Keeping this non-political...
When I was a kid, my parents watched Carson every night. In fact, I would usually have to get up and go to bed after the monolouge. Like a lot of GenXers, I got into Letterman at first when he did Late Night, was fully on his side when NBC chose Leno, and watched his Late Show for years when he moved to CBS. I stopped watching for awhile, but then got into the Daily Show and the Colbert Report when they were at their absolute peak.
These shows were cultural touchstones. The feuds during the Leno/Letterman and the Leno/Conan sagas were really big deals.
The news over the past week has got me to thinking that man...in just about a decade most of that is gone. Like everything about legacy media, its been losing viewers, losing money, and losing influence rapidly.
I had a similar experience. My parents watched Carson for years and when I got to Marquette my roommate and I were borderline obsessed with Letterman. We didn't have a TV so we went to the McCormick lobby pretty much every night to watch. I watched Conan and Kimmel off and one for a while but I haven't watched any late late night show in years.
Agree mostly with Sultan - although i question his statement about finances. there is no way that we can know what they do with the numbers.
Similar to how sports team owners cry poverty even as they are on the ladder picking from their money trees.
Quote from: Jockey on July 22, 2025, 11:23:34 AMAgree mostly with Sultan - although i question his statement about finances. there is no way that we can know what they do with the numbers.
Similar to how sports team owners cry poverty even as they are on the ladder picking from their money trees.
You are correct. We know they have been losing viewers as well as influence, but losing money is likely not to be known.
Curious, because I genuinely don't know, but does anyone know if the viewership losses in late-night TV generally fallen in line with that of other broadcast programming (sports excluded)?
Some quick Googling doesn't provide much of an answer.
Quote from: The Sultan on July 22, 2025, 11:25:31 AMYou are correct. We know they have been losing viewers as well as influence, but losing money is likely not to be known.
I think the changing demo of his viewers has a lot to do with it as well. I'm trying to find the tweet/article I saw, but early on, one of Colbert's strengths was the younger relative age of his viewer. Recently the average age has spiked up to 67/68, I believe. So regardless of exact figures/losses, his show was rapidly becoming less appealing to advertisers. But again, that's not particularly unique to Colbert. Same thing happened with Corden a few years ago, another show that had been strong for awhile.
Colbert taking shots at management didn't help, but I think that just expedited/finalized a pending decision rather than being the reason it happened.
I mean, look at SNL, regardless about what you think about its humor/content, for those who enjoy it, what used to be appointment television is now mostly consumed through clips or social media reposts.
When you have hundreds of viewing options, not counting entertainment options that aren't TV, the math never makes sense with regard to cost and viewership. Forget late night TV, this applies across the spectrum.
Carson and Letterman also had guests you didn't have access to. Now you have instant access to any of their guests at your fingertips. A comedian performing on Carson meant something to see. A musician performing on Letterman meant something to see. You can see those performers anywhere now.
Between 10-11 p.m. PT most weeknights, my wife and I click on YouTube and watch Colbert's monologue, Kimmel's monologue and Meyers' Closer Look. So in about a half-hour, we get what we consider to be the best of late-night comedy/talk.
I'm guessing that these 10-minute YouTube clips we watch don't help each show's ratings.
As others said above, there are just so many options and platforms now. The deck is stacked against shows like these. Colbert had the best ratings of them all, so one wonders how much longer the shows of Kimmel, Fallon and Meyers can last.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 22, 2025, 12:16:03 PMWhen you have hundreds of viewing options, not counting entertainment options that aren't TV, the math never makes sense with regard to cost and viewership. Forget late night TV, this applies across the spectrum.
Carson and Letterman also had guests you didn't have access to. Now you have instant access to any of their guests at your fingertips. A comedian performing on Carson meant something to see. A musician performing on Letterman meant something to see. You can see those performers anywhere now.
Right. Exactly.
But it's just amazing that the entire genre has diminished so quickly. Even when Colbert is done next year, CBS is shutting down the entire franchise.
Quote from: The Sultan on July 22, 2025, 12:40:09 PMRight. Exactly.
But it's just amazing that the entire genre has diminished so quickly. Even when Colbert is done next year, CBS is shutting down the entire franchise.
That's fine. I blocked CBS because of woke anyway
Quote from: The Sultan on July 22, 2025, 12:40:09 PMRight. Exactly.
But it's just amazing that the entire genre has diminished so quickly. Even when Colbert is done next year, CBS is shutting down the entire franchise.
And I think that's the key. Its not just "get rid of this guy cause (insert whoever powerful) doesn't like/agree with him", its cutting their losses on the entire premise and programming...which completely speaks to the landscape
Quote from: The Sultan on July 22, 2025, 12:40:09 PMRight. Exactly.
But it's just amazing that the entire genre has diminished so quickly. Even when Colbert is done next year, CBS is shutting down the entire franchise.
The word is that it costs over $100 million a year to produce the show. That includes Colbert's $15-$20 million a year salary, salaries for a staff of over 200, costs to rent and operate the studio for prime NYC real estate, and other incidental costs. At 170 shows per year, it costs around $500k per show, and they were only bringing in significantly less than that per show. Meanwhile, ratings are low as viewers have so many more options. 2.4 million, a 400k drop from Letterman's last year on the air, 1.4 million fewer than Letterman's ratings in 2010 and nearly 6 million less than what Letterman got in 1994. The average viewer age for Colbert is high - the core demographic CBS wanted when they hired Colbert (18-49) was just over 200k. Late night TV is over. CBS (and the others networks when they cancel their shows) will put in reruns and cheaply made "reality" shows instead.
I rarely missed Letterman in college, but have never watched Colbert on the Late Show.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 22, 2025, 12:16:03 PMWhen you have hundreds of viewing options, not counting entertainment options that aren't TV, the math never makes sense with regard to cost and viewership. Forget late night TV, this applies across the spectrum.
Carson and Letterman also had guests you didn't have access to. Now you have instant access to any of their guests at your fingertips. A comedian performing on Carson meant something to see. A musician performing on Letterman meant something to see. You can see those performers anywhere now.
Good points. I gave up late night shows 10-15 years ago, about the time I gave up on Sport Center. Also, I did not care for Colbert on CBS, but I'd love a reboot of the Colbert Report.
I was only a kid but I can remember Steve Allen and then Jack Paar hosting the tonight show. I believe Carson took over in the early 60s. Of course I had lots of options living in central Jersey with 11 channels to pick from back then.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 22, 2025, 12:58:38 PMThat's fine. I blocked CBS because of woke anyway
You'll be lovin' Skydance then
Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on July 22, 2025, 02:22:05 PMYou'll be lovin' Skydance then
I don't know what that is and I am not going to google it. #TeamMuggsy
The number of Colbert staff is ridiculous
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on July 22, 2025, 01:23:56 PMI rarely missed Letterman in college, but have never watched Colbert on the Late Show.
The Late Show is vastly different from what Letterman's show was (they all are), but Colbert is funny.
Late night was toast when it abandoned Conan.
Quote from: MU82 on July 22, 2025, 02:54:20 PMThe Late Show is vastly different from what Letterman's show was (they all are), but Colbert is funny.
...but Gutfeld is funnier as the ratings prove.
https://www.tvinsider.com/1202434/late-night-ratings-2025-gutfeld-kimmel-colbert-fallon/
Was about to say the dentists' offices have Gutfield on these days anyway but to insinuate a dentist working at the office past Martha MacCallum is delusional.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 22, 2025, 05:36:19 PM...but Gutfeld is funnier as the ratings prove.
https://www.tvinsider.com/1202434/late-night-ratings-2025-gutfeld-kimmel-colbert-fallon/
Racists and homophones are thriving in America right now
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 22, 2025, 02:27:06 PMI don't know what that is and I am not going to google it. #TeamMuggsy
...but Gutfeld is funnier as the ratings prove.
https://www.tvinsider.com/1202434/late-night-ratings-2025-gutfeld-kimmel-colbert-fallon/
[/quote]
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 22, 2025, 02:27:06 PMI don't know what that is and I am not going to google it. #TeamMuggsy
I don't Google things. Friends send me links or I ask questions.
I liked Craig Ferguson.
This topic can be expanded to all of network TV, minus sports. It's a total dying industry.
The average age watching any random "TV channel" is in their 60s. Those viewers are dying, and the young people are watching Youtube for free, and Netflix for a fraction of Cable/Streaming OTT services. -- Heck, even senior citizens are watching Youtube in increasing numbers.
Network TV is evaporating.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 22, 2025, 06:31:38 PMThis topic can be expanded to all of network TV, minus sports. It's a total dying industry.
The average age watching any random "TV channel" is in their 60s. Those viewers are dying, and the young people are watching Youtube for free, and Netflix for a fraction of Cable/Streaming OTT services. -- Heck, even senior citizens are watching Youtube in increasing numbers.
Network TV is evaporating.
[/quote
True, but they're not watching any of these shows on Ytube or other mediums.
Greg's career has been terrific and it's a wonderful show.
Happy to have written for Red Eye in the early days. #Gutfeld
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 22, 2025, 09:27:37 PMGreg's career has been terrific and it's a wonderful show.
Happy to have written for Red Eye in the early days. #Gutfeld
Did you talk a lot about your pickle
Quote from: Shaka Shart on July 22, 2025, 11:42:41 PMDid you talk a lot about your pickle
Way worse than that. Still can't believe the stuff we could get away with back then.
"if hilarity were ringworm, he'd be inside my dog"
"if intelligence was a bullpen, men would warm up inside him"
Quote from: MU82 on July 22, 2025, 02:54:20 PMThe Late Show is vastly different from what Letterman's show was (they all are), but Colbert is funny.
Colbert was awesome when he was playing a character on the Colbert Report.
A lot of network
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 22, 2025, 06:31:38 PMThis topic can be expanded to all of network TV, minus sports. It's a total dying industry.
The average age watching any random "TV channel" is in their 60s. Those viewers are dying, and the young people are watching Youtube for free, and Netflix for a fraction of Cable/Streaming OTT services. -- Heck, even senior citizens are watching Youtube in increasing numbers.
Network TV is evaporating.
All those network shows are on streaming services like Peacock, Paramount+ and Disney+. Youtube is not completely free. AM and FM radio were considered dead but they're still here.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 23, 2025, 09:08:44 AMA lot of network
All those network shows are on streaming services like Peacock, Paramount+ and Disney+. Youtube is not completely free. AM and FM radio were considered dead but they're still here.
I like my tv with as many limited options as possible. Back in my day, 4 channels is all I needed
Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 23, 2025, 09:17:34 AMI like my tv with as many limited options as possible. Back in my day, 4 channels is all I needed
Hopefully PBS isn't one of the four comrade.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on July 23, 2025, 08:38:17 AMColbert was awesome when he was playing a character on the Colbert Report.
The Colbert Report and The Daily Show was a great hour of TV.
IMHO, it's also true that Colbert is still funny.
Quote from: The Sultan on July 23, 2025, 09:28:08 AMHopefully PBS isn't one of the four comrade.
I deplore learning unless it's the NY Post
Quote from: The Sultan on July 23, 2025, 09:28:08 AMHopefully PBS isn't one of the four comrade.
PBS in 2025 is interesting. I don't think I know anyone who watches PBS programming as an adult anymore, I feel like the demo of my grandparents (Post-War/Pre-Boomer) was the last that I remember actively tuning in. I remember watching Antiques Roadshow and Rick Steves with my grandma and my grandfather was devoted to McLaughlin Group and Wall Street Week (always thought Louis Rukeyser looked like George Wasthington).
However, at the same time, I think its at its peak for kid focused programming. I watched Sesame Street and others as a kid, not in small part due to lack of other kid focused programming without the explosion of cable. But now, even with tons of streaming options, YouTube, and a bunch of stuff on Disney/Nick Kids, PBS Kids has some of the absolute best stuff out there.
Quote from: JWags85 on July 23, 2025, 12:32:48 PMPBS in 2025 is interesting. I don't think I know anyone who watches PBS programming as an adult anymore, I feel like the demo of my grandparents (Post-War/Pre-Boomer) was the last that I remember actively tuning in. I remember watching Antiques Roadshow and Rick Steves with my grandma and my grandfather was devoted to McLaughlin Group and Wall Street Week (always thought Louis Rukeyser looked like George Wasthington).
However, at the same time, I think its at its peak for kid focused programming. I watched Sesame Street and others as a kid, not in small part due to lack of other kid focused programming without the explosion of cable. But now, even with tons of streaming options, YouTube, and a bunch of stuff on Disney/Nick Kids, PBS Kids has some of the absolute best stuff out there.
Sesame Street is WOKE AS F.
I seriously cannot remember the last time I turned on network TV (for anything other than sports). 15 or more years, for sure.
Quote from: JWags85 on July 23, 2025, 12:32:48 PMPBS in 2025 is interesting. I don't think I know anyone who watches PBS programming as an adult anymore, I feel like the demo of my grandparents (Post-War/Pre-Boomer) was the last that I remember actively tuning in.
Just last night I watched an episode of NOVA on whale evolution. They also have a pretty good series on the Roosevelts that I have been watching as well.
But the problem is they'll throw something like Masterpiece Theatre in there and I'm tuning out.
I don't understand why Sesame Street is still in production.
I mean .. after 56 years, haven't they pretty much covered the entire alphabet?
It's not like we're discovering new letters.
If you showed any random 20 year old episode, no 4-year-old is going to notice.
And not to mention .. I bet their viewership is down 95%. My kids barely watched -- so many other shows caught their attention.
I watch PBS. I am watching the rerun of the Roosevelts for the umpteenth time, learn something new each time. It makes me wish for leaders like them, but I digress. I love Call the Midwife and All Creatures Great and Small. I do catch things like Nova but not all the time. Ken Burns has a series coming this fall on the American Revolution that I am eagerly awaiting.,
While I am not into mysteries, I have many friends who watch the ones on PBS, as well as on other networks.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 23, 2025, 04:33:00 PMI don't understand why Sesame Street is still in production.
I mean .. after 56 years, haven't they pretty much covered the entire alphabet?
It's not like we're discovering new letters.
If you showed any random 20 year old episode, no 4-year-old is going to notice.
And not to mention .. I bet their viewership is down 95%. My kids barely watched -- so many other shows caught their attention.
This is a fair point. My son loves Sesame Street, but literally the only way to differentiate between episodes over the last decade is assorted musical guests who were popular at the time and not so much now, and one of the main human actors who has probably gained 100 lbs during his long run on the show.
I don't agree with the viewership numbers though. Over the last year, Ive been to Sesame Street sections at 2 different theme parks and a Sesame Street live show. All 3 were packed with kids under the age of 8 who were clearly huge into Sesame Street and not just there cause it was a kid focused area.
I think the aforementioned PBS Kids programming/app and Sesame Street being on HBO Max have had a big impact the last few years, more so than a decade or so ago.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on July 23, 2025, 04:33:00 PMI don't understand why Sesame Street is still in production.
I mean .. after 56 years, haven't they pretty much covered the entire alphabet?
It's not like we're discovering new letters.
If you showed any random 20 year old episode, no 4-year-old is going to notice.
And not to mention .. I bet their viewership is down 95%. My kids barely watched -- so many other shows caught their attention.
You could not possibly be any more wrong about the bolded. The pace and production value of Sesame Street on the recent HBO episodes compared to episodes from even just a decade ago is radically different. My kids (4 & 7) have avidly watched those at times of their childhood, but if I try to put an old episode of those (or god forbid, Mr. Rogers, which I grew up on) they will become disinterested in minutes and either change the channel or go do something else.
Children's programming has evolved as much, if not more so, than any other medium. My first thought reading this thread was that one of the things hugely denting late night is likely TikTok and other algorithm based apps that are designed to just keep users scrolling. Instead of laying down and putting Colbert on, viewers are just scrolling their phones in bed for an hour before going to sleep. I think this somewhat captures the change in viewing habits:
Quote from: JWags85 on July 22, 2025, 11:59:19 AMI'm trying to find the tweet/article I saw, but early on, one of Colbert's strengths was the younger relative age of his viewer. Recently the average age has spiked up to 67/68, I believe.
I'm really trying to be less online and less in my phone, and it's made me realize how much pretty much anyone under the age of 60 is just constantly absorbed. People are scrolling more, watching shorter pieces of content that only have to keep them engaged for 3-5 minutes, then moving on to the next.
Which comes back to children's programming. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bluey is the most popular kids show going. The average episodes are only 6-8 minutes long. There's only one episode (The Sign) that is more than 10 minutes, and that mammoth episode checks in at 28 minutes. Attention spans are shorter, which has led to shorter and shorter pieces of programming. I think the death of late night is because people just aren't willing to sit for something that long. Like MU82 said, watch the monologue and shut it off.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2025, 09:32:53 AMYou could not possibly be any more wrong about the bolded. The pace and production value of Sesame Street on the recent HBO episodes compared to episodes from even just a decade ago is radically different. My kids (4 & 7) have avidly watched those at times of their childhood, but if I try to put an old episode of those (or god forbid, Mr. Rogers, which I grew up on) they will become disinterested in minutes and either change the channel or go do something else.
Children's programming has evolved as much, if not more so, than any other medium. My first thought reading this thread was that one of the things hugely denting late night is likely TikTok and other algorithm based apps that are designed to just keep users scrolling. Instead of laying down and putting Colbert on, viewers are just scrolling their phones in bed for an hour before going to sleep. I think this somewhat captures the change in viewing habits:
I'm really trying to be less online and less in my phone, and it's made me realize how much pretty much anyone under the age of 60 is just constantly absorbed. People are scrolling more, watching shorter pieces of content that only have to keep them engaged for 3-5 minutes, then moving on to the next.
Which comes back to children's programming. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bluey is the most popular kids show going. The average episodes are only 6-8 minutes long. There's only one episode (The Sign) that is more than 10 minutes, and that mammoth episode checks in at 28 minutes. Attention spans are shorter, which has led to shorter and shorter pieces of programming. I think the death of late night is because people just aren't willing to sit for something that long. Like MU82 said, watch the monologue and shut it off.
I certainly hope my surgeon's attention span is longer than 6-8 minutes.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 24, 2025, 10:02:06 AMI certainly hope my surgeon's attention span is longer than 6-8 minutes.
It's not. After 8 minutes, he lets the med students take turns while he plays games on his phone. Occasionally he'll glance at what they have done and, if necessary, suggest ways they can correct their errors. I cannot believe that you do not know this.
Eight minutes is a lot longer than the attention span of many scoopers when they read posts that do not align with their views.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2025, 09:32:53 AMYou could not possibly be any more wrong about the bolded. The pace and production value of Sesame Street on the recent HBO episodes compared to episodes from even just a decade ago is radically different. My kids (4 & 7) have avidly watched those at times of their childhood, but if I try to put an old episode of those (or god forbid, Mr. Rogers, which I grew up on) they will become disinterested in minutes and either change the channel or go do something else.
Children's programming has evolved as much, if not more so, than any other medium. My first thought reading this thread was that one of the things hugely denting late night is likely TikTok and other algorithm based apps that are designed to just keep users scrolling. Instead of laying down and putting Colbert on, viewers are just scrolling their phones in bed for an hour before going to sleep. I think this somewhat captures the change in viewing habits:
I'm really trying to be less online and less in my phone, and it's made me realize how much pretty much anyone under the age of 60 is just constantly absorbed. People are scrolling more, watching shorter pieces of content that only have to keep them engaged for 3-5 minutes, then moving on to the next.
Which comes back to children's programming. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bluey is the most popular kids show going. The average episodes are only 6-8 minutes long. There's only one episode (The Sign) that is more than 10 minutes, and that mammoth episode checks in at 28 minutes. Attention spans are shorter, which has led to shorter and shorter pieces of programming. I think the death of late night is because people just aren't willing to sit for something that long. Like MU82 said, watch the monologue and shut it off.
the SAT recognized the shorter attention spans and dramatically cut the length of reading passages from 500-700 words to 25-150, basically the length of a tweet. I asked one of my old MU poli sci professors about this and he said he's seen a significant drop in the ability of his students to read and comprehend longer passages from text. Just wait until these kids get to law school.
I don't know if anyone else remembers this HBO movie, but always enjoyed The Late Shift movie (based on the book). Movie chronicled the Leno/Letterman fight for Carson's spot after he announced he was retiring.
I really enjoy Matt Belloni's work, and he made a great point recently. 20 years ago, a guy like Nate Bargatze would have been an up and coming comic and probably being talked about to host a late night program. Now he can go sell out any arena, make a deal with Netflix for truckloads of cash, and not have to work four/five nights a week, for 40+ weeks a year grinding out a late night talk show. So it's not just the economics with these shows losing money, no reasonably good comic would want to live with that schedule/grind any more.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on July 24, 2025, 10:49:02 AMthe SAT recognized the shorter attention spans and dramatically cut the length of reading passages from 500-700 words to 25-150, basically the length of a tweet. I asked one of my old MU poli sci professors about this and he said he's seen a significant drop in the ability of his students to read and comprehend longer passages from text. Just wait until these kids get to law school.
But the reality is this isn't just kids. It's all of society. Professionals in their 30s, 40s, 50s have had similar attention span declines. I've seen a few conflicting numbers, but generally studies show Americans average between 6 hours 38 minutes to 7 hours 3 minutes of screen time per day. That's close to half their waking hours.
https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/screen-time-statistics
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/screen-time-stats
https://www.magnetaba.com/blog/average-screen-time-statistics
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2025, 11:26:05 AMBut the reality is this isn't just kids. It's all of society. Professionals in their 30s, 40s, 50s have had similar attention span declines. I've seen a few conflicting numbers, but generally studies show Americans average between 6 hours 38 minutes to 7 hours 3 minutes of screen time per day. That's close to half their waking hours.
https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/screen-time-statistics
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/screen-time-stats
https://www.magnetaba.com/blog/average-screen-time-statistics
If you send me an email that's more than two paragraphs, it's getting thoroughly skimmed. (Unless you are my boss.)
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on July 24, 2025, 10:17:59 AMIt's not. After 8 minutes, he lets the med students take turns while he plays games on his phone. Occasionally he'll glance at what they have done and, if necessary, suggest ways they can correct their errors. I cannot believe that you do not know this.
Eight minutes is a lot longer than the attention span of many scoopers when they read posts that do not align with their views.
Stopped reading after "It's not."
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on July 24, 2025, 10:17:59 AMIt's not. After 8 minutes, he lets the med students take turns while he plays games on his phone. Occasionally he'll glance at what they have done and, if necessary, suggest ways they can correct their errors. I cannot believe that you do not know this.
Eight minutes is a lot longer than the attention span of many scoopers when they read posts that do not align with their views.
Gotta read all of the way to the end to find the most mockable nuggets.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2025, 09:32:53 AMYou could not possibly be any more wrong about the bolded. The pace and production value of Sesame Street on the recent HBO episodes compared to episodes from even just a decade ago is radically different. My kids (4 & 7) have avidly watched those at times of their childhood, but if I try to put an old episode of those (or god forbid, Mr. Rogers, which I grew up on) they will become disinterested in minutes and either change the channel or go do something else.
Yea, not that you're disagree with me, but clarifying I meant more the "new generation". Nina and Chris have been the 2 mainstays since the mid 2010s, if I recall, which is also when it moved to HBO, and anything in that time frame is interchangeable. Occasionally, my son was into song compilations from a bunch of episodes on YouTube and it was a STARK difference when any of the older stuff showed up.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 24, 2025, 09:32:53 AMI'm really trying to be less online and less in my phone, and it's made me realize how much pretty much anyone under the age of 60 is just constantly absorbed. People are scrolling more, watching shorter pieces of content that only have to keep them engaged for 3-5 minutes, then moving on to the next.
Its really so bad and something I desperately need to work on myself. My screen addiction is horrific. I was just thinking specifically about reading the other day. I don't read as many books as I used to, but I still read a ton. I HATE to not know, so I'm constantly looking up articles or entries about stuff I'm unfamiliar with when I encounter it. But my reading is even fractured. I'll have 75 tabs open on my computer or phone at a time. I'll read articles in 3 min clips, go away from it, come back and finish it later or in another 2 clips. It gets the job done I suppose, but its terrible for my attention span/focus.
Quote from: JWags85 on July 24, 2025, 12:50:06 PMYea, not that you're disagree with me, but clarifying I meant more the "new generation". Nina and Chris have been the 2 mainstays since the mid 2010s, if I recall, which is also when it moved to HBO, and anything in that time frame is interchangeable. Occasionally, my son was into song compilations from a bunch of episodes on YouTube and it was a STARK difference when any of the older stuff showed up.
Not disagreeing, I definitely think we're on the same page. Anything more than 10 years old, whether the stuff from the 1970s-2000s that actually looks old or that random 10-15 years when they had crappy animation during the PBS cost-cutting years and my kids will just tune out.
Also, agree that it's still popular. Same that we've done two Sesame Street Live shows and went to Sesame Place outside Philly and they were wildly popular with young kids. And I credit that to HBO. The production level this last decade has been really high and it's well tailored to modern attention spans with 2-4 minute skits throughout the show. I'm sure some will laugh, but the HBO Sesame Street intro is some of the best visual television I've ever seen. Cookie Monster's fur looks like you could pet him on the screen, Abby's magic dust looks like it's coming at you, it's very visually appealing and why I think the franchise still has legs today. It would've been dead without HBO turning it around, and they did it very well.