Why Tom Selleck's Blue Bloods Was Canceled By CBS

The term "copaganda" gets tossed around way too much when talking about films and television shows that center on the lives of law enforcement professionals. Series like "The Wire," "The Shield," "Justified," and other all-time great TV crime dramas were, to differing degrees, nuanced in their portrayal of the good, bad, and utterly reprehensible behavior of the people tasked with keeping the peace in communities of all shapes, sizes, and demographics. They drove home the importance of getting collars and prioritizing closable cases. They showed how deeply ingrained the practice of racial profiling is in Black and brown neighborhoods. The characters who walked the razor-thin line of doing good and committing evil could frequently seduce us into laughing off their indiscretions like in "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," but there was usually a price to be paid for these actions — or, at the very least, a lack of approval from the writers.

Because sometimes artists respect viewers enough to trust that they won't take their depiction of complex, relatively likable characters behaving badly as an endorsement.

It's important to make this distinction because there is "copaganda" out there. On television, for the last 14 seasons, there hasn't been a series more dedicated to taking the side of the fuzz come hell or high water than CBS' "Blue Bloods." The cop series about the Reagans (ahem), a cop family that unapologetically does cop stuff because being cops is, as the title screams, branded in their genetic code. Starring Tom Selleck, Donnie Wahlberg, Bridget Moynahan, Will Estes, and Len Cariou, the show believes in the inherent decency of the people who carry a shield and a gun. (God forbid they ever have to use the latter.)

The show was a fairy tale, but there's an audience out there that unabashedly cheers for cops, and, judging from the Nielsen ratings, "Blue Bloods" is their network fantasy of choice. So, why the heck did CBS, a non-ideological company obsessed solely with the bottom line, cancel the series when it was still going strong?

There really isn't a good answer for this!

While I'm not a fan of the show in the slightest, I understand star (and our former mustachioed lord and savior Magnum P.I.) Tom Selleck's frustration at watching his very successful series get kiboshed by its network when it's long been one of CBS' most reliable ratings performers. It's one of the more surprising TV show cancellations in recent memory. 

According to Amy Reisenbach, President of CBS Entertainment, it was just the show's time to die. "We love this cast, we love their passion for the show," she said. "All shows have to come to an end. It's important to us to refresh the schedule. We are going to end the show come December." Selleck doesn't want to hear it, especially when the show hasn't lost much of a step ratings-wise. As Selleck told TV Insider:

"During those last eight shows, I haven't wanted to talk about an ending for 'Blue Bloods' but about it still being wildly successful. In a Top 100 Shows of 2023-2024 (in total viewers, we were number 9 out of 100), if you discount the three football shows, we're #6 ! If you were to say to the television network, 'Here's a show you can program in the worst time slot you got, and it is going to guarantee you winning Friday night for the next 15 years,' it would be almost impossible to believe. My frustration is the show was always taken for granted because it performed from the get-go."

There has been conjecture that "Blue Bloods" is a victim of its own success, given that long-running series tend to get more expensive upon each renewal. Some have also wondered if the pending sale of Paramount Global might be causing changes in programming. To date, no one has confirmed that these elements played a role in the end of "Blue Bloods," but they're certainly worth considering.

Nevertheless, CBS remains adamant that this is the end of the line for "Blue Bloods." But CBS Studios President David Stapf, in a July interview with Deadline, made it clear the network understands the value of the show as a brand. So, while it doesn't have anything on the front burner in terms of a spinoff, the pilot light is still flickering. According to Stapf, "We've got to get it right so we're taking our time and trying to figure it out, okay, what is the next iteration of 'Blue Bloods?' We have a whole season to go where we intend to celebrate it all season long as to how good that show is, so there's still time for us to figure that out."

For his part, Donnie Wahlberg is gung-ho about the notion of a "Blue Bloods" spinoff. As he told TV Insider:

"There's been a lot of talk about spin-offs, about various spin-offs, all types of concepts of spin-offs. I, for me personally, would say whatever happens next, if it's done with the spirit of 'Blue Bloods' and done with the care that we tried to put into 'Blue Bloods' every week, it would be something that I would look forward to watching or being a part of either way. I've heard stories of prequels, sequels, you name it. For me personally, I love the show. I've enjoyed working on it for 14 years and like I said, whatever comes next, as long as it has family at its core and the spirit of 'Blue Bloods,' then I'm all for it."

That said, you might want to temper your excitement if you're hoping for a return of the Reagan family. As Abigail Hawk told Hello!, "There was talk of a spin-off happening. But if it did happen, so immediately after our series ends, it would have to be not involving the Reagans or the NYPD at all. It would have to be set in LA or we follow a different family."

Not well!

For Blue Bloods die-hards, 14 seasons simply isn't enough. 30 seasons would probably be too little for some of the show's most ardent supporters — at least it feels that way judging from the reactions posted to the series' Instagram.

"I still can't believe CBS cancelled the best show on tv," exclaimed user michelley65. "I'm hoping at the finale an announcement is made at the end that it will return in the fall 2025 .... Now that would make my Christmas," said michelleconnolly2063. "I have watched this show since day 1!!! It breaks my heart it will be over soon...," lamented deewatt53. This is but a small sampling of the grief-stricken responses left under the most recent post on the Insta page. How can you possibly say no to these forlorn individuals?

Some fans have hopefully speculated that "Blue Bloods" could find a home at a new network. It's happened before. "Taxi" moved from ABC to NBC in the early 1980s. "Community" got its coveted sixth season after being axed at NBC via Yahoo! More recently, Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing" skipped from ABC to Fox.

So, we're saying there's a chance, right? We are. Abigail Hawk is not. As she told Hello!, "I don't think there's a possibility of it going to another network — I know that there's been a bit of chatter about that, but I don't think that that's a viable option given the talks that we've had with the cast and the producers and things like that." So, once again, take a deep breath and don't let yourself get too excited over the prospect of spending more time at the dinner table with those loving coppers the Reagans.