9 ms·

FCC to investigate, 'take appropriate action' on Colbert’s Trump rant

• grappler 10y ago
  Over-The-Air (OTA) TV to me is something left far, far behind, somewhere in the mid-aughts. A wasteland of advertising and inferior content compared with what is available online or even on cable. Kids especially, the ones who are 'protected' by regulations covering OTA TV, aren't interested in OTA TV. That's why OTA TV is programmed for demographics that are approaching or past retirement, and it's why TV companies are talking deals with Snapchat. Or am I in a bubble?
• gigatexal 10y ago
  wow... his comments were pejorative but I think they are or should be protected under free speech. I don't think they were defamatory any more than the president considering mainstream news as 'fake'. And his show is comedic in nature... that should mean something in his defense. Is saying this about the president really that bad given the alleged Russian ties to the election and the president's overall ... um polarizing policies? "The only thing your mouth is good at is being [Russian President] Vladimir Putin’s cock holster,"
  • philiphodgen 10y ago
    I think the FCC will respect the first amendment but may object to the potty-mouth sentence you quoted. They went after Howard Stern in a similar situation. More to the point, Mr. Colbert should be ashamed of himself. Have some decency, Mr. Colbert.
    • SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
      Decency with regards to what exacly?
      • gozur88 10y ago
        Language.
        • SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
          He's a comedian, grow up.
          • gozur88 10y ago
            Doesn't matter who he is. This is broadcast television.
            • jsiepkes 10y ago
              In the land of the free you can't say cock on TV before 22:00. What's next? Decency police like in Iran?
              • gozur88 10y ago
                It turns out people with children aren't very open to having their kids exposed to adult material on television. This is not a new thing, either - it's been that way since day 1. Unlike mobile providers, broadcast companies didn't pay for the spectrum they use. It's a public resource that is licensed to them, and part of that license involves restrictions on language and also depictions of gore and sex.
                • jsiepkes 10y ago
                  Public service? Maybe your confusing it with some European models but in the US there is nothing public about it. Broadcasters pay big bucks to companies like Comcast to get their station transmitted. And if your kid is not old enough to hear to word dick then he should be in bed long before 22:00.
                  • gozur88 10y ago
    • lolreally 10y ago
      Trump's health care plan and environmental policies will kill millions, and you're concerns about swear words? That's rich.
    • mhh__ 10y ago
      Why should he be decent?
    • mcphage 10y ago
      > Have some decency, Mr. Colbert. When our government behaves decently, maybe. Right now Trump deserves none.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • blackflame7000 10y ago
    While I agree that it should be protected under free speech, I'm not sure haranguing the president who half the country voted for while making offensive remarks with respect to the LGBT community is the best marketing ploy. Seems like if anyone should be upset it should be his employer CBS. However, paradoxically sometimes controversies actually increase ratings so they might be fine with it.
    • Meditato 10y ago
      No, "half the country" did not even vote. Significantly less than half the popular vote was for Trump.
      • blackflame7000 10y ago
        And the highest rated TV show of all time (Super Bowl XLIX) only managed to attract 115/330 million people so what's your point. Are you arguing that somehow TV viewers are far more likely to be Democrat? Is there some reason that the same distribution of voters wouldn't apply to TV as well? The final election results were Clinton 65,844,610 Trump 62,979,636 If you call the difference significant (2.2%), then what does that make the gross value of 62 million americans that might be turned off by his rant?
        • AbrahamParangi 10y ago
          I think the point of the objection was that about 19% of Americans voted for trump, instead of "half the country". Even if this were a strictly cynical action on Colbert's part (and I don't think it is) you could make the argument that given Trump's unpopularity you might create more value out of bashing him than you lose from his supporters. Moreover, I suspect that Colbert's target demographics skew richer, younger, and urban/suburban so he probably has less to lose and more to gain by alienating Trump supporters anyway.
          • blackflame7000 10y ago
            Assuming everyone that didn't vote has no political opinion, do you think that they would care about Colbert's rant? I addressed the phenomenon of paradoxical popularity reactions to controversies in my original post, but I still don't see the value of insulting anyone when you are in the business of advertising to as wide of audience as possible. Lets not forget TV is an advertisement driven business. Bill OReilly found out pretty quick that it wasn't his analysis that kept him around, it was the sponsors.
  • gozur88 10y ago
    The legal requirement for broadcast networks to abide by decency standards is settled law. If it had just been on cable there wouldn't be a problem.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• blackflame7000 10y ago
  It seems like every late night comedian doubles as a political commentator these days. Perhaps my memory is hazy but I didn't recall previous late night hosts having to resort to as many partisan jokes for laughs. IMO it's lazy humor that lacks originality and plays on people's hate. Its like making fun of the outcast at school because it's vogue. If we want harmony in this world, we can't go around calling everyone we disagree with a moron.
  • SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
    Edit: I made a comment inappropriate for HN.
    • ovao 10y ago
      I don't think there's any particular shortage of news outlets covering the bad side(s) of the Trump administration.
      • SimbaOnSteroids 10y ago
        Not with the kiddy gloves off there isn't.
        • ovao 10y ago
          Maybe I don't understand what that means in this context. Why is making crude jokes more useful/effective/beneficial than reporting on issues and having mature discussions about those issues?
          • GeneralMayhem 10y ago
            To have a mature discussion with an emotionally challenged child is to give him way more validation than he deserves.
    • blackflame7000 10y ago
      So bullying is ok as long as you are on the 'right' side? Also as an aside, you are aware that a moron would view a genius as a moron right? A moron wouldn't understand the genius and thus dismiss him as a moron. A moron would only find other morons to be geniuses.
• MrTonyD 10y ago
  My complaint is that Colbert's humor reflects wealthy New York values - and he never makes jokes about the actual problems which caused many to vote for Trump (yes, some Trump supporters are racist - but many have real issues with the wealth transfer to the 1% and the myriad consequences of that transfer.) Where are the jokes about hiding billions offshore and avoiding taxes and undermining community values? Colbert, sadly, is part of the problem. Like Trump and Clinton, Colbert thinks he illuminates while he is really only promoting a different set of class values.
  • DDickson 10y ago
    He made a joke about Trump's taxes in the very same monologue.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    > but many have real issues with the wealth transfer to the 1% Then why'd they vote for the party of wealth transfer to the 1%? Or do you mean "have a problem with" in the same sense that an addict is said to "have a problem with" a drug?
    • gozur88 10y ago
      >Then why'd they vote for the party of wealth transfer to the 1%? Oh? Which party is that? Who do you think unrestricted immigration benefits - blue collar types or wealthy industrialists?
      • kibwen 10y ago
        The typical answer is "immigrants".
        • gozur88 10y ago
          I suppose. But you can't very well blame people looking at joblessness and depressed wages for voting their own interests.
      • 10y ago
• aisofteng 10y ago
  To go on a slight tangent but one I think very relevant here, considering other comments here about the overt politics of late night talk shows, such as another commenter's remark about not recalling previous late night hosts resorting to so many partisan jokes, it seems most people are neither aware of the former FCC's Fairness Doctrine nor its repeal: >The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. The FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine, in August of 2011. Quote taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine There used to be a requirement for broadcasting companies to make a good faith effort to present all sides of a topic and to actually accomplish that goal to a reasonable degree. I am not sure of the historical origins of that policy, but I imagine it was put in place in recognition of the ability of media to sway public opinion and therefore to what degree it could be abused by powerful players with an agenda. I am generally against any governmental regulation of how people communicate, but in this case the regulation was not about content, per se, but about the fairness and integrity of our national information delivery channels. I don't know why this was repealed - I keep meaning to research it - but in any case, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is a chief causal factor for the state of American media today. As much as I appreciate Colbert now, as much as I watched and enjoyed the commentary by Stewart, Colbert, and others as political pundits, it is also very clear to me that part of their success in what they do is due to affirmation of political views they share with their viewers - and that that can be (and, in my opinion, has been) overall very detrimental because it has led people to silo their beliefs and become more close minded to hearing opposing viewpoints. Furthermore, the role of such pundits has become that of trading in-depth analysis for entertainment and laughs. I generally agree with what seem to be Colbert's views and often think he is very sharp and insightful. However, in the context of what I said above and considering how much influence he has, I think that the complaints and investigation discussed in TFA are well-founded.
  • killjoywashere 10y ago
• mcphage 10y ago
  It's amazing how strongly HN pushes for free speech for Nazis, and racists, and any other unpleasant people. But for a late night talk show host criticizing a terrible president? All I see is "won't anybody think of the children?!"
• ddw 10y ago
  What a snowflake move