Megyn Kelly, former Fox News host and prominent conservative commentator, has delivered a scathing critique of Stephen Colbert and the state of late-night television.

In a recent hard-hitting commentary, Kelly and her guest Emily Jashinsky from the MK Media Podcast Network tore into Colbert’s recent cancellation and the broader decline of late-night shows, accusing hosts like Colbert and John Stewart of political bias, irrelevance, and financial failure.

The message is clear: the era of late-night political comedy as a credible cultural force is over, and those clinging to it are out of touch with the modern media landscape.

Kelly opens with a blunt assessment: late-night hosts have lost all credibility and are now widely seen as political hacks rather than entertainers.

She questions why they ever had credibility in the first place but asserts that the public is finally waking up to their true nature.

Stephen Colbert, once a titan of political satire, is singled out as a “crybaby” who cannot handle the cancellation of his show.

Kelly mocks his public displays of victimhood and suggests that he and his peers should “grow up” and accept the realities of the television business.

According to Kelly, many public figures have faced brutal cancellations without inviting public sympathy or staging theatrical responses, implying that Colbert’s behavior is immature and unprofessional.

One of Kelly’s key points is the financial failure of Colbert’s show.

She cites reports that the show was losing $40 million a year despite having a large staff of around 200 employees.

In stark contrast, Kelly highlights her own experience with *The Kelly File*, which operated with a much smaller team but generated $100 million in revenue annually.

This comparison is used to emphasize the inefficiency and poor management behind Colbert’s show.

Kelly also accuses Colbert of being a mouthpiece for mainstream media and left-wing political agendas, suggesting that his continued presence on television was due more to his political alignment than his talent or audience appeal.

She argues that his show’s financial losses would have warranted cancellation regardless of politics.

Kelly does not spare John Stewart, another former late-night host who recently returned to television.

She dismisses Stewart as a “pathetic has-been” whose relevance peaked years ago.

Stewart’s attempt to rally support for Colbert following the cancellation is mocked, especially his use of a gospel choir during a televised rant.

Kelly criticizes Stewart’s reliance on political correctness and identity politics, suggesting that hiring a black gospel choir was a calculated move to appeal to certain audiences rather than a genuine expression of protest.

She accuses Stewart of being overly cautious and self-serving, unwilling to sacrifice his lucrative television career for political principles.

A significant theme in Kelly’s commentary is the decline of traditional late-night television as a viable entertainment and news source.

She notes that ratings for late-night shows have plummeted nearly 50% since 2018, with audiences increasingly turning away from this format.

Kelly argues that the business model of late-night TV is broken, especially given the high production costs and declining viewership.

She points out that the industry is no longer sustainable, and many shows are being canceled or restructured as networks respond to changing audience habits.

Kelly’s critique extends beyond Colbert and Stewart to a broader condemnation of media elites and their perceived hypocrisy.

She mentions other prominent journalists like Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan, suggesting that if political figures like Donald Trump had real control over media firings, many of these journalists would be out of work.

She accuses these media figures of skewering political opponents and failing to maintain journalistic neutrality, reinforcing the idea that the media has become a partisan tool rather than an objective informer.

The commentary is also deeply personal.

Kelly recalls being targeted by John Stewart during her time at Fox News, describing how he produced hit pieces against her when she was vulnerable, such as while nursing her newborn children.

This personal history adds an emotional layer to Kelly’s critique and underscores the bitter political battles within media circles.

Kelly also speculates, with a hint of sarcasm, about potential undisclosed financial backers behind Colbert’s show, including pharmaceutical companies that might have appreciated his commentary on vaccines and other issues.

This insinuation reflects broader conservative skepticism about mainstream media and corporate influence.

Throughout the commentary, Kelly praises her audience as critical thinkers who see through media manipulation.

She contrasts her loyal viewers with the general public, whom she describes as less discerning and more easily influenced by media entertainers posing as comedians.

Kelly ends with a call to action, urging viewers to share her message and resist mainstream media narratives.

She frames her critique as part of a larger movement to expose media bias and hold entertainers accountable for their political agendas.

Megyn Kelly’s brutal message to Stephen Colbert is emblematic of a larger cultural shift.

The golden age of late-night political comedy appears to be fading, replaced by a fragmented media environment where traditional formats struggle to survive.

Kelly’s commentary highlights the financial unsustainability of these shows, their increasing political polarization, and the growing disconnect between media elites and their audiences.

Whether one agrees with her or not, her critique forces a reckoning with the role of late-night television in shaping public discourse and the challenges it faces in the digital age.

As networks rethink their programming strategies and audiences seek new forms of engagement, the legacy of hosts like Colbert and Stewart will be debated for years to come.

Megyn Kelly’s message is clear: the era of unquestioned late-night media dominance is over, and those who fail to adapt risk becoming irrelevant relics of a bygone era.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.