CBS Blocks Broadcasting a Stephen Colbert Interview of Texas Primary Candidate James Talarico

Say it aint so said:

Yes. Thanks. I understand your point.
Which is why I brought up the now defunct fairness doctrine where its demise is ballyhooed by one party.
The one that is using the FCC as a partisan weapon.

Click to expand...

I don't know that it's fair to pin it all on republicans in that regard.

It's not as if either party has a sincere interest in true fairness.

Rather, they just target the spaces where their own political opponents had a significant footprint.

In this case, we know that the late night network programming arena is heavily left-leaning. The FCC regulations happened to be the most convenient lever to pull.

Whereas, in the podcasting/social media arena (where conservatives have a much larger footprint), the Biden admin used looming threats of modifying section 230, and establishing a "Disinformation Governance Board" through the DHS as a means of trying to target that.

But the intent was the same, that intent being "use whatever institutional power is at my disposal to make my team look really good and the other team look really bad -- or not let people see them at all"


I just don't know how any measure of sincere fairness could be imposed in the current climate that is riddled with insincere actors who'd be undoubtedly looking for loopholes that would allow them to technically satisfy some sort of equal/time fairness provision on paper, but actually just doubling down in practical application.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't know that it's fair to pin it all on republicans in that regard.

It's not as if either party has a sincere interest in true fairness.

Rather, they just target the spaces where their own political opponents had a significant footprint.

In this case, we know that the late night network programming arena is heavily left-leaning. The FCC regulations happened to be the most convenient lever to pull.

Whereas, in the podcasting/social media arena (where conservatives have a much larger footprint), the Biden admin used looming threats of modifying section 230, and establishing a "Disinformation Governance Board" through the DHS as a means of trying to target that.

But the intent was the same, that intent being "use whatever institutional power is at my disposal to make my team look really good and the other team look really bad -- or not let people see them at all"

Click to expand...

You can google the fairness doctrine and see its effect.
How parties responded to it.
Who wanted to reinstate it, and who fought that.
It is what it is.

wing2000 said:

How is Crockett's race relevant to the topic of this thread? [It's not.

Click to expand...

Oh? If this had been a conservative TV show, there would have been shrieks of racism and white supremacy. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The bottom line is that they had no interest in granting equal time to other candidates, something that’s been law in the US for decades.

Tuur said:

Oh? If this had been a conservative TV show, there would have been shrieks of racism and white supremacy.

Click to expand...

Doubtful in the extreme. A talk show had a guest.

Say it aint so said:

You can google the fairness doctrine and see its effect.
How parties responded to it.
Who wanted to reinstate it, and who fought that.
It is what it is.

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the fairness doctrine and what it was in the past.

Mine was more of statement highlighting that this isn't the 80's anymore, even in the 90's it still could have worked as punditry and the polarized nature of entertainment and media hadn't gotten completely off the rails at that point.

As far as who wanted it back after it expired in the 80's, it's a mixed bag. Clinton's FCC Chair didn't want it brought back either and was a vocal opponent of it in 1993 when there was efforts to get it back on the radar with the proposed Fairness in Communications Act of 1993 (which never really got off the ground)

I'm assuming the media companies themselves weren't necessarily fans either given that "polarization creates ratings" and "ratings creates revenue"

essentialsaltes said:

Doubtful in the extreme. A talk show had a guest.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Sure.

The network said in a statement to multiple outlets “The Late Show” “was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview,” but was “provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett,” who is running against Talarico in the Democratic Senate primary in Texas.


Curious as to why they didn't opt to do a "similar in tone" interview with Crockett as well, seems like that could've satisfied the equal-time thing, and likely would've been decent ratings bump to have them both on.

**That's rhetorical, I'm not actually "curious", I think we all understand why... but I'd like to see someone try to concoct a defense for Colbert that doesn't abundantly highlight why the equal-time rule needs to be enforced in the first place.