Stephen Colbert has been pronounced the winner of this season's ratings war. While I haven't been following it closely since the publication of my book "The Fight for Tonight," I do try to keep up with the dilemma of late night entertainment. The biggest dilemma is finding anyone who wants to watch.
Back when Carson was around, and even when Letterman and Leno were duking it out, talk shows involved entertainment. You could count on a good monologue, some guests you actually cared about, another stand-up comic sometime later on, and maybe even a song you could remember the next day. Raconteurs still ruled. A host could make a last minute call to Tony Randall, Don Rickles, Buddy Hackett or a dozen others, and be saved. Now? The numbers are in.
Stephen Colbert attracts 3.82 million average nightly viewers. That's way ahead of Jimmy Fallon’s 2.44 million. Jimmy Kimmel has 2.04 million.
How...pitiful...are these numbers in a country of some 300 million viewers?
People are almost tuning in to cable TV news-blab in similar amounts!
Sean Hannity gets 3.332 million, Tucker Carlson gets 3.145 million), "The Ingraham Angle" gets 2.591 million and Rachel Maddow, 2.487 million.
During Johnny Carson's last week on the air, back in 1992, he has about 19 million viewers every night.
Ten years later, April 30, 2002, Jay Leno's "10th Anniversary" broadcast managed to attract 11.8 million. But that was a special night.
The ratings continued to sink. In 2006, during the heat of the Jay-Dave battling, Leno's "Tonight Show" averaged 5.7 million viewers each night, with Dave settling for 3.4 million.
Now? 3.4 million is enough to be a leader! If Colbert had 3.4 instead of 3.8 he'd still top second place Fallon.
The only reason Colbert even has so many viewers is that he attacks Donald Trump most every night. People seem to get a good night's rest after hearing a lot of insult-jokes hurled at the POTUS. Viewers have grown tired of Jimmy Fallon's limited bag of tricks, which includes creepy drag, imitating Neil Young and Bob Dylan, guffawing over brainless starlets, and playing the kind of games that kill a late evening party and send everyone home. "One more round of charades?" As for Kimmel, he started out a Letterman acolyte with cruel humor. He enjoyed watching children cry at Halloween (encouraging parents to take out a camcorder and film their kids while explaining how they ate all the candy). He also enjoyed insulting Trump and booking hip guests. His credibility ended when he kept fawning over the Kardashians, and thinking that playing practical jokes on his grouchy old Aunt was something anyone wanted to see.
BWhen Carson was around, late night options were few. Now, a large segment of housebound losers stream Netflix or YouTube, go on the Internet, or play video games. They don't need to watch awkward movie star pretty boys hawk a new movie. They don't find amusement in ditsy sitcom actresses who can't be funny without a script. They can't agree on what constitutes a "musical" guest. Perhaps they all agree that late night hosts need to stop playing to their bandleaders or announcers, as none of that crap is remotely interesting anymore.
What's next? YouTube stars getting 3.8 million hits a night by unboxing iphones, giving inane opinions, or doing jackass stunts? That could be the future of late night. Happily, YouTube only has to pay pennies in monetization and all the "star" needs is a Best Buy camcorder and a lot of nerve.
No comments:
Post a Comment