Fox News recently declared Greg Gutfeld the victor in the late-night wars following the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s show. But a closer look reveals a vastly different story. While Gutfeld has carved a niche for himself in right-wing media, claiming a ratings victory over Colbert is a gross oversimplification and ignores the larger picture of influence and cultural impact.
The argument hinges on Nielsen ratings, a metric Gutfeld’s camp repeatedly touts. However, simply comparing raw viewer numbers is misleading. Colbert’s show aired against established competitors like Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, splitting a similar audience. Gutfeld, on the other hand, enjoyed a monopoly in the conservative late-night space. Even when considering Nielsen data, Colbert often outperformed Gutfeld in market share, demonstrating a higher percentage of viewers watching television at that time choosing his show. This is even more significant considering the smaller market size at 11:35 PM compared to 10 PM.
The limitations of Nielsen ratings become even clearer when considering broader viewership across other platforms. Colbert’s show boasts vastly superior numbers on YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, demonstrating a far wider reach than Gutfeld. While Gutfeld’s clips might garner hundreds of thousands of views, Colbert’s frequently surpass millions.
Beyond the numbers, the qualitative difference is stark. Colbert’s career is marked by significant cultural moments – from his iconic White House Correspondents’ Dinner performance to his political commentary that consistently shapes public discourse. His influence extends far beyond entertainment; he’s coined phrases, engaged in political activism, and even run for president (twice!). Gutfeld, conversely, lacks comparable moments of cultural relevance or significant political impact. His most memorable moments often stem from controversial or insensitive remarks, rather than insightful satire.
Gutfeld’s brand of humor, often described as “nasty” and reliant on “cruelty,” lacks the originality and depth of Colbert’s sharp, ironic wit. While Gutfeld’s audience may find his brand amusing, his jokes often fall flat, and his commentary rarely transcends the echo chamber of right-wing media. Colbert, in contrast, uses satire not just for laughs, but to illuminate complex issues and hold power accountable. His comedy is memorable, impactful, and continues to resonate long after the show ends.
In conclusion, while Gutfeld may boast higher Nielsen numbers, the claim that he’s surpassed Colbert is simply untrue. A comprehensive assessment of reach, influence, and cultural impact reveals a significant disparity. Colbert’s legacy is one of impactful satire and cultural relevance, a legacy Gutfeld has yet to even approach. The numbers, when viewed in their proper context, tell a clear story: Stephen Colbert remains far ahead.
