Berl Falbaum
Question: If you were operating a multi-million-dollar business and one of your divisions is losing an average of $40 million a year, would you close it?
Exactly, that’s what I thought.
So, what is all the hoopla about the cancelation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”? According to several reports, the show has been losing millions for years -- as have other late-night shows -- so Paramount, the show’s owner, is tuning it out come next May.
My, oh, my, the breast-beating, particularly among Democrats because many of Colbert’s monologues eviscerate Donald Trump.
“This is nothing but politics,” was the general refrain. If comedians are attacked it may lead to the dismantling of our Constitution, warned Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View.”
Absolutely! We cannot have comedians attacked. I remember studying in History 101 that the most controversial issue among the 39 delegates at the Constitutional Convention involved including language that protected comedians. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay devoted many pages to this issue in the Federalist Papers’ 38 articles.
Actually, that would be a pretty good Colbert one-liner.
Critics point out that Paramount’s decision was made because it needs the Trump’s administration’s approval for a $9 billion recapitalization deal involving a merger with Skydance Media. (The Federal Communications Commission approved the merger as I was writing this column.)
Even if this is true, so what?
Paramount is a private company and has every right to make political decisions -- true, we may like them and I don’t -- as long as they are not illegal.
Contributions to officeholders and candidates are political actions. Those who donate large sums, do so hoping to “buy” access and/or influence.
Some years back, a businessman, who was supporting the sitting president was testifying before Congress when he was asked, somewhat haughtily: “Isn’t it true that you gave so much money to gain access?”
His answer ran along these lines: “Senator, yes, that is true, and if I thought I could gain more access, I would give even more.”
I always thought he should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor because it was, arguably, the only completely truthful answer ever offered in congressional testimony.
What about the law firms as well as ABC and CBC which caved into pressure from Trump?
Yes, I think the agreements were unseemly and disreputable. “Cowardly” also comes to mind when reflecting on the decisions by the managements of these organizations. As a journalist, I was particularly offended that news companies did not stand their ground, hold firm and fight Trump in the courts.
But that is their right.
Every business, along the way, makes political decisions, even small ones. And I will speculate that everyone reading this article has been a “victim” of political decisions by bosses.
A hypothetical: I own a bakery and one of my major customers, also a neighbor, wants me to close a half-hour earlier because he does not like the traffic to my shop at dinner time. Doing so, however, would hurt other customers -- customers who are not as financially important to me.
What do I do? I run the numbers and if rejecting the request would hurt me financially, I know what I would do. I don’t think I need to spell out my decision. That’s politics.
Does the show’s cancellation really deserve such an emotional-laden national debate? Some other “minor” issues come to mind like Gaza, Sudan, health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the environment, Ukraine, the deficit, and, oh yes, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. The Atlantic Magazine just devoted its entire issue to the risks of nuclear war. Perhaps the next issue should be devoted to Colbert.
(Full disclosure: I have never -- as in “never” -- watched the Colbert Show nor other late-night comics. Even with my afternoon naps, I hardly make it through the 6 p.m. news.)
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for an investigation to determine if Paramount’s decision was made because of politics.
She has been a senator for some 13 years and never in those years has she ever made a political decision nor has she witnessed one in the Senate. She and her colleagues always vote on principle.
That’s another Colbert one -- actually two -- one-liners. She could be a Colbert replacement except she was serious.
Not to be outdone, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and California Congressman Adam Schiff cried “politics” as well. The shame!
Sanders also charged that Paramount may have fired Colbert because the comedian had criticized Paramount on the air. Now, even if true, that actually makes sense to me. I would fire any employee who disparages me in front of millions. After all, I pay him/her.
A guess: If Sanders’ press secretary were to distribute a release that claims the senator’s policies would destroy democracy, I would guess Sanders would not give the employee a raise.
Okay, I did not want to write the following thinking it was self-evident. Paramount is a business. Its primary objective is to make money. It is not a political or charitable organization or one which is dedicated to the advancement of public policies. It makes decisions to support its financial goals.
With this column, I apologize to Colbert for never having watched him. I also hope that he did not squander his $15 million-a-year salary and saved enough to get by in retirement.
I wish it had happened to me. If it had, I would have smiled and supported the politics.
Exactly, that’s what I thought.
So, what is all the hoopla about the cancelation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”? According to several reports, the show has been losing millions for years -- as have other late-night shows -- so Paramount, the show’s owner, is tuning it out come next May.
My, oh, my, the breast-beating, particularly among Democrats because many of Colbert’s monologues eviscerate Donald Trump.
“This is nothing but politics,” was the general refrain. If comedians are attacked it may lead to the dismantling of our Constitution, warned Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View.”
Absolutely! We cannot have comedians attacked. I remember studying in History 101 that the most controversial issue among the 39 delegates at the Constitutional Convention involved including language that protected comedians. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay devoted many pages to this issue in the Federalist Papers’ 38 articles.
Actually, that would be a pretty good Colbert one-liner.
Critics point out that Paramount’s decision was made because it needs the Trump’s administration’s approval for a $9 billion recapitalization deal involving a merger with Skydance Media. (The Federal Communications Commission approved the merger as I was writing this column.)
Even if this is true, so what?
Paramount is a private company and has every right to make political decisions -- true, we may like them and I don’t -- as long as they are not illegal.
Contributions to officeholders and candidates are political actions. Those who donate large sums, do so hoping to “buy” access and/or influence.
Some years back, a businessman, who was supporting the sitting president was testifying before Congress when he was asked, somewhat haughtily: “Isn’t it true that you gave so much money to gain access?”
His answer ran along these lines: “Senator, yes, that is true, and if I thought I could gain more access, I would give even more.”
I always thought he should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor because it was, arguably, the only completely truthful answer ever offered in congressional testimony.
What about the law firms as well as ABC and CBC which caved into pressure from Trump?
Yes, I think the agreements were unseemly and disreputable. “Cowardly” also comes to mind when reflecting on the decisions by the managements of these organizations. As a journalist, I was particularly offended that news companies did not stand their ground, hold firm and fight Trump in the courts.
But that is their right.
Every business, along the way, makes political decisions, even small ones. And I will speculate that everyone reading this article has been a “victim” of political decisions by bosses.
A hypothetical: I own a bakery and one of my major customers, also a neighbor, wants me to close a half-hour earlier because he does not like the traffic to my shop at dinner time. Doing so, however, would hurt other customers -- customers who are not as financially important to me.
What do I do? I run the numbers and if rejecting the request would hurt me financially, I know what I would do. I don’t think I need to spell out my decision. That’s politics.
Does the show’s cancellation really deserve such an emotional-laden national debate? Some other “minor” issues come to mind like Gaza, Sudan, health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the environment, Ukraine, the deficit, and, oh yes, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. The Atlantic Magazine just devoted its entire issue to the risks of nuclear war. Perhaps the next issue should be devoted to Colbert.
(Full disclosure: I have never -- as in “never” -- watched the Colbert Show nor other late-night comics. Even with my afternoon naps, I hardly make it through the 6 p.m. news.)
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for an investigation to determine if Paramount’s decision was made because of politics.
She has been a senator for some 13 years and never in those years has she ever made a political decision nor has she witnessed one in the Senate. She and her colleagues always vote on principle.
That’s another Colbert one -- actually two -- one-liners. She could be a Colbert replacement except she was serious.
Not to be outdone, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and California Congressman Adam Schiff cried “politics” as well. The shame!
Sanders also charged that Paramount may have fired Colbert because the comedian had criticized Paramount on the air. Now, even if true, that actually makes sense to me. I would fire any employee who disparages me in front of millions. After all, I pay him/her.
A guess: If Sanders’ press secretary were to distribute a release that claims the senator’s policies would destroy democracy, I would guess Sanders would not give the employee a raise.
Okay, I did not want to write the following thinking it was self-evident. Paramount is a business. Its primary objective is to make money. It is not a political or charitable organization or one which is dedicated to the advancement of public policies. It makes decisions to support its financial goals.
With this column, I apologize to Colbert for never having watched him. I also hope that he did not squander his $15 million-a-year salary and saved enough to get by in retirement.
I wish it had happened to me. If it had, I would have smiled and supported the politics.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
