night television will depend on their ability to adapt to a changing audience—one that demands more than partisan talking points and echo-chamber comedy.