> "[it's] purely a financial decision"
> "It is not related in any way to the show’s performance"
Naively, these seem like contradictory statements.
> "It is not related in any way to the show’s performance"
Naively, these seem like contradictory statements.
It isn't contradictory. They don't want to publicly admit "hey nobody watched our unfunny show" because then it might impact their shares/valuation. Most likely that show was a loss leader.
“Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles: It’s big fat bribe, because this all comes as Paramount owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance.”
maybe they are worried that Colbert will say things that are actionable and could lead to more lawsuits?
Trump sues people even if things are not actionable. (And sometimes those people cave / bend the knee.)
Also not sure how being laid off for criticizing your host networks back channel deals with the White House makes you a corporate mouth piece, but what do I know.