The recent suspension and subsequent reinstatement of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel is a clear signal that the long-standing power structures of legacy media are being tested. Audiences are fragmenting, affiliate stations are challenging network authority, and regulators are exerting influence in new ways. These forces are rewriting the rules of broadcast for an industry that, on the surface, looks unchanged.
To break down what it means for the industry at large, we spoke with Howard Homonoff, a media strategist and Senior Advisor for the Media & Entertainment Industry at Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. As a weekly contributor for Forbes and an Adjunct Professor at Fordham's Gabelli School of Business, Homonoff draws on a career that spans corporate law and executive leadership at giants like NBCUniversal and CNBC. He explains that the current media landscape is forcing legacy companies to re-evaluate their entire business model. "We're at a time where there's a perfect storm of pressure on media companies. They have to rethink not just the late-night comedians, but the whole delivery system of content to their consumers," he says.
The first pressure point is fragmentation. In this environment, audiences are far from a captive mass tuning in at a specific time. They are scattered across an infinite menu of options. Homonoff reports that the number of traditional multichannel video homes has dropped from a high of 100 million just over a decade ago to somewhere in the sixties or lower today. At the same time, the internal balance of power is beginning to invert.
An inversion of power: Network affiliates, he explains, are "becoming somewhat more independent, flexing their muscles a bit" on everything from programming to revenue sharing. This inverts the old system, where powerful networks dictated terms to local stations. "On the surface, media companies look the way they always have, with a late-night talk show at 11:30 for example. But it's an enormously different world than when Johnny Carson or Letterman could dominate the airwaves."
Linear illusion: The result is the paradox of the 'linear illusion.' While linear television faces clear pressure, its stubborn value is rooted in logistical convenience for large advertisers, who still find it an efficient way to reach millions at a specific moment. "Linear television is under siege, but for a major advertiser, it still delivers a large audience at a specific moment in time. If you're promoting a movie that opens on Friday, an ad seen the following Tuesday has lost its value," he outlines.
The disconnect between viewership and ad spending is clearly reflected in a reevaluation of star power. The era of networks paying top dollar for marquee news anchors like Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather is fading. "The ad dollars haven't entirely flowed to where the eyes and ears are yet, because the digital universe is still so fragmented. With different measurement systems and technologies, it's not yet a seamless buy for large advertisers," Homonoff observes.
Even more telling is that the market itself is shrinking. CBS plans to exit the 11:30 p.m. slot after Stephen Colbert signs off in May 2026 and TBS never replaced Conan back in 2021. The modern streaming ecosystem is also struggling to produce new, durable star-making vehicles on its own. "The most popular programs on streaming are franchises that created stars a generation ago, like Seinfeld, The Office, and Friends. Very little has been created in recent years that rivals those kinds of star-making vehicles," he says.
The fading network star system is being challenged by one built by creators outside traditional industry walls. Figures like Joe Rogan and Howard Stern have built massive media brands, independent of any network. Their rise reflects a change in audience behavior, where viewer loyalty often lies with specific shows and personalities, not the platforms that host them.
Brand over broadcaster: The resulting "binge and churn" culture elevates the content itself, making it the primary locus of brand loyalty and overshadowing the distribution channel. "People are not loyal to platforms. You've got to give them a reason to have an affinity for your platform. Otherwise, people will just turn on HBO Max for a month to binge Game of Thrones and White Lotus, and then they're out. What are people loyal to in many cases? The programming. That is the brand," Homonoff explains.
Platform paradox: But this path to independence isn't straightforward. New media empires built on platforms like Spotify often rely on the massive reach of the old system as a launchpad. The opportunity for this kind of breakout success is real, but it remains a door open almost exclusively to a select few who have already cultivated a powerful brand. "Take the Kelce brothers. They never had a network show, yet Spotify paid a fortune for their podcast. But they built their brands on the most powerful platform in sports: the NFL. Without that initial launchpad, two funny brothers talking about culture isn't likely to become a major hit," he notes.
Ultimately, the endurance of linear television draws its strength not from cultural dominance, but from the inertia of habit and existing infrastructure. The profitability of this model masks a fundamental vulnerability of a shrinking audience. "Anyone in the linear world who is not investing heavily and developing strategies to reach beyond multichannel video subscription is going to be left behind," he concludes. "That still is a business, it still throws off money, but at the end of the day, that's not a growth-oriented future in any fashion, especially if you're a publicly traded company."
