Comedian Sebastian Maniscalco has a lucrative touring career, released a Netflix special earlier this year, and has booked appearances on The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, and Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. He has a podcast and has published a memoir. Still, it feels fair to say that Maniscalco is not a household name—which might be why one Hollywood insider was puzzled to hear recently that the 46-year-old comic will be hosting the MTV Video Music Awards in August. So was everyone they were speaking with at the time.

“We were all like, ‘At least 10 people must’ve passed,” the source told me during a recent phone call. “There’s no way that he was the first choice.” The source clarified that they weren’t knocking Maniscalco’s comedy—because they’d never even seen it. (When reached for comment regarding how the network chose its host, a representative for MTV referred V.F. to the press release in which Maniscalco’s hosting gig was announced: “Sebastian is on FIRE right now and his comedic spin on relatable topics will make this year’s show truly unforgettable,” said Viacom exec Bruce Gillmer.)

Though MTV’s choice of emcee may have come out of left field, the network’s decision to go with a host of this caliber shouldn’t be surprising. Over the past few years, locking down a huge star to emcee an awards show has become more challenging than ever. Earlier this year, the Oscars went hostless after the Academy’s first pick, Kevin Hart, flamed out. In June, Shazam! star Zachary Levi hosted the MTV Movie & TV Awards—another pick that had insiders scratching their heads. And come fall, there’s a possibility that the Emmy Awards, airing this year on Fox, may decide to forgo a host altogether—just like the Oscars. What gives?

According to insiders who spoke with V.F. on the condition of anonymity, there are plenty of reasons big-name celebrities are increasingly reluctant to join forces with awards shows. Some of these issues, like the time commitment a gig like this requires, have always been factors. Others—like the hazard of getting mercilessly roasted on Twitter over a bit gone wrong—are a bit newer.

Few celebrities meet the two major requirements traditionally sought out in awards-show hosts: high-profile enough to nab a hosting offer in the first place, yet available enough to commit to the months of prep these shows often require. This is why late-night hosts—who come with their own production teams and can also serve as a corporate tie-in when hosting events airing on their home networks—have long been such popular choices. In 2017, for example, CBS turned to its Late Show host, Stephen Colbert, to host the Emmys; that same year, ABC booked Jimmy Kimmel to host the Oscars, while NBC tapped Jimmy Fallon to host the Golden Globes. Other sorts of celebrities may not be able to devote more than a few days to prep work—shooting pretaped segments and rehearsing for the live show.

As the insider who recently found themselves discussing Maniscalco put it, if you’re not someone who has the time to commit, “it seems like the risk far outweighs the reward. And at this point, what’s the reward? People on Twitter thinking you did a good job, and you getting a couple good reviews?”

Another source confirmed that the possibility of getting obliterated on social media has made the job less appealing across the board. If the night goes poorly, the host often shoulders the brunt of the blame—either for staging a boring show or for trying a joke or a bit that angers some segment of a politically divided audience. Plus, the source added, for better or worse, "it’s so easy to dig up every little thing on every person…. When you get these high-profile hosting jobs, then you’re opening yourself up to be under this microscope.”

As a result, there’s often a mismatch between the talent networks want, and who they can land.

“In many ways it’s a thankless job,” the second source said. “And despite what people think, these hosts aren’t paid tons of money to do that…. In a world where you often think, Well, money talks, it doesn’t. If they’re not interested, they’re not interested. And it doesn’t matter how much you offer. They’re not gonna do it.”

“Comedians, obviously, are usually without exception the best [hosts],” the source added. “But again, it’s like, How do I win in this?”

Awards shows were once a vital way to boost a performer’s brand; they do, after all, come backed by built-in P.R. machines. But nowadays, there are plenty of other ways for a performer to promote their own work—methods that come with a lot less baggage than these galas, and offer a higher degree of personal control for anxious comedians and actors. Hosting an awards show also comes with another potential pitfall: An ideal emcee must not only entertain the audiences at home and in the room, but also must make sure not to do anything to offend the network that hired them.

“Everyone’s so fucking sensitive right now,” the first source said. “If the fans love it, you’ve probably alienated and pissed off the producers and the network, potentially advertisers. And if the network is super happy, you’re probably getting crushed on Twitter for being boring. So then what?”

The bottom line: Why do something as involved as emceeing an awards ceremony when you can just as easily cash in on, say, a Starbucks commercial? When it comes to hosting, “What’s the fucking point?”

All of that said, the Emmys will not necessarily go hostless this year. A third source told V.F. that Fox is currently weighing its options, waiting until after nominations are announced on July 16 to reach out to potential emcees. Currently, the source said, the network is mulling two plans: “There’s one with a host, and there’s one where I think you structure it [with] a through-line of presenters running through the awards.”

“I think you can do both,” the source said—but for Fox’s purposes in this case, “it’d be one or the other.”

That insider argued that audiences don’t necessarily need a host to be happy with a ceremony like the Emmys, where the real focus should be on nominees’ achievements and the historic importance of their wins. “I think the way you tell the story of the awards themselves and the importance of those awards and the history of those awards [is more important],” the source said. “You know, like if people haven’t won yet, or have won a lot, or there’s records to be broken—I think those are things that viewers are more attuned to than just simply one host.”

Fox does face certain challenges that some of its competitors don’t when searching for awards-show emcees; for instance, the network does not have an in-house late-night host. “But I think finding someone who can carry a three-hour live television show has always been difficult,” the source added. And while this insider agrees that social media and busier schedules have made finding potential hosts a little more complicated, they were not convinced the process is really that much more difficult than it’s been before.

The first source I spoke with, however, is pretty sure that Fox would rather not go hostless: “From what I’ve heard, they definitely want to have a host—but they might position this whole [thing] like, ‘Well, it worked for the Oscars; we don’t need one.’ But that’s because they can’t really find anyone that makes sense.”

Regardless of the specific ceremony or host (or lack thereof), the real question is what the hosting drought means for awards shows themselves. In the face of diminishing ratings, critics are starting to wonder if these televised events really matter—but millions of viewers still do tune in to these events, which continue to raise chatter whenever something appears to be going haywire. (Remember how many weeks we spent fretting about this year’s hostless Oscars, only for them to go off without a hitch—and to boosted ratings?) So perhaps their days aren’t numbered just yet.

But my first source cautioned that networks shouldn’t view the success of the Oscars as a sign that all shows should go without hosts. Interest in the show this year was driven by the novelty of a host-free ceremony, as well as the films nominated for awards (like Black Panther), the source argued. If the Academy were to try the same hostless move next year, the source said, people would likely yawn in response.

That said, with or without a host, “The Oscars are still the Oscars,” the source said. And at least for now, that means something—enough to keep prospective hosts interested and viewers tuning in. In other words: “It’s going to take several years of the movie business continuing to decline before people act like they don’t give a shit about the Oscars.”

— Our cover story: How Idris Elba became the coolest—and busiest—man in Hollywood

— Our critics reveal the best movies of 2019, so far

— Plus: the 12 best TV shows of the year, thus far

— Why The Handmaid’s Tale has a serious villain problem

— Can Democrats win back the internet in the age of Trump?

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hollywood newsletter and never miss a story.