• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CBS lawyers tell Colbert not to interview Texas Democratic Rep. James Talarico---and not to mention it.

TheBigA said:
People are accepting what Colbert says as truth. Your NYT article gives the CBS side. Both are plausible.
Click to expand...
The CBS statement was more fully quoted in the Washington Post. I've had trouble getting the Post's gift links to work, so I'll have to leave it at that.

Obviously, people will believe what they want to believe. Given the context of everything else surrounding CBS, it's hard for me to believe the CBS version, and it's hard for me to attribute any kind of positive intent for CBS's actions.

TheBigA said:
What actually happened is the story has gone viral.
Click to expand...
If the intent was to keep Talarico from getting publicity, that intent has backfired spectacularly. The Streisand Effect lives. Amazing that executives in the entertainment business haven't figured that out.
 
Mark Roberts said:
If the intent was to keep Talarico from getting publicity, that intent has backfired spectacularly.
Click to expand...

What is so dangerous about what Talarico is saying? I don't get it. This is a local Texas primary election.

Even CBS News is reporting the story:

www.cbsnews.com

Stephen Colbert slams CBS, says lawyers told him James Talarico interview could not air on "The Late Show"

"The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert criticized CBS on Monday night, saying the network blocked his interview with U.S. Senate hopeful James Talarico from airing.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

If this was so bad for CBS, you'd think Bari Weiss would stop it.

Mark Roberts said:
The Streisand Effect lives. Amazing that executives in the entertainment business haven't figured that out.
Click to expand...

Some believed that by endlessly covering the ex-president's many trials, it would demonstrate he was unfit for office. It had the opposite effect.
 
Last edited:
Mark Roberts said:
Even the dumbest lawyer or executive would see what happened with ABC and Kimmel and see that running a repeat would have made everything worse.
Click to expand...
Oh, you'd be surprised at how dumb lawyers and executives can be.

Up until just about a year ago, I worked for GM's autonomous vehicle company Cruise. In late 2023, a very unfortunate incident happened that was a potential PR disaster. The executives (and the legal team) handled it in the worst way possible. A hit and run driver struck a woman crossing the street and the impact threw her under one of our cars. The car did as it was programmed to do (and what a human driver might do) and said "oh, I've been in an accident...I should pull over to the side of the road." Unfortunately the woman was still under the car and it got about 20 feet before the sensors in the wheels figured out something was wrong and stopped the car. She survived, but was badly injured.

Rather than be up front about what happened, why it happened, and be transparent, the lawyers and executives decided to try and mitigate the damage to the company by not publicizing the details and dragging their feet on releasing the info to the authorities. Classic attorney tactic of "they've requested the following, and we'll give them exactly that and nothing more."

As a result of the recalcitrance of the senior leadership and legal team, California suspended the company's license to operate in the state, the senior leadership team was fired, and - long story short - after another year and billions of dollars spent, GM shut the whole thing down. The car did what it was supposed to do. The guy on my team who handled the initial response (I read the report) did everything right. The incident response team did everything right. The lawyers and senior leadership fumbled the ball, and we all lost our jobs.
 
Deus Ex Machiato said:
Oh, you'd be surprised at how dumb lawyers and executives can be.

Up until just about a year ago, I worked for GM's autonomous vehicle company Cruise. In late 2023, a very unfortunate incident happened that was a potential PR disaster. The executives (and the legal team) handled it in the worst way possible. A hit and run driver struck a woman crossing the street and the impact threw her under one of our cars. The car did as it was programmed to do (and what a human driver might do) and said "oh, I've been in an accident...I should pull over to the side of the road." Unfortunately the woman was still under the car and it got about 20 feet before the sensors in the wheels figured out something was wrong and stopped the car. She survived, but was badly injured.

Rather than be up front about what happened, why it happened, and be transparent, the lawyers and executives decided to try and mitigate the damage to the company by not publicizing the details and dragging their feet on releasing the info to the authorities. Classic attorney tactic of "they've requested the following, and we'll give them exactly that and nothing more."

As a result of the recalcitrance of the senior leadership and legal team, California suspended the company's license to operate in the state, the senior leadership team was fired, and - long story short - after another year and billions of dollars spent, GM shut the whole thing down. The car did what it was supposed to do. The guy on my team who handled the initial response (I read the report) did everything right. The incident response team did everything right. The lawyers and senior leadership fumbled the ball, and we all lost our jobs.
Click to expand...

In other words, as has been proven time and time again, the coverup of the lie turns out to be more damaging than acknowledging the lie itself.
 
Mark Roberts said:
New York Times article (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/17/...e_code=1.NFA.YeNR.Fc2NCC3raYS_&smid=url-share

Among other things, the article reports that CBS is denying that the network prohibited the interview from airing, with CBS stating instead that it presented "options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled".
Click to expand...
Riddle me this, someone in the know. If the Equal Time rule even applies, it applies to affiliates. Only Texans can vote in this election. Why would every CBS affiliate coast to coast have to run the "equal time", as opposed to just Texas affiliates?
 
gr8oldies said:
Riddle me this, someone in the know. If the Equal Time rule even applies, it applies to affiliates. Only Texans can vote in this election. Why would every CBS affiliate coast to coast have to run the "equal time", as opposed to just Texas affiliates?
Click to expand...

Once again, there is only a democratic primary in Texas, so only registered democrats vote. There is no republican primary in Texas because the incumbent is running unopposed. So if there was an equal time issue, it would be between the democrats.

But yes, even though Talarico appeared on a national show, the equal time would likely only be required in Texas. It doesn't have to be provided in the same show or at the same time. The problem is there's been a lack of clarity in terms of enforcement.

wtop.com

What to know about the ‘equal time’ rule Stephen Colbert says led CBS to pull his Talarico interview - WTOP News

Stephen Colbert's comments that network executives pulled his interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico over fears it would violate regulatory guidance from the Trump…
wtop.com wtop.com

For example, the FCC itself hasn't announced it's doing an investigation of The View. All we really have are quotations from Chairman Carr threatening an investigation. That doesn't mean one would actually happen.
 
gr8oldies said:
Riddle me this, someone in the know. If the Equal Time rule even applies, it applies to affiliates. Only Texans can vote in this election. Why would every CBS affiliate coast to coast have to run the "equal time", as opposed to just Texas affiliates?
Click to expand...

It’s never been broken out that way. It should be noted that while you need to be a Texas resident to vote, you do not need to be to donate to a campaign, so the exposure beyond state lines can benefit a candidate.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
Texas has open primaries, so anyone registered to vote may do so in one party’s primary or the other, but not both. Nobody is registered according to political affiliation or as an independent, as is done in a number of other states.
Click to expand...

However, there is no repub primary for senate this year, correct? So equal time is only among the dems.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
Quite the opposite. State Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to “primary” four term Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Quite a fight.
Click to expand...

Missed that. Thanks for the info. I also see Wesley Hunt is running. Paxton is up by a point. So yes, quite a fight.

In all the coverage I've seen today on this story (and I've seen a lot), this hasn't been mentioned once.
 
TheBigA said:
Missed that. Thanks for the info. I also see Wesley Hunt is running. So yes, quite a fight.
Click to expand...
Paxton has a reputation as a sleazeball, but the MAGA crowd loves him regardless, and he is currently leading in the polls. The Wesley Hunt candidacy is trailing badly, but he may force a runoff election between Paxton and Cornyn.

Talarico would have a better chance in the general election as he is viewed more positively amongst swing voters than Jasmine Crockett.

BTW despite the Texas open primary system, in a runoff you have to vote in the same party contest as the original primary. You can’t vote in the Republican primary then vote in a Democratic runoff, for example.
 
all of this is over the fact CBS' new owners are pro-Trump and helping him censor Colbert because he's a enemy of Trumps, also Paramount wants to own Warner Brothers Discovery to the point they are trying to steal it away from Netflix who already agreed with WBD to buy half of that company while the other half ends up splitting (said split was planned before the Netflix/Paramount Skydance bidding war began) into it's own separate company starting over the Discovery linage with all Discovery cable channels plus the old Turner networks being a part of the new spinoff company (as well as WBD & Netflix's debts).

also as a insult to injury, WBD recently was forced to admit they are majority shareholders of AEW after a controversial anti-ICE erupted on AEW Dynamite almost 2 weeks ago in Las Vegas where pro wrestler Brody King got the "F*** ICE" chants from the fans while his opponent AEW World Champion MJF was also reacting with a "Yeah, i may hate this guy, but i actually agree with him on this" look on his face, this match of course was a "Eliminator" match which is what AEW calls a match where a potential #1 Contender for a title has to beat the current champion for a title shot, which Brody did by choking MJF out and hitting his finisher called the "Gonzo Bomb" (also known as "Dante's Inferno), sure enough, days later, the rematch took place on a special edition of AEW Collision called "Grand Slam Australia" as it was in Sydney, Australia where Brody got his title match with MJF where once again, before the match, Brody was also given a loud "F*** ICE" chant, this time from Australian wrestling fans, and both times we got the "F*** ICE" chants on AEW TV, TBS & TNT did not censor it at all. that says something when WBD allows their wrestling show to not censor a chant that is anti-Trump.

Now back to Colbert, Paramount is trying to avoid legal issues with the FCC when we are at a time where Brandon Carr is trying to shut the Daytime/Late Night Talk Show loophole but not the "Talk Radio" loophole for the Equal Time rule, i wouldn't be surprised the FCC is just trying to get more extreme then they were in 2004 when Janet Jackson breast was exposed on live TV at the Super Bowl and they cracked down on indecency on TV & Radio (Radio got that worse then TV hence why Howard Stern moved to a paywall satellite service).
 
Will_H_69_9 said:
i wouldn't be surprised the FCC is just trying to get more extreme then they were in 2004 when Janet Jackson breast was exposed on live TV at the Super Bowl and they cracked down on indecency on TV & Radio (Radio got that worse then TV hence why Howard Stern moved to a paywall satellite service).
Click to expand...

That, all by itself, told me how partisan the FCC already had become under the Bush 2 administration.

"We're offended by Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'!"
"Okay, we'll crack down on liberal talk radio to fix that."
 
Will_H_69_9 said:
all of this is over the fact CBS' new owners are pro-Trump and helping him censor Colbert because he's a enemy of Trumps, also Paramount wants to own Warner Brothers Discovery to the point they are trying to steal it away from Netflix who already agreed with WBD to buy half of that company while the other half ends up splitting (said split was planned before the Netflix/Paramount Skydance bidding war began) into it's own separate company starting over the Discovery linage with all Discovery cable channels plus the old Turner networks being a part of the new spinoff company (as well as WBD & Netflix's debts).
Click to expand...
How about an alternative perspective: CBS is last in news. It has to do something different. Perhaps appealing to the half of the nation that is not "progressive" is a good approach... at least from their perspective.
 


Back
Top Bottom