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.
Lot longer. I used to love CBC. I dumped it around 2012 because I could no longer tolerate its ever increasingly blatant bias on just about any subject. I said to myself, this had become radio Moscow and I will no longer listen to this pseudo-intellectual house of one-way harlots.
To CoolPro: No, CBC cleanup cannot happen without a Hiroshima/Nagasaki-level explosion. And the ground will need to cool for about 5 years before anyone touches a stick. The infestation is too deep and too widespread, into the society at large.
I also thought of Maher, who is still funny and relevant (granted, his weekly panel show is a very different beast from traditional late night).
Matt's right that the traditional late night shows are probably on their way out just due to viewership habits, but I also agree with Jen the humour has gotten stale. It was partially wokeness - and an unwillingness for a politically inclined show to poke fun at some of the obvious overreaches of the left. But it's also how exhausting Trump is - there are only so many ways to make fun of his ridiculousness and it started to feel stale and preachy. It's leaving shows without an identity: The current Late Show isn't the biting & original satire of the Colbert Report, but it's also not the irreverent humour of the David Letterman era.
Maher's willingness to poke fun at all sides and eschew traditional liberal dogma (without going full Trump-supporter like many disillusioned-leftists) has been an asset, even though he can come across as a bit of an asshole and I disagree with some of his takes, especially on public health issues.
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".
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.
Bigtime. Retention of legal system. Retention of political entities. Retention of political divisions. ... and ..., retention of political gullibility as a national virtue.
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt and Jen. Private media companies can very legitimately take a political stance in their publications and then work to sell their product to those who want to read/view. But with a media company completely supported by public funds, they have an ethical responsibility and obligation to do their best to remain neutral. I would relish the CBC taking on that role and think it would be a wonderful support to Canadian democracy. But I think over the years the CBC has drifted closer to the Liberal and center left political stance. I have never supported the idea of defunding the CBC but I do think it needs a reorientation to bring it back to neutrality. And I really like the idea you two (especially Jen) have had about having the CBC support local news by resourcing local news collection to counter the withdrawal of commercial media from local news.
It’s always worth asking how the views of “strong supporters” of the CBC would out would not change if instead of being somewhat or slightly to the left of the Canadian public on social issues the CBC was suddenly to the right of the Canadian public.
If the answer is that they’d equally support a CBC observably more right wing on social issues than the Canadian public then they support a public broadcaster.
If that’s not the answer then they really don’t and their current support is more … icky.
The same question could and should be asked about CBC opponents.
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.
If they cancelled it right after Drew Carey said, “Get your pets spayed or neutered and don’t settle lawsuits with Trump” then I think we’d talk about it.
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.
Good point. I think there is an argument to have a robust North American ship building industry (as we had in ww2), but at this point, maybe a JV with the South Koreans would be the best path to get there… rather than the Irving’s.
Makes sense to me … although I think “North American” is off table. I suspect the Americans have less than zero interest in having American navy vessels built in Canada.
I suspect that Travis will be sparing with his comments about the CBC until the affair is settled, but it would be great if you could get him to come on On The Line in the future. I'd love to hear what he has to say, and I think you guys would have a great conversation.
Dear Jen, A sense of humour is somewhat personal and varied. I think you'd agree. John Oliver is, to my mind, quite funny on occasion. But what he is doing is a hybrid of humour and journalism. Not sure where this perspective would come from without the likes of Oliver, Jon Stewert and Bill Maher. Certainly not from mainstream journalists. Agree with you on the CBC's death spiral into irrelevance. I can only hope CBC management is kept awake at night by the ghost of Barbara Frum screaming in their dreams.
What bother me and so very many others, is that we still are forced to fork out well over a billion in taxes on that freakin' screechin' pathetic irrelevance.
I share your pain. However, what I'd really like is to get a proper CBC back. No ideological agenda, more focus on local radio journalism/community orientation, more actual journalism. Maybe just shut down the Toronto headquarters and see how much that saves? Might address both the cost and relevance issues.
Friend, that is a desirable goal. However, stable and enduring conditions for a successful rebuild and continued existence of a sane CBC must exist first. Otherwise, the ideological extremists will fast turn the new CBC into what it is now, or worse.
One of the conditions for a successful rebuild is an electorate that is sufficiently engaged and willingly maintains a high political literacy, so that it is capable of calmly and deliberately rejecting various types of political, economic, and societal bullshit that some political and activist charlatans are trying to impose on them. Currently, the cohort of this type of electorate is too small. My guess it that the kind of satisfactory rebuild of CBC you, I and very many others would be OK with is not happening for a couple of decades.
If Canada is going to be spending a large chunk of our budget on defence, I feel like we're going to have to be getting a defence industry out of that money. A long-term plan that results in huge sums of tax revenue flowing to other countries rather than helping stimulate Canada's laggard economy won't be politically palatable. I also don't know how economically sustainable it is: at least local production will create tax-revenue and spin-off jobs and growth that should help partially offset the cost.
With that said, I have no idea how we prevent Canada's defence industry from becoming a bunch of ArriveCans or just making the "octopus economy" problem worse. Canada has the talent and resources to create a thriving, efficient defence industry, but we seem to get boondoggles anytime government and industry need to work together. It feels like a fixable problem, but admittedly I don't know where to start, and have no confidence our current batch of leaders is remotely up to the task.
Couldn't disagree more. Canadian military procurement has demonstrated that chasing industrial benefits leads to excessive political interference, extended timelines and substandard equipment.
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.
Also worth noting that the ‘lethality’ or not of Canada’s new warships has nothing to do with the Irving’s, and everything to do with the people who decided 24 VLS was enough for a modern ‘destroyer’ expected to serve into the 2060’s. In other arenas, the River class is going to be world-leading, in terms of data management and sensor suites, so also not really sure about the criticism there from Matt. One of the most involved defence journalists in Canada should have more nuance on the topic.
... 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.
The economics of late night TV are bad for the reasons Matt said. But the timing looks like anticipatory compliance: as in, CBS is doing what it thinks its parent Paramount wants after the "big fat bribe." Better look like you're in charge than have Paramount humiliate you twice. If the reason was really financial, it either could have been done months ago, pre-bribe, or after the merger goes through. This way, it reads like CBS is is a Trump butt magnet and sends a chilling message to other media. Never thought I'd be saying thank god for Rupert Murdock, but thank god for Rupert Murdoch, at least re: the WSJ .
An early episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation predicted that TV would die off by 2040, and that prediction is looking awfully prescient. Broadcast TV and cable are waning, with more people simply cutting the cord as they pivot to streaming services. Tune into cable news, and the ads are all for reverse mortgages and geriatric medical devices: the coveted 18-45 demographic is disappearing, and media companies are focusing on the aging boomers who are still habituated to broadcast TV.
I was shocked and thrilled to hear Jen embracing her inner conspiracy theorist on this podcast. “I don’t believe Epstein killed himself…” Yes!!It’s only a small step now to the WEF is really an evil cabal of human sacrificing globalists bent on worldwide subjugation and domination! I can’t wait for that episode. You’re almost there Jen… just keep going.
But seriously, I did like the Epstein comment. Maybe there is nothing further there, and everything is as they say? But man… it sure doesn’t lean that way on the balance of probabilities. I also feel this particular situation does have the real potential to finally but a real chink in Trumps armour. (That birthday letter aside - which does sound like complete bullshit to me). Not releasing anything further (except for an edited video) is a true betrayal to Trump’s core support (I’m not calling it MAGA - who are the true cult followers but more the people that listen to Rogan and Shawn Ryan on a regular basis). Also, credit to the American right here for calling it out. We never saw anything remotely close to this from the American Left with the Biden senility scandal or its massive censorship campaign, with the notable exception of Bill Maher. In short, I don’t think this is going away, and it’s not going to be satisfied now without radical transparency (which I also don’t expect we’ll see). The beast Trump fed is about to turn its teeth on him. We will see what happens.. but it’ll be interesting to watch.
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.
Lot longer. I used to love CBC. I dumped it around 2012 because I could no longer tolerate its ever increasingly blatant bias on just about any subject. I said to myself, this had become radio Moscow and I will no longer listen to this pseudo-intellectual house of one-way harlots.
To CoolPro: No, CBC cleanup cannot happen without a Hiroshima/Nagasaki-level explosion. And the ground will need to cool for about 5 years before anyone touches a stick. The infestation is too deep and too widespread, into the society at large.
I also thought of Maher, who is still funny and relevant (granted, his weekly panel show is a very different beast from traditional late night).
Matt's right that the traditional late night shows are probably on their way out just due to viewership habits, but I also agree with Jen the humour has gotten stale. It was partially wokeness - and an unwillingness for a politically inclined show to poke fun at some of the obvious overreaches of the left. But it's also how exhausting Trump is - there are only so many ways to make fun of his ridiculousness and it started to feel stale and preachy. It's leaving shows without an identity: The current Late Show isn't the biting & original satire of the Colbert Report, but it's also not the irreverent humour of the David Letterman era.
Maher's willingness to poke fun at all sides and eschew traditional liberal dogma (without going full Trump-supporter like many disillusioned-leftists) has been an asset, even though he can come across as a bit of an asshole and I disagree with some of his takes, especially on public health issues.
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.
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.
How's that different from saying that we should simply be the 51st state?
Bigtime. Retention of legal system. Retention of political entities. Retention of political divisions. ... and ..., retention of political gullibility as a national virtue.
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt and Jen. Private media companies can very legitimately take a political stance in their publications and then work to sell their product to those who want to read/view. But with a media company completely supported by public funds, they have an ethical responsibility and obligation to do their best to remain neutral. I would relish the CBC taking on that role and think it would be a wonderful support to Canadian democracy. But I think over the years the CBC has drifted closer to the Liberal and center left political stance. I have never supported the idea of defunding the CBC but I do think it needs a reorientation to bring it back to neutrality. And I really like the idea you two (especially Jen) have had about having the CBC support local news by resourcing local news collection to counter the withdrawal of commercial media from local news.
It’s always worth asking how the views of “strong supporters” of the CBC would out would not change if instead of being somewhat or slightly to the left of the Canadian public on social issues the CBC was suddenly to the right of the Canadian public.
If the answer is that they’d equally support a CBC observably more right wing on social issues than the Canadian public then they support a public broadcaster.
If that’s not the answer then they really don’t and their current support is more … icky.
The same question could and should be asked about CBC opponents.
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.
If they cancelled it right after Drew Carey said, “Get your pets spayed or neutered and don’t settle lawsuits with Trump” then I think we’d talk about it.
TPIR rules.
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.
Good point. I think there is an argument to have a robust North American ship building industry (as we had in ww2), but at this point, maybe a JV with the South Koreans would be the best path to get there… rather than the Irving’s.
Makes sense to me … although I think “North American” is off table. I suspect the Americans have less than zero interest in having American navy vessels built in Canada.
Yes, let me re-phase and say Canadian.
I suspect that Travis will be sparing with his comments about the CBC until the affair is settled, but it would be great if you could get him to come on On The Line in the future. I'd love to hear what he has to say, and I think you guys would have a great conversation.
Dear Jen, A sense of humour is somewhat personal and varied. I think you'd agree. John Oliver is, to my mind, quite funny on occasion. But what he is doing is a hybrid of humour and journalism. Not sure where this perspective would come from without the likes of Oliver, Jon Stewert and Bill Maher. Certainly not from mainstream journalists. Agree with you on the CBC's death spiral into irrelevance. I can only hope CBC management is kept awake at night by the ghost of Barbara Frum screaming in their dreams.
What bother me and so very many others, is that we still are forced to fork out well over a billion in taxes on that freakin' screechin' pathetic irrelevance.
I share your pain. However, what I'd really like is to get a proper CBC back. No ideological agenda, more focus on local radio journalism/community orientation, more actual journalism. Maybe just shut down the Toronto headquarters and see how much that saves? Might address both the cost and relevance issues.
Friend, that is a desirable goal. However, stable and enduring conditions for a successful rebuild and continued existence of a sane CBC must exist first. Otherwise, the ideological extremists will fast turn the new CBC into what it is now, or worse.
One of the conditions for a successful rebuild is an electorate that is sufficiently engaged and willingly maintains a high political literacy, so that it is capable of calmly and deliberately rejecting various types of political, economic, and societal bullshit that some political and activist charlatans are trying to impose on them. Currently, the cohort of this type of electorate is too small. My guess it that the kind of satisfactory rebuild of CBC you, I and very many others would be OK with is not happening for a couple of decades.
If Canada is going to be spending a large chunk of our budget on defence, I feel like we're going to have to be getting a defence industry out of that money. A long-term plan that results in huge sums of tax revenue flowing to other countries rather than helping stimulate Canada's laggard economy won't be politically palatable. I also don't know how economically sustainable it is: at least local production will create tax-revenue and spin-off jobs and growth that should help partially offset the cost.
With that said, I have no idea how we prevent Canada's defence industry from becoming a bunch of ArriveCans or just making the "octopus economy" problem worse. Canada has the talent and resources to create a thriving, efficient defence industry, but we seem to get boondoggles anytime government and industry need to work together. It feels like a fixable problem, but admittedly I don't know where to start, and have no confidence our current batch of leaders is remotely up to the task.
Couldn't disagree more. Canadian military procurement has demonstrated that chasing industrial benefits leads to excessive political interference, extended timelines and substandard equipment.
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.
Also worth noting that the ‘lethality’ or not of Canada’s new warships has nothing to do with the Irving’s, and everything to do with the people who decided 24 VLS was enough for a modern ‘destroyer’ expected to serve into the 2060’s. In other arenas, the River class is going to be world-leading, in terms of data management and sensor suites, so also not really sure about the criticism there from Matt. One of the most involved defence journalists in Canada should have more nuance on the topic.
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.
The economics of late night TV are bad for the reasons Matt said. But the timing looks like anticipatory compliance: as in, CBS is doing what it thinks its parent Paramount wants after the "big fat bribe." Better look like you're in charge than have Paramount humiliate you twice. If the reason was really financial, it either could have been done months ago, pre-bribe, or after the merger goes through. This way, it reads like CBS is is a Trump butt magnet and sends a chilling message to other media. Never thought I'd be saying thank god for Rupert Murdock, but thank god for Rupert Murdoch, at least re: the WSJ .
An early episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation predicted that TV would die off by 2040, and that prediction is looking awfully prescient. Broadcast TV and cable are waning, with more people simply cutting the cord as they pivot to streaming services. Tune into cable news, and the ads are all for reverse mortgages and geriatric medical devices: the coveted 18-45 demographic is disappearing, and media companies are focusing on the aging boomers who are still habituated to broadcast TV.
I was shocked and thrilled to hear Jen embracing her inner conspiracy theorist on this podcast. “I don’t believe Epstein killed himself…” Yes!!It’s only a small step now to the WEF is really an evil cabal of human sacrificing globalists bent on worldwide subjugation and domination! I can’t wait for that episode. You’re almost there Jen… just keep going.
But seriously, I did like the Epstein comment. Maybe there is nothing further there, and everything is as they say? But man… it sure doesn’t lean that way on the balance of probabilities. I also feel this particular situation does have the real potential to finally but a real chink in Trumps armour. (That birthday letter aside - which does sound like complete bullshit to me). Not releasing anything further (except for an edited video) is a true betrayal to Trump’s core support (I’m not calling it MAGA - who are the true cult followers but more the people that listen to Rogan and Shawn Ryan on a regular basis). Also, credit to the American right here for calling it out. We never saw anything remotely close to this from the American Left with the Biden senility scandal or its massive censorship campaign, with the notable exception of Bill Maher. In short, I don’t think this is going away, and it’s not going to be satisfied now without radical transparency (which I also don’t expect we’ll see). The beast Trump fed is about to turn its teeth on him. We will see what happens.. but it’ll be interesting to watch.