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

[DavinaR]

“I Really Don’t Want An Adversarial Relationship With the Network”: Exasperated Colbert Reveals Tensions With CBS’ Legal Team

The 'Late Show' host blasted the network's lawyers over a statement they released regarding his James Talarico interview.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC's Brendan Carr calls this "a hoax" and blames the media. Of course he does.

FCC chair Brendan Carr says media were ‘lied to’ over Stephen Colbert controversy

Carr says the Federal Communications Commission has also opened an enforcement action into ABC’s the View

www.theguardian.com

Trump Goon Does Desperate Damage Control on Colbert Fiasco

Stephen Colbert’s allegedly censored interview this week became his most-watched in years after the FCC’s crackdown.

www.thedailybeast.com

On Wednesday, Carr also confirmed to the Guardian that the FCC had opened an enforcement action into ABC’s the View over an appearance Talarico made on the program earlier in the month. He declined to provide further comment on the nature of the investigation.

In other words, what Colbert was saying about the FCC was correct, not a hoax.

We can expect Colbert to address these comments tonight.

 

[K.M. Richards]

FCC Commissioner Gomez has, as would be expected of her, condemned the action by the network:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418702A1.pdf

She's a nicely placed thorn in Carrtoon's side.

 

[TheBigA]

From the article I linked above:

But Carr told reporters that the FCC was simply enforcing the rules on the books. “If you have a legally qualified candidate on, you have to give comparable air time to all other legally qualified candidates, and we’re going to apply that law,” he said.

What Carr is saying is he wants to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. Except he only wants it to apply to one party. Because that's not the way equal time works. The candidate has to ask for it. If he doesn't, then it doesn't matter. The FCC doesn't have to do investigations or enforce things.

One of the reasons why the FCC did away with the fairness doctrine was because it was stifling speech. Stations didn't want to give time to certain issues because they had to give time to everyone. So they didn't give time in the first place. That's in essence what's happening here.

 

[TheBigA]

The Washington Post says the equal time rule is an example of outdated government over-regulation:

The Colbert-CBS spat is about overregulation

The Trump presidency ought to be an education for progressives in the ways government overregulation can distort politics and business.

dnyuz.com

The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape;

 

[ted chittenden]

The Washington Post says the equal time rule is an example of outdated government over-regulation:

The Colbert-CBS spat is about overregulation

The Trump presidency ought to be an education for progressives in the ways government overregulation can distort politics and business.

dnyuz.com

I disagree with The Washington Post on this one. The assumption being made is that people, left to their own devices, will seek out coverage of the political candidates on the Internet or elsewhere when the evidence we have suggests that *that isn't happening at all. No, I think the problem is with the enforcement by one of the parties whose leader, the current President of the United States, is hellbent on destroying his opposition and denying that opposition popular media platforms to argue its case. This story fits into that narrative because of how independent voters view Mr. Talarico versus Ms. Crockett in the Democratic primary. And, as I've stated elsewhere on this site, the current U.S. president does not believe in equal enforcement of the law.

 

[Deus Ex Machiato]

The FCC's Brendan Carr calls this "a hoax" and blames the media. Of course he does.

Well that's the administration (and their stooges) for ya. The thing that gets me is the across the board ham-fisted nature of this whole fiasco. Of course Carr is willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy the fragile ego of the current occupant of the Oval Office, and CBS appears to be playing along, but it is (maybe not so) surprising how bad everyone is at this stuff. Of course I don't expect anyone in Trump's orbit to do anything other than shout "fake news" and throw a tantrum, but come on, CBS...did you see what happened with Kimmel? Did you think this was maybe a way to goose the ratings and revenue for the last couple months of Colbert's show and tell yourselves "we won't bungle it like ABC/Disney did!"?

You may think that having (at the time of this writing) 7.3 million views on the Talarico interview on YouTube is a good thing, but the views on CBS News YT page and CBS Mornings page are 84k and 89k, respectively. The combined views for the original "What the FCC?" segment and the follow up are at 5.6 million. So my napkin math says that you've got just shy of 12 million views of a guy that works for you mercilessly mocking you. Not a good look.


I'm almost tempted to say "okay NBC...now do Fallon and Seth Myers!"

 

[TheBigA]

Here's more quotations from Chairman Carr on the Colbert story, and if equal time should also apply to talk radio:

FCC Chair Signals Equal Time Scrutiny Could Extend To Radio.

Brendan Carr is warning that equal time rules apply fully to talk radio formats, not just television, amid an equal time controversy surrounding Stephen Colbert. The FCC Chairman said the

www.insideradio.com

FCC Equal Time Fight Raises New Questions for Talk Radio - Radio Ink

As an equal time dispute involving TV escalates, FCC leadership is split over enforcement, leaving radio operators watching closely for potential implications.

radioink.com

The real question is why does the FCC, that is trying to cut regulations, feel the need to get involved in this at all?

 

[umfan]

You're so busy trying to post a rebuttal to every post here that you don't realize when you contradict yourself.

In this, and many other threads.

 

[TheBigA]

Going back to the Carr comments:

“Yesterday was a perfect encapsulation of why the American people have more trust in gas station sushi than they do in the national news media… And you guys ate it up like slop,” he continued. “And when it was pointed out to the facts were completely different than what the fake news media was running with, nobody did, like, an about-face or did a fact correction. They just pivoted and moved away.”
“I think you guys should feel a bit ashamed for having been lied to and to just run with the lies. I think it was an embarrassing episode for the media,” Carr added.

The issue here is if late night talk shows are "bonified news programs." If what they do gets reported by bonified news programs, doesn't that, by definition, make them news, and therefore exempt from the equal time requirements? If seems to me that this entire episode proved the point Colbert was making, that he should be exempt, because even the chairman of the FCC felt the need to comment on it.

Political interviews on talk shows have long been interpreted as being exempt because those one-on-one political interviews play a role in informing viewers.

Isn't that exactly what Colbert does?

 

[tall_guy1]

You still don't get it. They saw the opportunity, and they took it.



Maybe. Who is the real bad guy here? CBS or the FCC? It sounds like you're more focused on CBS. It should be the FCC.

When you have government based on quid pro quo, that's what happens. The companies are just playing by the new rules.

In any case, Colbert is playing this for all he can. I expect he'll talk about it again tonight. Why? Because it's working.

CBS is not the good guy here.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Maybe. Who is the real bad guy here? CBS or the FCC? It sounds like you're more focused on CBS. It should be the FCC.

It's both.

When you have government based on quid pro quo, that's what happens. The companies are just playing by the new rules.

And this somehow exempts them from criticism? That's what you seem to be arguing.

In any case, Colbert is playing this for all he can. I expect he'll talk about it again tonight. Why? Because it's working.

Here's what Colbert said after CBS issued its statement once the backlash kicked in:

Very specifically, and, this has never, in fact, between the monologue I did last night and before I did the second act talking about this issue, I had to go backstage. I got called backstage to get more notes from these lawyers, something that had never ever happened before. And they told us the language they wanted me to use to describe that equal-time exception. And I used that language. So, I don't know what this (waves over statement) is about. For the record, I'm not even mad. I really don't want an adversarial relationship with the network. I've never had one. As I said last night in my interview with James Talarico, check it out, it's on YouTube, it's pretty good, I said, I said to him, I am grateful to have worked with CBS for the last seven years. And work with George, and David, and Amy and everyone at the network. The Sheldons of every age, the Matlocks of every sex. I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on! You're Paramount! No, no, no! You're more than that. You're Paramount Plus. Plus what? I guess we're all going to find out pretty soon. And for the lawyers to release this, without even talking to me, is really surprising. I don't really know what to do with this crap. (Then picks up the paper in a plastic bag as if it's dog poop.)
{end quote}

Your theory that Colbert instigated this implies that Colbert is a liar.

@michael hagerty has a better theory: Colbert is upset at the way the network has handled this.

CBS is not the good guy here.

They could have stood up for Colbert. Instead, they engaged in anticipatory compliance to a regulation that currently doesn't apply to them.

The issue here is if late night talk shows are "bonified news programs." If what they do gets reported by bonified news programs, doesn't that, by definition, make them news, and therefore exempt from the equal time requirements?

Are you using voice-to-text software? If so, you need to make an exception: it rendered "bona fide" as "bonified".

 

[TheBigA]

And this somehow exempts them from criticism? That's what you seem to be arguing.

I don't think anything "exempts them from criticism." All I'm doing is explaining why they're not going to stand up to the people who can put them out of business.

Your theory that Colbert instigated this implies that Colbert is a liar.

Or perhaps he's an actor and entertainer. I'm not judgmental about it. He's become a martyr and that's all that matters.

Some accused Kimmel of being a liar, and I didn't agree with that either.

Instead, they engaged in anticipatory compliance to a regulation that currently doesn't apply to them.

That seems to be the narrative.

Meanwhile, who benefits from the ratings explosion they experienced last week?

 

[tall_guy1]

I don't think anything "exempts them from criticism." All I'm doing is explaining why they're not going to stand up to the people who can put them out of business.



Or perhaps he's an actor and entertainer. I'm not judgmental about it. He's become a martyr and that's all that matters.

Some accused Kimmel of being a liar, and I didn't agree with that either.



That seems to be the narrative.

Meanwhile, who benefits from the ratings explosion they experienced last week?

What it does it cut pretty strongly through the line "the media is the friend of the people" though.

 

[TheBigA]

What it does it cut pretty strongly through the line "the media is the friend of the people" though.

Depends what you think "the media" is. Is it David Ellison, Bari Weiss, or Stephen Colbert?? They all are part of "the media."

 

[K.M. Richards]

(to @TheBigA) Are you using voice-to-text software? If so, you need to make an exception: it rendered "bona fide" as "bonified".

I wondered about that myself. He knows better.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

I don't think anything "exempts them from criticism." All I'm doing is explaining why they're not going to stand up to the people who can put them out of business.

Profiles in cowardice.

 

[vchimpanzee]

The issue here is if late night talk shows are "bonified news programs." If what they do gets reported by bonified news programs, doesn't that, by definition, make them news, and therefore exempt from the equal time requirements? If seems to me that this entire episode proved the point Colbert was making, that he should be exempt, because even the chairman of the FCC felt the need to comment on it.

Is "Weekend Update" on "Saturday Night Live" news? They do report real news stories and then in many cases make up stuff about the story.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Is "Weekend Update" on "Saturday Night Live" news? They do report real news stories and then in many cases make up stuff about the story.

That has been considered satire from SNL's start back in 1975.

 

[vchimpanzee]

That has been considered satire from SNL's start back in 1975.

Well, that's what I thought.