This story is unavailable.

The problem with Wilmore’s show for me was the “contributors.” Most were supposedly comics or comedians, but it wasn’t so easy to tell based on their content. Ricky Valez came across as a bitter stoner who hated Hillary Clinton. Jordan Carlos came across as a smug leftist who hated Hillary Clinton. Francesca Ramsey came across as a catty mean girl who hated Hillary Clinton. And it’s tonally jarring to have contributors whose sketch material is consistently bashing specific candidates then re-appear on the show trying to give dispassionate analysis of the political or social topics being discussed. How is a discussion about misogyny in politics supposed to proceed when half the panel was just on-air in a misogynistic sketch about politics?

The segments that were just Wilmore talking about the news were top-notch. Wilmore is smart and funny and I enjoyed his takes on many subjects. But then the panel would appear, and my desire to watch over-entitled Millennials bitch about how bad they think they’ve got it was exceeded by my desire to be entertained, and so I would tune out. And many of Wilmore’s guests were completely squandered in the panel format, when they would have been much better served with a straight 1-on-1 interview with the host himself. Did Wilmore not think he could do a good interview?

Ultimately I think Wilmore’s show was brought down by the 18–35 year old “contributors” that the show tried to rely on to reach the target demographic.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.