admin
The latest Forbes rundown of television’s top earners for 2025 makes a simple point the establishment refuses to admit: talent still commands enormous sums, even as the business that once supported them crumbles. Names like Tom Brady and the major celebrity chefs top the list, and even late-night hosts remain among the highest-paid on the dial.
That same Forbes analysis underscores a brutal reality for legacy TV: late-night is no longer a profit center. CBS announced in July that it will cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, citing roughly $40 million in annual losses, a financial explanation that should set off alarms across corporate media.
The timing of that cancellation has only deepened public skepticism. Reporting found the decision came amid a contentious $16 million settlement involving CBS’s parent and President Trump, and critics — including some in the press — have questioned whether business reasons were the whole story. Networks and studios can claim economics all they want, but when political fireworks and corporate deals line up with programming decisions, distrust is inevitable.
What should infuriate taxpayers and shareholders alike is the double standard: networks trim budgets, cut nights, and lay off staff while keeping bloated deals in place for a favored few. Forbes documents those same cost-cutting moves — ABC and NBC shifted to four-nights-a-week schedules last fall — even as headline talent pockets seven-figure checks. It’s a management failure, plain and simple.
Even the hosts themselves admit the sting. Jimmy Fallon told Forbes he was “bummed” about moving to four nights and that he wants to do the show five nights a week, a candid moment that highlights how decisions are driven by bean-counters and boardrooms rather than what viewers actually want. Networks can slice production schedules and hope nobody notices, but that kind of short-term bookkeeping kills long-term brand value.
At the same time, the money has migrated unmistakably to live sports and platform-friendly personalities, where appointment viewing still commands advertiser dollars. Forbes’ list puts sports and studio analysts near the top precisely because live content still matters; if broadcasters want to survive, they should stop trying to subsidize prestige programming that no longer pays for itself.
Conservatives have every right to be skeptical of how cultural institutions dole out favors and punish dissent. When networks burn cash on prestige while shrinking the free marketplace of ideas, the result is less accountability and more groupthink. Colbert’s ratings and accolades didn’t save his show from corporate realignment — and that fact alone ought to spark a broader conversation about editorial independence and corporate governance in media.
The upheaval presents an obvious opportunity for entrepreneurs, independent creators, and subscription-driven outlets that answer directly to paying viewers, not advertisers or corporate PR departments. If legacy TV won’t adapt fairly or transparently, new platforms will eat its lunch and give audiences the choice they deserve without the political theater.
Journalists and executives who cheered decades of unsustainable spending and editorial bias must now explain their priorities. Americans who care about a free and diverse media ecosystem should demand transparency, fiscal responsibility, and an end to the cozy arrangements that shield elites while ordinary viewers foot the bill.
