Who’s your favorite late-night talk show host? Is it Kimmel, or Meyers, or Colbert? When is the last time you’ve tuned in to watch any late-night shows? The usual suspects in this contest share many similarities. They’re mostly men, mostly white and some have been in the game for a little too long. TV has changed since the advent of the internet; talk shows no longer rule the ratings, and ratings are less of an indicator of success. If a re-ignition of late-night talk shows’ prominence is desired, networks better switch things up for audiences to care.

The leading players in the long-running late-night show contest are “Late Night,” “The Late Show” and “The Tonight Show.” The latter is the longest-running talk show of all time, beginning with Steve Allen in 1954. Numerous current hosts have been on the air for quite some time. “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is already on its 20th season. With little diversity, little excitement and too many options, late-night talk shows are in need of a major refurbishment.

The consensus among some younger viewers is that late-night talk shows are just as compelling in clips as in full. It seems there is no necessity to watch these shows live anymore, especially when information about celebrities’ future roles or family life is so public. Why bother hearing about the lives of the rich and famous if they post about their current updates a second later? Besides, I think the whole world is more jaded now than ever before about carving out so much space for celebrities and their egos to run wild on television. Even I — an avid consumer of Hollywood gossip both past and present — recognize the absurdity of networks insisting on interviewing these subjects in a digital age.

“Most of the time, nothing of importance is being discussed … it’s just a way for some actor to promote their movie or for a band to promote their music. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn’t say it’s important,” said Stella Stewart, sophomore English major.

Network TV ratings have plummeted since twenty-five or thirty years ago — a heyday for hosts like Jay Leno and David Letterman — and this decline intensified during COVID-19. The same goes for cable. I understand why. We all do. Streaming rocked the world, and it hasn’t been the same since. And it isn’t merely the innumerable options to watch. Free platforms — most notably YouTube — provide the opportunity to view short clips from current late-night talk shows. This works out well if you’d rather watch a two-minute clip than the hour-long show.

“Interviews don’t need a late-night format … I don’t really know anyone who watches late-night shows religiously or even at all. People just watch clips from YouTube if something interesting happened,” said Remi Feldman, sophomore political science and English double major.

A glaring absence of women and people of color is another piece of late night’s outdated environment. Of all the mainstream hosts, Trevor Noah is the only one who isn’t white, and “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” is the single program currently hosted by a woman. Lilly Singh’s two-season gig seemed to wither away before moving on to other projects without much impact on the male-dominated landscape.

“We definitely need more diversity … I, for one, do not want to listen to a white man speak longer than I have to, so it’d be nice to hear the voice and opinions from people of color hosts … If the host were to be a gay woman or an Asian man or someone of substance and character, I’d probably be a lot more inclined to watch,” explained Stewart.

The lack of diversity extends not only to the hosts, but to the programs themselves. The simplistic format of an interviewer, an interviewee and a live audience works. That’s why it has stuck around for so long. But the lack of variety, particularly in network TV, contributes to a stale line-up. Late-night cable programs highlight how mundane the setup can feel. The gossipy hang-out vibe of “Watch What Happens Live” or the humorous political commentary on “The Daily Show” expand what a talk show can represent. Figures who aren’t afraid to be controversial, like John Oliver and especially Bill Maher, disrupt the narrative of late-night hosts as banal or populist.

That said, simplicity is one of the benefits of traditional late-night. A broad and formerly apolitical line-up of hosts has greater mass appeal and keeps the atmosphere fast-paced and carefree. If only these programs would deliver the mood they promise. Hopefully, they can and ideally accomplish this without an all-white, all-male group of hosts.

My relationship with late-night talk is currently on a hiatus. For a while, I was into Graham Norton, but I always had to watch it the next day anyway. A Friday night is not exactly the most opportune time slot. Bringing on multiple guests simultaneously allows it to feel casual rather than forced. More talk shows should consider this approach. His show brings more of the naturalism and carefree attitude that I observe when viewing clips of Letterman or O’Brien from the ’90s. Back then, I think there was less incentive to mistake celebrity for royalty and more room for these comedians to simply be funny. That is their job, after all: to entertain, to poke fun, to not take everything so seriously.

Wondering whether or not late-night TV is important probes far too many contradictions to describe. In my eyes, there is something different about watching short clips a day later than watching the entire program from start to finish the night of. There is a community aspect to late-night viewing that only works when you watch the same thing at the same time as others. Then again, who wants to set aside an hour every few nights to watch Fallon or Colbert, let alone all the other hosts who also have programs at the same time? That is hours upon hours of different hosts to keep track of. One could argue that we should end all late-night programming just to get rid of an hour of James Corden. I’d be first in line to support that.

The late-night talk show does not have to look like one concrete idea. Yet, is the loss of its original format the loss of its flare? What the quality often comes down to is the host. Whoever you connect to, whoever creates a space you enjoy entering for a short while is subjective. A diverse array of hosts, both new voices and old favorites, is in order.

Additionally, the power of late-night has as much to do with format as it does personality. To keep the spirit of late-night alive, these shows should turn up the fun, celebrities should tone down the highlighter and audiences should start tuning into the television set instead of their phones. As a member of the “I’ll watch the best clips tomorrow” club, I understand what it feels like to be disinterested in something that seems like it’s worth no more than a few minutes of my time. Regardless, I believe late-night deserves more credit that what it’s typically given. Especially in the age of the COVID-19, lighthearted entertainment is much needed. It is the programs’ responsibility to fulfill that promise, but it is our responsibility to watch.

This is the opinion of Conor Drafz, a freshman English major from Chicago. Email comments to editor@theloyolan.com. Follow and tweet comments to @LALoyolan on Twitter, and like the Loyolan on Facebook.