We can't build anything because our government and bureaucracy is composed of corrupt insiders, and our population specifically votes against change or accountability. In a sensible polity "having created numerous massive boondoggles and scams" would outweigh "the other guy is scary".
Curious as to Matt & Jen's thoughts on Bill Maher...is that who Jen was referencing but could not remember the name of? Or someone else? Do tell...
Bill Maher styles himself as a 'sensible liberal', and to Jen's point, I still (occasionally) find him (and/or whoever writes his schtick for his show) quite funny. Of all the late night comics, I'd put Bill Maher up there with Jon Stewart as 'still funny enough to hang around'. Having said that, he's lucratively 'found his niche' in that he skewers the obvious idiocy of far-left orthodoxy while (usually) maintaining his left-of-centre/libertarian bonafides. I expect I'd find Bill quite an asshole IRL, but he's as funny as anyone still surviving on the 'late night'/vid clip landscape today.
Also regarding Travis on the CBC:
I expect you're correct that he's 'chasing a hush cheque' as well he might.
I hope that's not the case, and that the disinfecting power of sunlight penetrates the CBC Orthadoxy Veil and cleanses the organization of its most egregious internal overseers.
I'm solidly in Jen's camp that the CBC needs to be reworked and remade with a radically different mandate, but I'm unsure that can happen without a Hiroshima/Nagasaki-level explosion before rebuilding can begin.
It's pretty bad when can switch on CBC Radio and/or CBC TV during the day and reliably can predict what's on will be related to one or (more often) a combination of these subjects:
a) BIPOC issues in general
b) Indigenous issues in particular
c) Climate change issues in general
d) Transgender issues in particular
I would argue that all of these issues have a place on the CBC as legitimate topics, but I remain astounded that I can turn on or visit any CBC Radio/TV/Online service randomly at nearly any time of day and find these 4 topics, usually up front, being discussed or featured.
It would be great if Travis really 'has the receipts' and reveals them publicly, and shines an unfavourable light on the CBC, so as to enable PM Carney to walk the line between Pierre's 'Defund The CBC' and the more sensible 'Purge and Renew The CBC With A Substantially Revised Mandate'. For me, that would be a radically decentralized CBC with focus on reporting from everywhere BUT the major urban media markets in Canada. Close CBC Toronto entirely and use the profits from the real estate windfall to fund the decentralized CBC offices across Canada.
Great podcast today. Glad to have you fully back from your summer breaks!
You nailed it. I basically gave up on CBC except for the hourly news because those 4 topics consume a disproportionate amount of air time. I also find some of their journalists, at least locally, never challenge their guests, so called experts, or not. Everything is a one way conversation. It’s seems to have gone this way for at least 5 years now.
I looked this up: "As of May 2025, the show was watched by approximately 2.41 million people per episode with a 0.76% rating." So less than 1% of Americans watch that show.
Picking a random show I also never watch, The Price is Right is watched by approximately 4.18 million people per episode with a 1.32% rating.
Do you think The Line would discuss the cancellation of The Price Is Right?
The chatting classes love late night TV shows, most people don't.
Great stuff, guys. It was all terrific but let me specifically co-sign the thrust of Jen’s comments in segment 2 re late night comedians – the dragging of Colbert and Oliver was magnificent and hit all the relevant points.
For those of us of a certain age and who were there for prime David Letterman (i.e. 1980s airing on NBC, Monday through Thursday at 12:30 am following The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson), nothing, I mean NOTHING will ever come close to that program (ask your parents, kiddies). And so, the fact that Colbert gets tagged with the mantle of “successor” to Letterman is more obscene than declaring Alex Jones the successor to Edward R. Murrow. The only people left watching this sorry spectacle of a show have got to be the same people currently driving around in Teslas with bumper stickers informing the world that they bought it before Elon went crazy. (Seriously, is there a more insufferable group of Canadians than those people? I mean, this is Canada so the competition is fierce but I think they have to be the clear winners.)
And thank you Jen for stuffing the BS food security argument used to justify Supply Management (and shout out to the use of “fucking the dog” as well). And that CBC side-rant about the Supply Management interview was glorious. Supporters of Supply Management increasingly evoke memories of Mayor Quimby’s immortal query: “Are these people getting dumber or just louder?”
Following Mr. Carney's announcement, La Presse instantly had a column on how Quebec can benefit from the new funding. Not so much how they will make an appreciable contribution to the country's defence.
Perhaps Mr. Trump was correct. We would be better off sending the Yanks 2% of the GDP and not worry our pointy, tuque covered heads about defence.
Sorry, guys. This is a long one because I wrote it on fb last night to another media friend. Re: Colbert. Everything so sure its about Trump (of course). I look at it through the ile economic lens. I think there's going ro be further shedding. The numbers just don't make sense for advertisers. 'When tribalism goes too far.'
Possibly heresay, but I haven't tuned into late night for a long time. Except for the occasional SNL show.
Let's consider other things that might be going on besides politics, here.
Average Number of Late Night Viewers, (broken into 3 broad timeline categories). *an unscientific look, just scraping the stuff that pops up on an easy search on the web. if you'd like the Nielson and other stuff, message me since Zuckerberg won't let me link here).
1) Old Guard Late Night Hosts: (circa 1964 to 2015 'The Golden Years')
Johnny Carson: 9 million
Jay Leno: 6 million
David Letterman: 4.3 million
2) From circa 2015...The Canaries In the
Internet Coal Mine
Conan O'Brien: 2.5 million (NBC). Conan did spike at 7 million his first week after taking over from Letterman, then a rapid decline. One might assume the interwebs starts to play a larger part in diluting network tv shows. I listen to and/or watch his current podcast. Smart move. An indication of where this could all be going...and dammit, he's FUNNY!
Colbert leads with around 2.3 million (and fwiw, I haven't found the 'haha' in him, for a long time. His salary demands to salve his wounds--$16 million, a swipe based on the CBS Paramount thing-- may be the most hilarious thing he's said in awhile, given his ratings). But also, whoever the hell Gutfield is (?) has greater growth. Political tribalism, in all its gory glory, shared by these two frontrunners.
Finally, while we see a huge and definitive downward trend in late night viewing habits since 2015 (and TERRIBLE numbers for the valued 18-49 year-old demo)...
4) Maybe all the late night shows just need to be more entertaining and get better writers. Just a suggestion.
Or, they all need to clone Lorne Michaels: 8.1 million viewers per episode, 2025. That's an audience number that advertisers in an uncertain economy are happy to get behind.
I suspect that people want their politics served up as the jokes they really are. Do I want to watch Stephen, or Seth or John interview a journalist, or a Cabinet person or an Adam Schiff? Nah. I'd rather leave that for journalists. Call me old school.
Make me laugh, guys, without screaming or snark (irony and sarcasm are ok, though). In other word, please. Be funny. That's a far better way to deliver my late night entertainment. I might even switch you on again.
I made the same argument in the comment section at the Globe. You’re actually slightly mistaken with regards to Colbert. It is 2.3 million total viewers for 11 new episodes and around 300k of them were 18-49. This is the number 1 rated show of this type. You can blame Trump for a lot of things, but you can’t blame him for the cancelling of Colbert.
To me, this looks more like rage farming than an actual story.
Thanks so much for the upgrade to my numbers, John. It's such a paltry number overall. And a fellow named Glen Gutfield (who he?!) On Fox who hosts a similar show on the right also pulls in those kinds of numbers (and apparently has faster growth overall).
It really underscores the state of the States--nutty audience segmentation doesn't help. I remember the bad old days when almost everyone who tuned in for laughs didn't identify by their political persuasion. Just by their sense of humour.
And I have 'news' for Messrs Colbert, Stewart, Oliver, et al. You guys are not Edward R. Morrow or Cronkite. Please, stop.
No ammunition production capability since Jody Thomas was the DM and sat on the file. Is this the end of the Defence Procurement oxymoron. One can only hope. Let's get on with it. Korea makes a great ship.
I’m going to lobby Vice Admiral Topshee (Commander Royal Canadian Navy) to come on to your show to provide some warship building counterpoints to Matt and Jenn.
... She said about 12 minutes after Matt read sponsored content from a cigarette company about how Canada's advertising laws should be changed. Last time I tuned in, it was sponsored content about what should and should not be part of the solution to Canada's housing crisis and a while ago it was sponsored content about a specific government policy about a Chinese tech firm both of which are very active political topics. Matt himself said not one minute later than the "spon con" the Line runs is clearly marked. Indeed it is clearly marked, but that's not the problem. The National Post and the Toronto Star being open about deciding to embrace dependency on government funding wouldn't mean they are suddenly credible independent voices on that subject.
I get that I'm the broken record here, but I'm still right. Your ads are de facto paid political content on subjects that you might easily be discussing and you are NOT entirely transparent on this. We don't know how much money you're getting for these ads. We don't know how many other options you have for ads and by extension, how dependent you are on not pissing off these particular advertisers. We can guess that you're not getting a lot of lucrative offers to read mattress endorsements though.
I like your content and I do keep paying for it... but we're not family and you don't get free "trust me" credibility.
You are a broken record. But you aren't, on this matter, right.
"Sponsored content' isn't a way of describing any content that's funded via advertising. It's an industry term that refers to any content that has been published or broadcast in direct exchange for a payment. I won't comment on the rest of your post, as you're entitled to your opinion, and it's simply bonkers to think I'm going to discuss The Line's business matters on a public forum, but for the benefit of everyone else reading this, sponsored content doesn't mean what Andrew thinks it does.
This is why I keep coming back of course. You’re direct. But hey… it’s part of the show, so it’s part of the comments.
You would be nuts to discuss your business arrangements in the comments.
So I’d never ask. But the effect of that good refusal is that we don’t know how the ads affect your editorial line. All we can say is the same thing we can say about new media that accept government money. We don’t know.
And that sucks because it relates to credibility to discuss those topics.
Point taken about “sponsored content” being a term of art in your industry, but the point remains. That’s you and Jen posting and reading a political position and doing that helps keeps your business in the black.
You can’t tell me that it’s exactly the same as if you were reading a sales pitch for running shoes. Come on… pitch me on a new pair.
Of course you're asking. You're just not asking in the form of a question. You agree it would be nuts for me to do it, and you continue to lament that I won't. As you said above, we aren't family, so I'm not obligated to take seriously whatever imaginary distinction you've drawn between what you're doing and what you'll admit to doing.
I just bought a new pair of Adidas and they're fine, so if you're looking for an endorsement, that's one the company can have gratis.
No really Matt, I’m not asking about your business. I don’t want to know, I just want The Line to be crazy successful. I’m going to sound like a lame fan boy here, but I really do think you two are producing something Canada really needs.
I AM asking you (futilely, I don’t want to admit) to stop accepting ads from anything political and switch to things like that digital frame company. (Tell them I promise to buy one if you run the ad). I like telling people to read everything you publish.
We will continue to make the deals that make the most financial sense for the company, and continue to transparently disclose when a message is paid content. If any mattress or picture frame company is willing to meet our rates, I’m easy to find. Thanks for the chat.
We can't build anything because our government and bureaucracy is composed of corrupt insiders, and our population specifically votes against change or accountability. In a sensible polity "having created numerous massive boondoggles and scams" would outweigh "the other guy is scary".
We don't have a sensible polity.
Curious as to Matt & Jen's thoughts on Bill Maher...is that who Jen was referencing but could not remember the name of? Or someone else? Do tell...
Bill Maher styles himself as a 'sensible liberal', and to Jen's point, I still (occasionally) find him (and/or whoever writes his schtick for his show) quite funny. Of all the late night comics, I'd put Bill Maher up there with Jon Stewart as 'still funny enough to hang around'. Having said that, he's lucratively 'found his niche' in that he skewers the obvious idiocy of far-left orthodoxy while (usually) maintaining his left-of-centre/libertarian bonafides. I expect I'd find Bill quite an asshole IRL, but he's as funny as anyone still surviving on the 'late night'/vid clip landscape today.
Also regarding Travis on the CBC:
I expect you're correct that he's 'chasing a hush cheque' as well he might.
I hope that's not the case, and that the disinfecting power of sunlight penetrates the CBC Orthadoxy Veil and cleanses the organization of its most egregious internal overseers.
I'm solidly in Jen's camp that the CBC needs to be reworked and remade with a radically different mandate, but I'm unsure that can happen without a Hiroshima/Nagasaki-level explosion before rebuilding can begin.
It's pretty bad when can switch on CBC Radio and/or CBC TV during the day and reliably can predict what's on will be related to one or (more often) a combination of these subjects:
a) BIPOC issues in general
b) Indigenous issues in particular
c) Climate change issues in general
d) Transgender issues in particular
I would argue that all of these issues have a place on the CBC as legitimate topics, but I remain astounded that I can turn on or visit any CBC Radio/TV/Online service randomly at nearly any time of day and find these 4 topics, usually up front, being discussed or featured.
It would be great if Travis really 'has the receipts' and reveals them publicly, and shines an unfavourable light on the CBC, so as to enable PM Carney to walk the line between Pierre's 'Defund The CBC' and the more sensible 'Purge and Renew The CBC With A Substantially Revised Mandate'. For me, that would be a radically decentralized CBC with focus on reporting from everywhere BUT the major urban media markets in Canada. Close CBC Toronto entirely and use the profits from the real estate windfall to fund the decentralized CBC offices across Canada.
Great podcast today. Glad to have you fully back from your summer breaks!
You nailed it. I basically gave up on CBC except for the hourly news because those 4 topics consume a disproportionate amount of air time. I also find some of their journalists, at least locally, never challenge their guests, so called experts, or not. Everything is a one way conversation. It’s seems to have gone this way for at least 5 years now.
I looked this up: "As of May 2025, the show was watched by approximately 2.41 million people per episode with a 0.76% rating." So less than 1% of Americans watch that show.
Picking a random show I also never watch, The Price is Right is watched by approximately 4.18 million people per episode with a 1.32% rating.
Do you think The Line would discuss the cancellation of The Price Is Right?
The chatting classes love late night TV shows, most people don't.
TPIR rules.
Great stuff, guys. It was all terrific but let me specifically co-sign the thrust of Jen’s comments in segment 2 re late night comedians – the dragging of Colbert and Oliver was magnificent and hit all the relevant points.
For those of us of a certain age and who were there for prime David Letterman (i.e. 1980s airing on NBC, Monday through Thursday at 12:30 am following The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson), nothing, I mean NOTHING will ever come close to that program (ask your parents, kiddies). And so, the fact that Colbert gets tagged with the mantle of “successor” to Letterman is more obscene than declaring Alex Jones the successor to Edward R. Murrow. The only people left watching this sorry spectacle of a show have got to be the same people currently driving around in Teslas with bumper stickers informing the world that they bought it before Elon went crazy. (Seriously, is there a more insufferable group of Canadians than those people? I mean, this is Canada so the competition is fierce but I think they have to be the clear winners.)
And thank you Jen for stuffing the BS food security argument used to justify Supply Management (and shout out to the use of “fucking the dog” as well). And that CBC side-rant about the Supply Management interview was glorious. Supporters of Supply Management increasingly evoke memories of Mayor Quimby’s immortal query: “Are these people getting dumber or just louder?”
Following Mr. Carney's announcement, La Presse instantly had a column on how Quebec can benefit from the new funding. Not so much how they will make an appreciable contribution to the country's defence.
Perhaps Mr. Trump was correct. We would be better off sending the Yanks 2% of the GDP and not worry our pointy, tuque covered heads about defence.
Pathetic.
Sorry, guys. This is a long one because I wrote it on fb last night to another media friend. Re: Colbert. Everything so sure its about Trump (of course). I look at it through the ile economic lens. I think there's going ro be further shedding. The numbers just don't make sense for advertisers. 'When tribalism goes too far.'
Possibly heresay, but I haven't tuned into late night for a long time. Except for the occasional SNL show.
Let's consider other things that might be going on besides politics, here.
Average Number of Late Night Viewers, (broken into 3 broad timeline categories). *an unscientific look, just scraping the stuff that pops up on an easy search on the web. if you'd like the Nielson and other stuff, message me since Zuckerberg won't let me link here).
1) Old Guard Late Night Hosts: (circa 1964 to 2015 'The Golden Years')
Johnny Carson: 9 million
Jay Leno: 6 million
David Letterman: 4.3 million
2) From circa 2015...The Canaries In the
Internet Coal Mine
Conan O'Brien: 2.5 million (NBC). Conan did spike at 7 million his first week after taking over from Letterman, then a rapid decline. One might assume the interwebs starts to play a larger part in diluting network tv shows. I listen to and/or watch his current podcast. Smart move. An indication of where this could all be going...and dammit, he's FUNNY!
3) 2025 Ratings, Current Late Night Hosts
https://www.tvinsider.com/1202434/late-night-ratings-2025-gutfeld-kimmel-colbert-fallon/
Colbert leads with around 2.3 million (and fwiw, I haven't found the 'haha' in him, for a long time. His salary demands to salve his wounds--$16 million, a swipe based on the CBS Paramount thing-- may be the most hilarious thing he's said in awhile, given his ratings). But also, whoever the hell Gutfield is (?) has greater growth. Political tribalism, in all its gory glory, shared by these two frontrunners.
Finally, while we see a huge and definitive downward trend in late night viewing habits since 2015 (and TERRIBLE numbers for the valued 18-49 year-old demo)...
4) Maybe all the late night shows just need to be more entertaining and get better writers. Just a suggestion.
Or, they all need to clone Lorne Michaels: 8.1 million viewers per episode, 2025. That's an audience number that advertisers in an uncertain economy are happy to get behind.
I suspect that people want their politics served up as the jokes they really are. Do I want to watch Stephen, or Seth or John interview a journalist, or a Cabinet person or an Adam Schiff? Nah. I'd rather leave that for journalists. Call me old school.
Make me laugh, guys, without screaming or snark (irony and sarcasm are ok, though). In other word, please. Be funny. That's a far better way to deliver my late night entertainment. I might even switch you on again.
I made the same argument in the comment section at the Globe. You’re actually slightly mistaken with regards to Colbert. It is 2.3 million total viewers for 11 new episodes and around 300k of them were 18-49. This is the number 1 rated show of this type. You can blame Trump for a lot of things, but you can’t blame him for the cancelling of Colbert.
To me, this looks more like rage farming than an actual story.
Thanks so much for the upgrade to my numbers, John. It's such a paltry number overall. And a fellow named Glen Gutfield (who he?!) On Fox who hosts a similar show on the right also pulls in those kinds of numbers (and apparently has faster growth overall).
It really underscores the state of the States--nutty audience segmentation doesn't help. I remember the bad old days when almost everyone who tuned in for laughs didn't identify by their political persuasion. Just by their sense of humour.
And I have 'news' for Messrs Colbert, Stewart, Oliver, et al. You guys are not Edward R. Morrow or Cronkite. Please, stop.
It’s shocking really. They have no audience. I remember watching Leno regularly.
No ammunition production capability since Jody Thomas was the DM and sat on the file. Is this the end of the Defence Procurement oxymoron. One can only hope. Let's get on with it. Korea makes a great ship.
Maybe they do, but having your ship building within range of North Korean artillery is sub-optimal.
I’m going to lobby Vice Admiral Topshee (Commander Royal Canadian Navy) to come on to your show to provide some warship building counterpoints to Matt and Jenn.
Jen: There's no sponsored content here.
... She said about 12 minutes after Matt read sponsored content from a cigarette company about how Canada's advertising laws should be changed. Last time I tuned in, it was sponsored content about what should and should not be part of the solution to Canada's housing crisis and a while ago it was sponsored content about a specific government policy about a Chinese tech firm both of which are very active political topics. Matt himself said not one minute later than the "spon con" the Line runs is clearly marked. Indeed it is clearly marked, but that's not the problem. The National Post and the Toronto Star being open about deciding to embrace dependency on government funding wouldn't mean they are suddenly credible independent voices on that subject.
I get that I'm the broken record here, but I'm still right. Your ads are de facto paid political content on subjects that you might easily be discussing and you are NOT entirely transparent on this. We don't know how much money you're getting for these ads. We don't know how many other options you have for ads and by extension, how dependent you are on not pissing off these particular advertisers. We can guess that you're not getting a lot of lucrative offers to read mattress endorsements though.
I like your content and I do keep paying for it... but we're not family and you don't get free "trust me" credibility.
You are a broken record. But you aren't, on this matter, right.
"Sponsored content' isn't a way of describing any content that's funded via advertising. It's an industry term that refers to any content that has been published or broadcast in direct exchange for a payment. I won't comment on the rest of your post, as you're entitled to your opinion, and it's simply bonkers to think I'm going to discuss The Line's business matters on a public forum, but for the benefit of everyone else reading this, sponsored content doesn't mean what Andrew thinks it does.
This is why I keep coming back of course. You’re direct. But hey… it’s part of the show, so it’s part of the comments.
You would be nuts to discuss your business arrangements in the comments.
So I’d never ask. But the effect of that good refusal is that we don’t know how the ads affect your editorial line. All we can say is the same thing we can say about new media that accept government money. We don’t know.
And that sucks because it relates to credibility to discuss those topics.
Point taken about “sponsored content” being a term of art in your industry, but the point remains. That’s you and Jen posting and reading a political position and doing that helps keeps your business in the black.
You can’t tell me that it’s exactly the same as if you were reading a sales pitch for running shoes. Come on… pitch me on a new pair.
Of course you're asking. You're just not asking in the form of a question. You agree it would be nuts for me to do it, and you continue to lament that I won't. As you said above, we aren't family, so I'm not obligated to take seriously whatever imaginary distinction you've drawn between what you're doing and what you'll admit to doing.
I just bought a new pair of Adidas and they're fine, so if you're looking for an endorsement, that's one the company can have gratis.
No really Matt, I’m not asking about your business. I don’t want to know, I just want The Line to be crazy successful. I’m going to sound like a lame fan boy here, but I really do think you two are producing something Canada really needs.
I AM asking you (futilely, I don’t want to admit) to stop accepting ads from anything political and switch to things like that digital frame company. (Tell them I promise to buy one if you run the ad). I like telling people to read everything you publish.
We will continue to make the deals that make the most financial sense for the company, and continue to transparently disclose when a message is paid content. If any mattress or picture frame company is willing to meet our rates, I’m easy to find. Thanks for the chat.
Ship building. another oxymoron?