“Colbert Has Lost His Mind” — Clay Travis’s Broadside and the Late-Night Comedy Reckoning

The sudden cancellation of CBS’s The Late Show has sent shockwaves through the late-night television world. But it was Clay Travis, co-founder of OutKick, whose scathing attack on Stephen Colbert reframed the conversation — from ratings and contracts to the very soul of modern comedy.

A Cancellation Beyond the Numbers

CBS’s decision to pull the plug on The Late Show caught both fans and industry insiders off guard. While ratings had been under pressure for years — a trend common to late-night programming in the streaming era — the swiftness of the move hints at deeper dissatisfaction. For Travis, the culprit was not merely market forces but a self-inflicted wound: Colbert’s shift from punchlines to “woke sermons.”

Travis argued that Colbert had abandoned the universal appeal of observational humor for the narrower, more divisive terrain of political moralizing. In his words, “You can’t kill comedy and expect the audience to stick around.”

Late-Night’s Political Turn — Strategy or Suicide?

Colbert’s transformation was not accidental. After Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, The Late Show leaned heavily into political satire, with Colbert himself becoming a nightly foil to the former president. Initially, this pivot boosted ratings, catapulting Colbert past Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel.

But what began as a strategy to capture a politically engaged audience may have morphed into an echo chamber. The jokes increasingly preached to the converted, alienating viewers who once tuned in for apolitical levity. Clay Travis’s critique taps into this broader sentiment: the suspicion that late-night hosts have traded comedy’s universality for partisan applause lines.

The “Woke Sermon” Phenomenon

The phrase “woke sermon” is more than a jab — it reflects a recurring complaint about modern entertainment: that ideological messaging has replaced storytelling and, in this case, comedic craft. Whether on television, in stand-up, or even scripted series, there is a growing tension between creators’ desire to address social justice themes and audiences’ desire to be entertained without feeling lectured.

In Colbert’s case, Travis argues, the balance tipped too far. Instead of humor being the sugar that makes the politics go down, the politics became the main dish — and laughter, the afterthought.

Audience Fragmentation in the Streaming Era

It’s too easy to blame “wokeness” alone for The Late Show’s decline. The late-night landscape is under siege from YouTube clips, TikTok sketches, and streaming specials that deliver comedy on demand. Viewers no longer wait until 11:30 p.m. for a monologue when they can watch five minutes of tight, unfiltered content on their phones.

Still, Colbert’s case stands out because his political focus narrowed his potential audience in a market already shrinking. What Travis’s attack underscores is the idea that late-night can’t afford to alienate half the country and expect to thrive in an era of hyper-choice.

Is This the End or a Rebirth?

The question now is whether this marks the death of a once-dominant format or simply the end of one chapter in Colbert’s career. His sharp wit and improv instincts are undeniable — but so is the perception that he has lost touch with the broader comedic mandate.

For CBS, the challenge will be deciding whether late-night is still a viable investment or whether the format itself has become a relic. For Colbert, the decision is whether to double down on political satire or attempt the riskier pivot back toward universal humor.

The Larger Cultural Takeaway

Clay Travis’s remarks resonated not because of their novelty — critiques of “woke comedy” are now commonplace — but because they coincide with a concrete industry consequence: a flagship show’s cancellation. It’s a moment that forces a reckoning about what audiences want from comedy, and whether late-night can still be a space where people of all political stripes gather for a laugh.

In the end, the Colbert-Travis clash is about more than two personalities. It’s about the fragility of comedy in a climate where every joke is measured not just for its punchline, but for its political weight