The Rise and Fall of Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show and the Timeless Wisdom of Emily Compagno

In the fast-paced, ever-evolving world of television, few things are as telling as the relationship between hosts, their audience, and the impact of a single statement. In the case of Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show, a once-iconic late-night program now on the chopping block, one such statement has become a prophetic guidepost for what went wrong—and perhaps what could have saved it. That statement, made years ago by Emily Compagno, Fox News co-host of Outnumbered, holds far more weight than many realize.

Compagno’s declaration, “I’m very conscious that every time I open my mouth on Fox, I’m a steward of the viewer’s time, and the utmost importance to me is that I use that time wisely for them so that anyone watching doesn’t feel I wasted it and comes away hopefully being a little bit better for it,” has recently resurfaced in conversations surrounding the imminent cancellation of The Late Show. It has sparked a reckoning among TV hosts and industry professionals alike, as they reflect on the lessons embedded in her words—lessons that Colbert’s show, ultimately, failed to heed.

The Fall of The Late Show and the Rationale Behind Its Cancellation

The announcement of The Late Show‘s cancellation, slated for May 2026, came as a shock to many who had watched Stephen Colbert’s reign as one of late-night’s most prominent voices. CBS, once a major player in the late-night landscape, revealed that the decision to end the show was rooted in purely financial concerns. The program had reportedly lost an astounding $40 to $50 million annually—figures that couldn’t be ignored, no matter how strong its ratings may have seemed.

Despite Colbert’s claims of maintaining a top spot in viewership, the show’s financial hemorrhaging painted a different picture. The constant shift in tone and the relentless politicization of its monologues alienated a substantial portion of its audience. While Colbert had initially won over viewers with his sharp wit and political satire on The Colbert Report, his pivot to a more overtly partisan approach on The Late Show gradually pushed away fans who were once entertained by his clever, universally relatable humor. This tonal shift, along with a declining linear TV audience and plummeting ad revenue, signaled a perfect storm for a show that had lost touch with its broader audience.

The Role of Political Polarization

What happened to The Late Show during Colbert’s tenure was no accident. In fact, it reflects a broader trend in late-night television, where hosts increasingly align themselves with specific political ideologies. This has been particularly noticeable in Colbert’s case, where his monologues, once a clever form of satire, became increasingly characterized by hyper-partisan rhetoric.

Colbert’s decision to focus heavily on his disdain for former President Donald Trump—a fixation that increasingly permeated his comedy—created a divisive atmosphere. His monologues, once full of light-hearted wit, became more like lectures aimed at a liberal audience, alienating those who didn’t share his views. This, according to industry analysts, contributed to the decline of the show’s overall ratings. Critics, including National Review’s Charles Cooke, pointed out that Colbert’s approach was deeply disconnected from the diverse American audience, further magnifying the tension between entertainment and ideological purity.

Compagno’s Vision for Responsible TV

In stark contrast to Colbert’s approach, Emily Compagno’s statement about using airtime wisely and not wasting the audience’s time rings as an emblem of responsible television. Her focus on leaving viewers “a little bit better for it” encapsulates a universal truth: television should serve its audience, not lecture or preach to them. In a time when polarized media landscapes have created echo chambers, Compagno’s words have become a clarion call for hosts to remain humble stewards of their platforms.

On Outnumbered and The FOX True Crime Podcast, Compagno’s co-hosts, including Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters, have echoed her philosophy, contrasting it with Colbert’s failure to engage all of America. Gutfeld, whose late-night show Gutfeld! has eclipsed Colbert’s in both viewership and demographic appeal, frequently highlights the importance of keeping the audience engaged and entertained without political baggage. In a joking aside about The Late Show‘s downfall, Gutfeld quipped, “Imagine being a chef so bad they canceled food.” The insinuation was clear—viewers vote with their remote, and Colbert’s inability to deliver content that resonated with a wide audience led to his show’s financial demise.

The Gutfeld Revolution

Greg Gutfeld’s rise as the undisputed king of late-night television provides a sharp contrast to Colbert’s decline. In 2025, Gutfeld! had consistently outperformed The Late Show in ratings, even surpassing Colbert’s numbers in key demographics. This success didn’t come from pandering to any political side but rather from a commitment to irreverence, humor, and cultural commentary that resonated with a broad range of viewers.

Unlike Colbert’s increasingly preachy tone, Gutfeld’s show was able to capture the zeitgeist of late-night entertainment, offering commentary that was inclusive rather than divisive. His style—sharp, irreverent, and culturally aware—was the antithesis of Colbert’s predictable liberal rants. This shift was not lost on viewers who had grown disillusioned with Colbert’s politically charged comedy. Gutfeld’s success proves that there is an appetite for humor that isn’t rooted in political ideology but rather in cleverness, wit, and a deep understanding of the cultural landscape.

The Financial Realities and Colbert’s Political Commitments

Behind the scenes, the cancellation of The Late Show was driven by a host of financial realities. While Colbert’s defenders argue that the decision was politically motivated—especially in light of his criticisms of CBS’s $16 million settlement with Trump—industry experts and insiders contend that the numbers simply didn’t add up. A show that hemorrhaged millions in ad revenue and struggled with a dwindling live audience was always on borrowed time, regardless of any political pressures.

Compagno’s ethos of stewardship, on the other hand, highlights a critical distinction: the ability to serve one’s audience with respect and value. As Gutfeld’s ratings climb and Colbert’s show fizzles out, the lesson becomes clear—audiences flock to content that makes them feel engaged and respected, not alienated or lectured.

A Tale of Two Late-Night Shows

In the final analysis, the rise and fall of The Late Show stands as a cautionary tale for the future of television, particularly late-night programming. The shift from entertainment to political activism, embodied by Colbert’s evolving approach, may have alienated his audience, but it also provides a stark comparison to the type of programming that succeeds in the current media climate.

As Compagno’s philosophy continues to resonate, it’s clear that television, like any other form of media, thrives when it values the viewer’s time, entertainment, and intellect. Shows like Gutfeld! have capitalized on this principle, delivering content that both entertains and informs without veering into divisive political rhetoric. Meanwhile, Colbert’s The Late Show, with its increasingly insular and politically charged content, serves as a reminder that television’s greatest asset is its ability to connect with audiences of all stripes.

In a media landscape that is increasingly fragmented, The Late Show‘s fall from grace—and the triumph of Compagno’s vision—serves as a powerful reminder that respecting the audience’s time and preferences should always come first.