The sudden departure of Stephen Colbert from The Late Show is a significant moment in television history, and it's not just because of the financial reasons CBS is citing. It's the loss of a voice of accountability, a voice that has become increasingly important in a time of political division and conspiracy theories. Personally, I think the impact of Donald Trump on Colbert's success cannot be overstated. It's fascinating to see how the comedian's satirical instincts were reinvigorated by the election of a Republican president who caters to conspiracists and anti-democratic urges. What makes this particularly interesting is the contrast between Colbert's more even-keeled and courtly approach to political humor and the more aggressive, gloves-off style of Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel's recent mock White House Correspondents' Dinner roast, where he described Melania Trump as having 'the glow of an expectant widow', is an example of the kind of humor that many Canadians are now embracing. Kimmel's show has been No. 1 in late night in Canada so far in 2026, outperforming Colbert by 24 per cent. What this really suggests is that Canadians are looking for a more direct and unfiltered form of political commentary, and Kimmel's style is perfectly suited to this. However, I also think it's important to consider the impact of the rise of on-demand options and the changing demographics of late-night television. Colbert's influence was lessened by the fact that his comedy bits didn't always light up social media as late-night now must, and his competitors often beat him in the 18 to 49 demographic that most appeals to advertisers. Nevertheless, Colbert's performance of civility can almost look like capitulation compared to Kimmel's more aggressive style. This raises a deeper question: is the gloves-off approach always the best way to engage with political issues? In my opinion, the answer is not so simple. While Kimmel's style may be more entertaining and direct, it can also be more divisive and inflammatory. Colbert's approach, on the other hand, may be more nuanced and thoughtful, but it may not always be as effective in engaging with the most pressing issues of the day. What this really suggests is that the future of late-night television is likely to be a mix of both styles, with each host finding their own unique approach to engaging with the political landscape. In the end, the loss of Stephen Colbert is a loss for television, but it's also an opportunity for other hosts to step up and find their own voice. From my perspective, the future of late-night television is likely to be a more diverse and dynamic space, with each host bringing their own unique perspective and style to the table.
