Terry Gross (3:24)

I have an ethical question for you, Wahini. Is it ethical to mislead a chatbot and ask questions under a kind of false pretense?

Wahini Vara (3:35)

100%. I say that as a journalist, with the full expertise and authority of my role as a journalist. You know, I think so. I think our relationship with these products is really different from our relationships with other human beings. I feel really strongly about, obviously, things like accuracy and ethical standards in my daily life when I talk to other human beings, whether it's as a reporter or not. What I think is really interesting about technologies, whether it's ChatGPT or something else, is the way in which we can sort of play with these ideas of how people are supposed to communicate in ways that are, I think, pretty interesting and freeing.

Terry Gross (4:15)

After you got some feedback on the first couple of chapters, you. You asked the chatbot if it's okay to share a couple of more chapters. And ChatGPT answered, Absolutely. Feel free to share more chapters. I'm looking forward to reading them and continuing our discussion. And that gets to a very fundamental question that you asked ChatGPT about, which is, when a chatbot uses the first person I, what exactly does it mean? Because it is not a person. It is not an I. It is artificial intelligence. It's a computer program. It's, you know, it's basically a machine. So what. What is the I? What does that mean that chatbot's using I?

Wahini Vara (4:56)

Yeah, I mean, I would argue that that I is a fictional creation of the company OpenAI that created ChatGPT. So we think about these technologies, I think, sometimes, as being very separate from human experience and human desires and goals. But in fact, there's this company called OpenAI, whose investors want it to be very financially successful. And the way to be financially successful is to get a lot of people using a product. The way to get a lot of people using a product is to make people feel comfortable with the product, to trust the product and one device that a company might use in order to do that is. Is to use. Have the product use language that makes you feel a bit like you're talking to another person.

Terry Gross (5:47)

So in reading ChatGPT's responses to your chapters, one of the biases you noticed was that it suggested you add more about the positive side of AI and its creators. I thought that was interesting. Did that say to you that it was revealing the Chatbots bias or pointing out your negative bias, or both?

Wahini Vara (6:10)

It's such an interesting question, and it gets to the heart, I think, of what is problematic about these technologies, because I can't claim to have any way of knowing why it said what it did. So basically, I fed it these chapters about big technology companies, and I said, what feedback do you have for me? And it said, you could be more positive. And then later it goes on to provide these sample paragraphs it thinks I should include in the book about how Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, is a visionary leader who's also a pragmatist. Like this really glowing stuff. It would be fun to be able, and it would support a strong critique to be able to say, oh, clearly OpenAI has built this product in such a way that it's deliberately having the products about this propaganda about its CEO that's positive. It's certainly possible that that's the case, but there are all kinds of other explanations for it too. It's possible that the language that the technology behind the chatbot absorbed in order to learn, quote unquote, how to produce language happens to be somewhat biased toward people like Sam Altman. There are all kinds of possible reasons, and we just don't know. But I think that not knowing is a problem.

Terry Gross (7:31)

Did you use any of the Chatbots advice about balancing your reactions to AI and including more positive aspects of it?

Wahini Vara (7:42)

I didn't. So one thing that I wanted to be really thoughtful about was actually not writing a book that was influenced in any way by the rhetoric of the chatbot that I was then conversing with about the book. And so I wrote the entire book, and after doing that, I fed it to the chatbot. And certainly later there were these edits that I made in the editing process with my editors at my publishing company, but those were not in response to integrating anything that the chatbot said, because on a philosophical level, I did not want to integrate anything the chatbot suggested.

Terry Gross (8:19)

So you asked the chatbot about how it seemed programmed to flatter and to sound empathetic and kind, because before it gives you any kind of criticism ever. It tells you, like, this is very well written and this brings out like a combination of like, tech history with your personal history and oh, I have to say, let me just interject here that just to see what happened, I asked ChatGPT what questions would Terry Gross ask Wahini Vara in a Fresh Air interview? And it was very flattering to me. It praised me as a good interviewer with, like, sensitivity and deep questions. So just another example that it can be very flattering. So you ask it about how it seemed programmed to flatter and to sound empathetic and kind. And it responded, the way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading. And I thought that's so true. It can be helpful and misleading. And I thought maybe the chatbot is actually very transparent.

Wahini Vara (9:32)

So OpenAI has said that ChatGPT and its other products are designed to foster trust, to appear helpful. So it says those things explicitly and right by saying, this is how I function. Yeah, I guess ChatGPT is being as transparent as it can be. I don't know that I would trust it to always be as transparent as that or even to know how to be transparent. Right. Because it's just a machine that's generating words. It has no way of definitively always generating material that's even accurate. Right. And so I have fairly low confidence that that transparency is always going to be there. I am curious, though, about what you thought of the questions that it produced. Whether any of them were like, at all interesting to you?

Terry Gross (10:22)

They were kind of pretty broad, general questions. They all touched on themes in your book. Yeah, they were all subjects I wanted to explore, but they were so, like, broad in nature that, you know, there was no, there was no personality. I'm not saying like, well, look at my personality, but there was no point of view and there was no follow up. It was just like a list of questions, but there was no follow up to try to go deeper after the answer. And I know it wouldn't have heard your answer, but still, when I prepare an interview, like one question leads to the next question to go deeper into that answer. And there was nothing like that.

Wahini Vara (11:06)

Yeah, well, what's interesting, I think about that and what I experienced too, using ChatGPT in the context that I did, is that there's something fundamental about human communication about, like two people talking to each other or the fact that right now, for example, you and I are talking to each other. But I imagine you always also have an awareness of the fact that eventually millions of other people will hear the same conversation. And so both you and I are keeping in mind, like, this kind of complex idea about who we're communicating to, what the communication is for, and like our own backgrounds and experiences and ways of communicating come into it. And a chatbot is like, not doing any of that. It seems like it is because the words it produces sound kind of like the language humans use, but it's not using language in any way that's remotely like how we do.

Terry Gross (12:03)

So in 2021, when you wrote your essay Ghosts, which went viral, it was published initially in the Believer. It was adapted into a this American Life story. And the premise of this was you had wanted to write about the death of your sister. She was diagnosed with, with cancer, Ewing sarcoma, when you were a freshman in high school, and she was a junior and she died when you were both in college and you felt like you just didn't have the words to describe how bereft you were, what a life changing event this was in every way. And so in 2021, while you were playing around with a predecessor of ChatGPT, you asked it to help you write the essay. And I want you to describe what your process was.

Wahini Vara (12:52)

This was before ChatGPT was out. This was before AI was a big part of our lives. But I got early access to this AI model and the way it worked was that there was this webpage and it had a big white box and you could type in that box and then press a button and it would seem to complete the thought for you, it complete the text for you. And so I'd been playing around with it for a while. I would just like I put in the beginning of Moby Dick, which is my favorite novel, and hit the button just to see what would happen. I did all kinds of stuff like that. And then I started to think about what the promise was that a technology like this was making. And it seemed to me that the promise was that it could produce words for you when you were at a loss for words. And because I'm a writer, I tend to want to make the effort to come up with my own words to describe my experiences or things I've observed. But there was this thing, and continues to be this thing that I have a really hard time finding words for, which is the death of my sister and my grief over it. I mean, I think anybody who has experienced death or any other kind of loss will be familiar with that feeling of, of not knowing how to come up with the words to describe this experience that was so profound. And so I kind of took this technology somewhat at face value. I thought to myself, well, if this is the promise this technology is making, let me try to get it to communicate for me about my sister's death. And so I sat down and I wrote this sentence, which was when I was in my freshman year of high school and my sister was in her junior year. She was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma. And then I hit the button, and it produced this story that really had very little to do with my actual experience and my actual sister. And the last line of that little, you know, three or four paragraph story it produced was, she's doing great now. Which was like. It was like the opposite of what I wanted this chatbot to do, right? Like it was producing a lie, a falsehood that was sort of like the worst possible falsehood that it could produce, right? Because my sister. My challenge was trying to communicate the reality of what had happened. And this was like the opposite of that reality. And so I thought, okay, well, I know enough about these technologies to know that if I give it more words and hit the button, then it'll have more to go off of and it might match more closely my experience. And so I erased everything it wrote, kept my first sentence. I wrote a little more, hit the button again, and in some ways, it did get a little closer. And I did that over and over, sort of deleting what the chatbot wrote every time. And the strange thing that happened was that as I did that, the technology did get closer to describing something that resembled grief or my experience of it in a way that was, like, weirdly moving to me and impressive to me. But ultimately, this machine was not me. And so it couldn't say anything authentic about my actual experience. And so I realized eventually, toward the end of writing this thing, that there was nothing that the technology could come up with that was actually going to fulfill my desire to be able to communicate, because it wasn't. It wasn't me. It wasn't doing the thing that I wanted to do, which was to communicate myself on my own. And so, ultimately, I published that experiment as an essay. And I thought it was so interesting how it showed both the ways in which a product like this can legitimately produce language that somebody can find moving and intellectually stimulating and interesting and yet be doing something very different from what a human is doing when we're trying to communicate.

Terry Gross (16:58)

Well, a couple of things. Early on, when you were giving it very little information, it twice had you as, like, very athletic. I don't know if you are or not, but, like, in one, you're like a lacrosse player, and in the other, it's like you run for, like, miles and miles and miles. And it also seemed to have a bias toward a happy ending. You know, she's fine now. It's like he watched too many mediocre movies.

Wahini Vara (17:23)

Yeah.

Terry Gross (17:24)

I mean, notice how I personalize that. Like, he walked. And I genderized it totally.

Wahini Vara (17:29)

And it's interesting that you genderize it, too, because in that second one, the one where it thought that I was a runner, it seemed to think that I, the writer, was male. So I think all kinds of things going on. But then later, it realizes that I'm female and then ends up generating this meet cute between me and this, like, handsome professor who helps me deal with my grief. And so there are all these tropes and biases that are embedded in what it's producing.

Terry Gross (18:00)

So I want to give an example of some writing that is, like, very dramatic, but also, like, very puzzling, very odd. So this is how hard it is to describe your sister and what you felt for her.

Wahini Vara (18:15)

This is the technologies, right?

Terry Gross (18:18)

This is AI speaking here. This is AI writing on your behalf.

Wahini Vara (18:21)

Exactly. So I can't describe her to you, but I can describe what it felt like to have her die. It felt like my life was an accident or worse, a mistake. I'd made a mistake in being born, and now to correct it, I would have to die. I'd have to die, and someone else, a stranger, would have to live in my place. I was that stranger. I still am. What?

Terry Gross (18:52)

Like, it sounds very dark and interesting, but I'm not sure it makes any sense. What do you think?

Wahini Vara (18:59)

It's funny because I think so much of the experience of reading is about making your own meaning as a reader. And so, for me, I think there's something that, like, in my reading of it, is kind of poignant. I read it as saying, when somebody who's very close to you, whose existence is a big part of your identity, dies, you have to then rebuild a new version of yourself. Right? Like a kind of new identity. So I read this as talking about the period after my sister died, and I had to become a new version of myself. And I was learning who that new version of myself was. And so that person was kind of like a stranger. And in a way, there's a sense of estrangement that continues. What's interesting is, like, I read it that way, but I read it that way because I'm a reader making meaning from language that a technology generated with no particular intent, no knowledge of what my experience of grief was.

Terry Gross (20:02)

I'm thinking of how weird it is that you and I are doing literary criticism of AI. It must sound a little strange, don't you think?

Wahini Vara (20:10)

Yeah, I agree. And I think the funny thing about it is that we're two human beings trying to make meaning out of something that is fundamentally, one could argue, meaningless in that the entity that created the language wasn't doing it with any consciousness. Right. Any intent behind it.

Terry Gross (20:29)

Well, let's take another short break here. If you're just joining us, my guess is Wahini Vara. Her new book is called Selfhood in the Digital Age. There's a lot more to talk about, so stick around. We'll be right back. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH air. So based on your interactions with AI, what are your thoughts about Chatbot and the use of AI for writing or editing? It wasn't that useful for you? It was very instructive about AI. But do you think there are other people that it would be very useful for?

Wahini Vara (21:03)

There was a study out of Cornell a couple of years ago that I found really interesting where they had some people write an essay about social media just on their own. And then they gave these two other groups special AI models. For one group, they gave them an AI model that was predisposed to produce positive opinions about social media. And then they gave this other group an AI model that was predisposed to produce negative opinions about social media. What they found was that when people wrote essays with the help, quote unquote of these AI models, they were twice as likely to produce essays that reflected the quote unquote opinion of the AI model. It seems from that research and other research that's emerged since then that even if we are using these AI companies products to edit our work or ask for feedback on our work, there's a real danger that the responses that we're going to get are going to change our writing in fundamental ways that we might not even be aware of.

Terry Gross (22:14)

Your father uses AI, including to write haiku. So how does he use it and what do you think of that?

Wahini Vara (22:20)

Oh my gosh, we could do a whole interview about my dad's use of AI. My dad has recently started sending me messages on WhatsApp where the whole text of the message is something he asked ChatGPT to write. So for example, he recently sent me one that was it's hard to decide whether to retire in Canada the United States or India. Here are some pros and cons for each option. So he never said to me, I'm wondering whether I should move to India or Canada for my retirement. He just sent me that response. And so the subtext, like what he's communicating through ChatGPT is the thing that's actually unsaid. And so there are a lot of people out there. I think my dad is one of many people who want to communicate something. My dad was explaining to me on the phone the other day that he's not a writer, he can't communicate these things himself. But if he gives chatgpt enough of a prompt, it can communicate the thing he wants it to communicate. And there are things that I find problematic about that, for sure.

Terry Gross (23:27)

You know, AI in some ways is being used like a personal Cyrano de Bergerac. Like you want to express your love for someone, you don't have the words, so you have this other guy write it as if you're saying it and signing your name to it.

Wahini Vara (23:40)

Yeah.

Terry Gross (23:42)

So how do you use AI for real in your life?

Wahini Vara (23:46)

So the truth is that I use AI in very limited ways. The fact that I fed large portions of this book to ChatGPT might give people the impression that I'm some huge AI super user, which I'm not. I'm a journalist who writes about AI. So to the extent that that's part of my work, I think it's really important for me to engage with the products. At the same time, I'm really concerned about all the things we don't know about how these products function and how the companies behind these products might ultimately use everything we're putting into their products to exploit us, to expand their own wealth and power. I sometimes use ChatGPT. A use that comes to mind is like, if there's a word on the tip of my tongue, I'll go to ChatGPT and write a sentence with a blank in it and kind of explain the gist of what I'm looking for. And one thing it's pretty good at is coming up with what that word was that was on the tip of my tongue. So that's a small example of how I use it. When I do use it, I tend not to log into it. I tend to just go to ChatGPT, use the interface without logging in, so that my use of it is not associated with my account. I do still have an account because, again, as a journalist, I want to be able to have access to these products.

Terry Gross (25:11)

So I'm unclear, since I've only used it twice, each time to ask good questions, to help me understand how it worked for the interview I was about to do, as I did in your case, because AI is at the center of the interview. So I wanted to ask it some meta questions. Yeah, but I used it for free. I don't have an account. I just put my question in and it came up with stuff. What are some of the ways you expect it to be monetized in the future that it's not monetized for yet? Because I feel like being able to use it at all for free is kind of like a teaser until, like, no one can use it for free. I'm just speculating. I have no knowledge.

Wahini Vara (25:54)

Yeah, so I'm speculating to an extent, too. But these products are really, really expensive to build. And so investors are putting a lot of money companies themselves are putting a lot of money into building these products. And some small number, some small percentage of users are paying for premium versions of the product. But that's just not enough to turn these companies into the enormous businesses that the investors are betting that they are going to be. And so that leaves us in this really interesting situation in 2025 where the companies are starting to say, okay, we're going to need to figure out how to monetize our free users, is how they put it. And the CFO of OpenAI said to the Financial Times last year that the company is looking into advertising as an option. Other AI companies, and here I'm talking about big companies like Google and Microsoft, also seem to be thinking about this. So this is speculation, but here's one way in which it would be obvious for AI companies to monetize our use of the products. When people trust these products a lot, they end up going to these products with all kinds of personal information. Their marital struggles, their conflict with their boss at work. And while we focus a lot on the question of, like, how accurate or unbiased or useful the information is that these products are giving us, I think something we kind of forget about is everything we're providing to the makers of these products in asking them these questions about really intimate details of our lives. And so eventually, these companies are going to know a lot about who we are, about what kind of language can be used with each specific user to persuade them of something, to influence them in a particular way. And that puts these companies in a position to, for example, recommend products to us using language that's geared toward us specifically and our circumstances and our vulnerabilities, and ultimately Collect this huge database of all of us who are using these products, who we are and what makes us tick.

Terry Gross (28:17)

Yeah. And it sounds like, you know, as you're saying that AI and the companies that own the AI products are going to know a lot more than, say, knowledge based on what I searched for on Google or the books I bought on Amazon or the TV shows I'm watching on Netflix, or the algorithms are going to recommend what I want to buy or watch next.

Wahini Vara (28:38)

Exactly. Yeah.

Terry Gross (28:40)

There's parts of your book where you describe your life through your searches, because you don't like the fact that Google has a lot of information on you based on your searches, but you do like the fact that your searches have been archived. You can access that archive and learn about where you were at different periods of your life based on what you searched for. How did you start thinking of searches as a record of your life?

Wahini Vara (29:10)

So the first thing that I ever wrote that ended up in this book was this chapter made up entirely of my Google searches. I wrote it in 2019. I had been covering tech for a long time by that point. And so I knew that Google kept records of our searches unless we turned off its ability to do that. And I could have sworn I'd turn it off, but I hadn't. And so for the past, you know, 15 years, off and on, but mostly on Google, had been collecting all my searches, realizing that it freaked me out on one level. But then also I found it fascinating because as a writer, as a journalist, I'm always interested in archives, right? And I used to keep a diary when I was a kid, but I haven't in a long time. And it occurred to me that probably the best possible archive of my life was the archive of everything I'd searched for over the years. And it made me think about the way in which, like, it's sort of too simplistic to say these companies exploit us and we have no say in the matter, or to do what the companies say in turn, which is, you're only using these products because they're useful to you. You could stop using them tomorrow if you really wanted to. I think there are these, like, very binary positions. And I think the reality is that the exploitation and the usefulness totally go hand in hand with all of these products. And I think what makes that really uncomfortable for us as users is that then we have to contend with our own complicity, like our own role in the exploitation that's taking place when these companies, you know, collect our personal information and use it to become more wealthy, to become more powerful, to influence political systems. We have to admit, like, well, that's partly our fault because here we are using these products and giving them permission to keep archives of our lives.

Terry Gross (31:10)

Well, let's take another break here. Let me reintroduce you. If you're just joining us, my guest is Wahini Vara. Her new book is called Selfhood in the Digital Age. We'll be right back. This is FRESH air. Is the Internet and social media making you feel obsolete as a novelist and also worried that all your writing, your essays, your journalism will be appropriated by AI?

Wahini Vara (31:38)

Yeah. I mean, what I would like to think is that we have choices here. And part of the reason that in this book and when I think about my own personal use of these products, I'm so interested in like our choice and agency in the matter is that if it's the case that big technology companies are just going to continue to amass more wealth and power and AI is here and so AI is going to be even bigger in the future and take everything over. Like that suggests that we don't have a choice in the matter. Right. However, if we say we have a choice in the matter and we can actually decide to choose a different future because we are unhappy with the one we're currently in, then we can potentially build a future that's different from the one that we're in now. But I think like in 2025, we're in this really interesting crucial period where not as many people are using AI as I think we think. So in the US for example, most people have never tried ChatGPT still in 2025. And so we're in this interesting position where we can actually decide as individuals, as communities, as societies, the extent to which we want AI to be a part of the future, the extent to which we want AI generating novels or generating something that is going to substitute a newspaper or magazine article or a radio show.

Terry Gross (33:17)

I have to ask you about the spelling bee. A moment of semi fame in your younger years was when you were third in the national spelling Bee. I always wonder what is the point of asking young people to spell obscure words that no one uses and no one even can define? Can you explain that? Because it makes no sense to me.

Wahini Vara (33:41)

Yes. I have so many thoughts on this, Terri. I continue to love spelling. I love language. I think, you know, to get philosophical about it. I think we could ask that question about anything, honestly. I think we could say what's the point of trying to run a three minute mile? Right. Or like I've taken up rock climbing. What's the point of, like, trying to climb to the top of a rock wall when elevators exist? Right?

Terry Gross (34:08)

Yeah.

Wahini Vara (34:08)

And I think it speaks to this thing about AI Too. What's the point of trying to write an essay if AI can write it for you? And I think the point is that we as humans are, like, idiosyncratic, curious creatures, and we created this thing called language that's really important to us. And for me personally, who knows why? I don't know why. I love words. I love language. I love knowing how sounds fit together and produce meaning. Like that feels. That's always been fascinating and meaningful to me. And so, like, I love it because I love it. And I kind of love about spelling that there is. You're right. There is no point, especially in the age of spell check and AI like, there's probably even less of a point than there was in the mid-90s. But strong supporter of spelling. I think everybody should be in spelling bees.

Terry Gross (34:59)

Yes. But the question, though, was about asking young people to spell words that nobody ever uses that no one can even define really obscure words. Do you take pleasure in spelling words that you didn't even know existed?

Wahini Vara (35:13)

Yes. I love words that I didn't even know existed. I take pleasure in spelling them. I take pleasure in, like, knowing that they exist when previously I didn't know that they exist. I know I love it, and I think they do, too. I think there's this misconception about spelling bee kids that, like, they're all doing it because their parents are making them so that they can get into college 10 years later or something. But every. I wrote an article about spelling bee Kids in 2018. I think it was for the magazine Harper's. And so I got to spend time with, like, a more recent generation of spelling kids. And the thing that I think they had in common with the spelling kids I knew in the mid-90s is just, like, this genuine, idiosyncratic, strange love for words and how they're put together.

Terry Gross (35:59)

So you place third in the national spelling bee. What was your losing word?

Wahini Vara (36:04)

Oh, Terri. The losing word was periplus paraplus. Can you spell it?

Terry Gross (36:11)

Yeah, but again, I've never heard the word before. I have no idea what it means. I would spell it paraplus or paraplus because one sounds like an animal and the other sounds like an amount.

Wahini Vara (36:21)

Okay, so the word is periplus. There is an alternate pronunciation, which is periplus.

Terry Gross (36:28)

Okay. So I would spell it P A R A P L U S or P L U S S. Or if it's paraplus, P L, O U S, G, S, E. Oh, I know. But this isn't the spelling bee, so I'm allowed to do this.

Wahini Vara (36:47)

You're out. You're out.

Terry Gross (36:48)

I'm out. After three or four tries, I'm out. Okay.

Wahini Vara (36:51)

You're still out. Yeah. So it's, it's P E R I.

Terry Gross (36:54)

You said paraplus.

Wahini Vara (36:56)

I know. I think that's fair. It might be my pronunciation, but it is P E R I, P L U S. And I spelled it P E R I P L U S.

Terry Gross (37:07)

S E. Okay, you got a little fancy there. You over fancified it.

Wahini Vara (37:12)

Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Terry Gross (37:15)

And what does it mean?

Wahini Vara (37:16)

It has to do with like the. I don't know, the. I don't remember the exact definition, but it has to do with like the log that is kept on ships when they circumnavigate. Like when they're, when they're trying to see where the borders of islands or continents are.

Terry Gross (37:33)

Well, I think it's only fitting that we started the conversation doing a literary critique of AI's writing. And we're ending it with spelling.

Wahini Vara (37:44)

It's amazing. Perfect. Full circle.

Terry Gross (37:46)

Yes. Thank you. It was really great to talk with you. I really enjoyed it. And thank you again for coming in spite of the fact that you are windshield shattered on the way over. I should let you go and get it repaired before it rains or whatever.

Wahini Vara (38:03)

I appreciate it. This was so fun. It was a real honor to get to talk to you.

Terry Gross (38:07)

Terry Wahini Vara's new book is called Selfhood in the digital age. Our TV critic David Biancooli will talk about the significance of CBS's cancellation of the Late show with Stephen Colbert after a break. This is FRESH air. Last week, CBS canceled the Late show with Stephen Colbert, although it will remain on the air until next May. Our TV critic David Biancooli says that even in an era when broadcast late night talk shows are viewed less than ever before, this amounts to a significant moment in television history.

David Biancooli (38:45)

Most of the time, the landscape of late night TV seems almost exactly like that. A landscape ever familiar, never changing. But once in a great while, the tectonic plates shift suddenly and what we see becomes notably different. Johnny Carson ruled late night on NBC for an amazing 30 years, and when he stepped down, the network should have given the Tonight show to David Letterman. Instead, Letterman defected to CBS and launched that network's talk show franchise, the Late show, which Stephen Colbert eventually inherited. Conan O' Brien had the Tonight show briefly, but walked away to protest NBC's plan to present the Tonight show in a later time slot so that a show by Jay Leno could air first. Jay Leno ended up with the Tonight show and the time slot, then turned it over to Jimmy Fallon, while another Jimmy, Jimmy Kimmel, established his own mini empire at abc. And for a long time now, that's been it. Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel in late night with Seth Meyers checking in on NBC even later. But a late night TV earthquake, the first big one since the 1990s, set off tremors last week that are bound to have repercussions for years. Returning from a two week vacation, Colbert opened his late show on Monday, July 14, by noting what Paramount, the parent company of CBS, had been up to.

Stephen Colbert (40:11)

While I was on vacation, my parent corporation, Paramount, paid Donald Trump a $16 million settlement over his 60 Minutes lawsuit. As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended and I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company. But just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.

David Biancooli (40:31)

That was a soft enough jab, kind of like when Letterman would poke fun at his corporate bosses at General Electric once that company acquired n. But then getting deeper into the weeds and the controversy, Colbert said this.

Stephen Colbert (40:46)

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's owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance.

David Biancooli (41:06)

Three days later, Colbert opened his program, seated at his desk, informing his studio audience and the viewers at home of a stunning piece of news.

Stephen Colbert (41:15)

Before we start the show, I want to let you know something that I found out just last night. Next year will be our last season. The network will be ending the Late show in May.

Wahini Vara (41:26)

And.

Stephen Colbert (41:34)

Yeah, I share your feelings. It's not just the end of our show, but it's the end of the Late show on cbs. I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away.

David Biancooli (41:44)

There are several issues here, and some are less clear cut than others. Whether the decision to drop Colbert and his program indeed was a direct reaction to Colbert's jokes and observations about his bosses and Donald Trump is debatable. CBS said the cancellation was a purely financial decision and the show's annual losses have been reported as an estimated $40 million. By comparison, back in the glory days of the Tonight Show, Johnny Carson's late night show was responsible for almost a quarter of NBC's profits. It also is arguable whether the timing, with Paramount needing federal approval for that proposed merger, is a major factor. When you consider the recent cases of network news organizations bowing to lawsuits and other pressures at both ABC and cbs, it's not an unreasonable conjecture. And in terms of presidential administrations putting pressure on comedians critical of their policies, there's plenty of precedent, most famously with CBS back in the 1960s with the firing of the Smothers Brothers. Stephen Colbert isn't being fired, of course, and like David Letterman and Conan o' Brien before him, Colbert is likely to be embraced and rewarded for whatever he does next. But the big loss here, from my view as a TV historian, is that CBS also is throwing out the Late show franchise, which Letterman built from scratch and which, under Colbert's auspices for the next 10 months, will continue to emanate proudly from the Ed Sullivan Theater on Broadway. I'm certain Colbert's final months on cbs, especially his last week, will be very vibrant and quoteworthy. Almost no one I know still watches a late night show on broadcast TV from start to finish. Instead, we all wait for the highlights to start circulating on the Internet or the morning shows the next day. But the secondary reach of those monologues and other clips is significant. They pull many more millions of viewers on average than the late night shows themselves. And CBS and Paramount, by planning to take the Late show out of circulation, is silencing one of its few meaningful remaining CBS broadcast platforms. By not appreciating, defending and nurturing the Late show, or 60 Minutes for that matter, the parent company is making a Paramount error. It's muzzling its best voices and diluting its own future.

Terry Gross (44:16)

David Biancooli is a professor of television studies at Rowan University and the author of Dangerously the Uncensored Story of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, tomorrow on Fresh air. The Trump administration has been pressuring elite universities like Harvard and Columbia with widespread demands and threats of federal funding cuts. So why are they now investigating George Mason University education reporter Katherine Mangan tells us about her investigation and why GMU's president thinks it's driven by a backlash to DEI efforts. I hope you'll join us to keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews. Follow us on Instagram prfreshair. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Anne Maria Bodonado, Lauren Krenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Chaloner, Susan Yakundi, Anna Bauman and John Sheehan. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavey Nesper. Our consulting visual producer is Hope Wilson. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. Our co host is Tanya Moseley. I'm Terry Gross.

Amazon One Medical (45:35)

This message comes from Ollie. Dedicated to helping you prioritize your wellness with solutions that fit seamlessly into your routine, Ollie knows that keeping your immune system healthy is key, which is why they offer women's multi and probiotic mango. And for those occasional nights when sleep is hard to find, Ollie's Sleep Gummies are available. Shop these products and more@ollie.com or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Wahini Vara (46:06)

Congress has approved a White House request to eliminate federal funding for public media. NPR remains committed to our mission of informing the public incre of the world and enriching everyday life. But without federal funding, we are relying on your support now more than ever. Please Give today@donate.NPR.ORG.