Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday Gender:
Posted:
Sep 24, 2025 - 8:58am
VV wrote:
Happy I was wrong. Iâm more of a Colbert fan but did watch. The fact that heâs back with apparently no strings attached must surely be pissing off The Great Pumpkin.
Happy I was wrong. Iâm more of a Colbert fan but did watch. The fact that heâs back with apparently no strings attached must surely be pissing off The Great Pumpkin.
Iâm not convinced that itâs not a return for a single show. Anyone hear of who his guests for the return are if any? Any other guests being promoted for his shows this week?
I think it will just be a swan song two guns blazing monologue from Kimmel that we will see. I just think ABC is giving him a one night forum to respond to the situation since they didnât give him that benefit the first time around. I donât really think ABC is welcoming him back with conditions and strings attached. Even if that were the case, I donât think Kimmel could work under those constraints and still be true to himself and he will be the first to say so.
So all the talk about it being bad ratings and/or falling revenues were wrong?
Iâm not convinced that itâs not a return for a single show. Anyone hear of who his guests for the return are if any? Any other guests being promoted for his shows this week?
I think it will just be a swan song two guns blazing monologue from Kimmel that we will see. I just think ABC is giving him a one night forum to respond to the situation since they didnât give him that benefit the first time around. I donât really think ABC is welcoming him back with conditions and strings attached. Even if that were the case, I donât think Kimmel could work under those constraints and still be true to himself and he will be the first to say so.
Yes, a business decision more than outrage over the remark, which - taken by itself - was inappropriate but shouldnt have been enough to fire Kimmel.
So, ABC seems to be using the politics to justify a business decision. - rather than being honest about it - probably to reduce any payment obligations?
i agree, i haven't seen the video but i'm sure it is well within any free speech objections
some might have considered it in poor taste but the government should not intervene in any way here
not a justification unless there was a direct threat of violence or maybe imminent harm
i'm not sure if he was fired or suspended
but could they use it as an excuse to terminate him? i don't know
i think if the show was wildly popular and profitable he wouldn't miss a beat
i'm certain that there's an established upward trend toward digital streaming
it is probably more than just some big box news that are feeling the change
probably an exception or two to that trend
however, advertisers follow the eyes, ears and clicks
what role does content/format play?
online podcasting can be less restrictive
Yes, a business decision more than outrage over the remark, which - taken by itself - was inappropriate but shouldnt have been enough to fire Kimmel.
So, ABC seems to be using the politics to justify a business decision. - rather than being honest about it - probably to reduce any payment obligations?
i think jay leno pointed out the obvious cost of alienating half of your potential audience
True, but the alienation is the cause, not the effect.
Humor is calling out the irony, weakness, stupidity... of something so obvious that the majority "get the joke". Obvious and facts are no longer friends.
Carson and Letterman and whomever else used to make fun of everyone, because the issues where universally agreed. If Nixon said "I am not a crook" now, a third of the country would believe him. They aren't going to get the joke.
