6 ms·
That's insane. We're talking about the government threatening a station if they air an interview with a political rival.
by anderber 8mo ago
That's insane. We're talking about the government threatening a station if they air an interview with a political rival.
- devmor 8mo agoThis is a terrifying level of chilling effects. What are we to consider about our nation at this point? "Free speech" has long been a term with contested definitions, but this certainly sounds like its death in every sense.
- colechristensen 8mo agoFree speech goes as far as the people who defend it. CBS and its parent company are greedy cowards. If they won't defend free speech they're the ones causing its downfall. Governments rule only with the consent of the people. If you lay down and give away your freedoms you aren't the victim, you're the perpetrator.
- croes 8mo agoVictim blaming? Greedy for trying to stay in business. If you didn’t fight hard enough it’s your fault? You let the government of the hook to easily. By your logic you‘re a perpetrator too because he don’t blame the real bad guy
- mikkupikku 8mo agoIf you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator? CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.
- croes 8mo ago> If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator? That is victim blaming. Heard the same from judges about rape victims. > CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration. That changes this completely. That isn’t being a coward, that’s just good old quid pro quo from billionaire buddies.
- mikkupikku 8mo agoWe're not talking about rape, and you're begging the question.
- croes 8mo agoYour statement just reminded me of a judge who said something similiar to a rape victim.
- QuercusMax 8mo agoFirst off, corporations are not people, so your argument is insane from the beginning. Were the leaders of Vichy France victims? No, they were collaborators.
- croes 8mo agoCorporations are plenty of people with jobs and families that depend on that jobs. Where all the people of France that didn't choose to fight to their death collaborators? Where all the people in the concentartion camps collaborators. Do you blame them or the real perpetrator? I find it strange to put the blame on the middleman instead on the source of all that.
- QuercusMax 8mo agoCorporations are made of people in the same way that Soylent Green is made of people. Your argument is incoherent. There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance.
- croes 8mo agoSo if a corporation makes bad decisions and goes bankrupt the people in the corporation aren’t affected? Without people there is no corporation. And I‘m pretty sure the people in corporations are still alive so your Soylent Green example is nonsense. > There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance. Sometimes not. If you know in advance what will happen, not fighting can be the better option. At least for the moment.
- hackyhacky 8mo ago> Greedy for trying to stay in business. If CBS were headed by someone with gumption and less willingness to kowtow to the government, they could resist this pressure and still be fine. Worst case scenario, a merger would get rejected and they would be targeted by some spurious lawsuits. Going out of business is not a realistic risk. What is a risk, however, is non-optimal shareholder value. We live in a world where the stock price is more important than anything else, including doing the right thing.
- thatnerdyguy 8mo ago> they could resist this pressure and still be fine Precisely. See also: TACO
- croes 8mo agoThere are lots of things that where unthinkable before Trump. But it seems this is just business between billionaire buddies
- johannes1234321 8mo agoFor CVS the stock price isn't the driver. It's owned to 77% by the Ellison family, who certainly want to make a buck, but also want political influence and control.
- colechristensen 8mo agoYes. I'm blaming victims. If you're suffering from government oppression and you go home and cry instead of stand up for your rights, I'm blaming you for your oppression. You're only a victim if you die with your boots on, so to speak.
- croes 8mo agoYou can do that if you are responsible for yourself but there are lots of people with jobs behind that. It’s not on you to decide they have to die with you. But the fact that Trump buddy Ellison owns CBS takes that in a completely new direction.
- colechristensen 8mo agoI'm not engaging with someone arguing the point of appeasing, bootlicking cowards.
- croes 8mo agoCan’t decide, is this a strawman or ad hominem. Beside this case I guess you never where responsible for hundreds of peoples lives. Or maybe talk to some mothers and fathers what they endure to protect their families what you would call appeasement.
- tclancy 8mo agoHow is CBS a victim here? They have shown by their actions (Bari Weiss, the 60 Minutes neutering, etc) they are fully backing what Larry Ellison and Sons want them to pump out. This isn't victim blaming, it's pointing out a complicit conspirator.
- goku12 8mo agoThe shift from democracy to dictatorship isn't a cliff that a lot of people imagine it to be. It's a gradual slide with no abrupt changes in between. If you're waiting for a signal, you'll get it at the bottom of the ramp.
- Rapzid 8mo agoWhen does a pile become a heap? When they come for YOU. Seriously this is why people use to take every government transgression and overreach so seriously. Now multiple times a day it's something that would have been a straight SCANDAL in the past. It's happening right now y'all because it was always happening and will always happen without constant push back. Don't wait!
- goku12 7mo agoExactly! Never wait for a signal! Right now they're 'flooding the zone' - a Steve Bannon slang for confusing and causing fatigue among people with far too many scandals far too often. I hope history will will remember him and his ilk with the reputation they deserve.
- Jordan-117 8mo agoTbh, in this case the fault lies more with CBS for obeying in advance. The FCC hasn't actually made the rule change yet.
- pdpi 8mo agoThe FCC opened a probe on The View[0] for hosting Talarico. They haven't made a rule change, but they're definitely acting as if the rules already say what they want it to say. [0]: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fcc-opening-probe-the-view-after-appearance-talarico https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fcc-opening-probe-the-view-a...
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoAlready in 2026, Colbert has hosted Senator Jon Ossoff and Governor Josh Shapiro who are both up for re-election this year. Why no probe in those cases?
- gamerdonkey 8mo agoCynicism warning, but my honest guess is they see that the Colbert problem will be solved in June and so don't feel the need to spend any effort on him.
- pdpi 8mo agoLike you said: re-election. Re-election just maintains the status quo. The concern here is Talarico specifically, and that he might flip Texas.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoTalarico's potential future senate seat is already occupied by someone in his own party though
- georgemcbay 8mo ago> Talarico's potential future senate seat is already occupied by someone in his own party though ...?? Both current Texas Senators are Republicans. Talarico (a Democrat) is running for Cornyn's seat
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago[flagged]
- whattheheckheck 8mo agoSo it didn't air because? What evidence do we have? Gosh maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow because w have evidence of it rising tomorrow we just can't know. Unbelievable how dark your soul is for posting that comment with all of the context available to you to estimate the probability of truth.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago[flagged]
- DeepYogurt 8mo agoHow does that matter?
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago[flagged]
- ishouldstayaway 8mo agoAnd you're accusing us of jumping to conclusions without evidence? Get a grip here dude.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoI didnt jump to any conclusions about the motive behind Colbert's statements. I presented possibilities, very clearly and explicitly labeling them "alternative" and "unlikely". And the idea that all press is good press is not too controversial either
- toraway 8mo agoPer another of OP's comments in this thread, they seem to suggest that CBS (of all organizations) is actually trying to help a Democrat with better chances in the general to defeat a Republican. So, therefore, they artificially manufactured a Streisand Effect stunt by killing the interview. Because that's somehow a more parsimonious explanation than the clear pattern of Brendan Carr's statements and actions using the FCC to accomplish the political goals of the administration.
- mikkupikku 8mo agoThat's fine context, but doesn't make any of this less insane.
- steve1977 8mo agoNormal authoritarian state behavior, no?
- georgemcbay 8mo ago> Normal authoritarian state behavior, no? Yes. And the most surprising thing about this particular story to me is that a lot of people (here in the comments) seem surprised about it. I don't mean to normalize this, because it isn't normal, but anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention over the past year+, this didn't arrive out of the blue.
- steve1977 8mo agoIt's like people are "oh I thought Project 2025 was just a meme, lol"
- claytongulick 8mo agoMy understanding (please correct me if it's incorrect) is that the "worst-case" scenario for a broadcaster is that they may have to upload a record of political air time to a public file. If an opposing candidate sees this, they can then request equal air time from that broadcaster. The rule is in place so that one party or viewpoint can't dominate broadcast media. That's a good thing right? The rule change here is that traditionally "bona fide" news programs have been, by default, issued an exception to the rule. That has spawned a bunch of "pseudo-news" shows that have also been claiming this exception. Here, the FCC is now saying "hey, you don't just automatically get granted an exception to the rule and get to call yourself a bona fide news program if you're not actually one"". That seems completely reasonable to me. Broadcast media is held to this FCC standard because they are granted a monopoly for a broadcast spectrum, and it isn't physically possible for a competitor to broadcast on the same spectrum. Streaming etc... doesn't need to follow these rules. I do think it's wrong that talk radio doesn't seem to be held to the same standard, though.
- patmorgan23 8mo agoUp until this month, talk show interviews were exempt from the equal time rule.
- vharuck 8mo agoThe worst case scenario now is not limited by process and law. Compliance with politics is taken into consideration for all government business. For examples, see the executive orders blacklisting specific law firms, the withholding of funds to states or areas that vote Democratic, and the threat of investigation into a network after a host said something the President didn't like.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo agoThe worst case scenario for a broadcaster is that the FCC commissioner will fabricate an excuse to illegally yank their license, which both he and his boss have explicitly threatened to do to any broadcaster which won't agree to stop criticizing Donald Trump. I agree that one could imagine a reasonable system of broadcast regulation where opinionated talk shows don't host political candidates, but that's not what's going on here.