And fix: a functioning government would make a law that outlaws such flagrant abuse of a media company.
What, if making murder illegal was hard would you just throw your hands and give up and make murder legal? Why is it that suddenly, when it's about corporations to do whatever they want - including destroy democracy itself - we're little babies who can't possibly lift a single finger to stop it?
But that guy who sold an eighth? Implement the full extent of mass surveillance and send a tactical SWAT team to the wrong house to arrest him for 40 years!
I had a past life of drumming up community comments for engagment: The only thing that's changed is that humans are getting lazy and using AI. Fake comments have always been a thing.
I'm sure you can't share details but would be cool to hear more about it generally speaking, what worked and not etc. Especially if it involved HN.
Our company is being attacked rn in tech media and at least some of it, gut feeling wise, seems obviously sponsored / promoted by competitors. I know that's not surprising, but never watched it happen from this side before.
The key was to present what looked like a lively debate. The dirty trick was to have the "bad side" over state the position horribly. For example, to make Republicans look bad we'd start having their fake personas use subtle racism.
Happens for physical heath too. I jumpstarted progress with GLP-1 and Statins and now I probably don't need them because I enjoy exercising and eating well.
Two relevant things: 1. Fox news has a whole network of affiliates who do broadcast. 2. the FCC regulates cable, satillite, telephony and internet in addition to broadcast.
US prices are insane if you're paid in CAD. The good news is that Canada is great if you're paid in USD and are used to costal prices. It's like going to a third world country.
Not quite third world country, but yes, the 25-35% built-in discount when visiting Vancouver or Victoria from Seattle or Bellingham is quite nice :) Similar discounts to visiting the Midwest, with none of the Midwest part!
It just says they have to give equal time, not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. But the other candidates have to make a request to be included and no-one made any requests.
Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.
> not prevent someone from coming on the show completely.
No, they weren't prevented from coming on, as the article poorly points out. It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This makes complete sense, if you've watched an intentionally biased show like Colbert.
edit: downvotes, please explain. This is the stated reason from TFA!:
> "CC Chairman Brendan Carr recently issued a warning to late-night and daytime talk shows that they may no longer qualify for the bona fide news exemption to the equal-time rule, and subsequently opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after an interview with Talarico."
> Colbert played audio of a recent Carr interview in which the FCC chairman said, “If [Jimmy] Kimmel and Colbert want to continue to do their programming, they don’t want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or a podcast or a streaming service and that’s fine.”
> Colbert said he “decided to take Brendan Carr’s advice” and interviewed Talarico for a segment posted on his show’s YouTube channel.
Help me understand if I'm missing something here. And the show is, clearly, intentionally biased. It targets a left wing audience, with its jokes specifically written around that (always has, that's fine), and nearly exclusively, has left wing political guests.
> It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming.
This seems very dubious given the recent ownership change of CBS and the lack of reason behind the decision. The point the parent comment brings up is that "equal airtime" requires that someone actually request to go on the show and be refused. There is no legitimate cover for CBS' decision as this did not occur. It seems incredibly likely to be one made in fear of political liability rather than legal.
> The point the parent comment brings up is that "equal airtime" requires that someone actually request to go on the show and be refused.
Their lawyers recommendation, and Colbert's response and behavior, aligns with the case if they did refuse guests.
Is there some reference you're going off of related to this, that makes it clear they didn't? Or does Carr possibly have knowledge that they did, as part of the (as the article points out) ongoing investigation, resulting in their lawyers making the recommendation?
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but, a strongly left leaning show, with a strong left leaning audience, whose whole routine is making fun of republicans, refusing republican guests does NOT seem all that crazy. I would personally expect it, just to prevent their staff from the usual Twitter mob death threats for "platforming nazis"! I also think this whole thing is unreasonable, but I also think it's unreasonable to have 6 companies control 90% of the media, giving them the domination where their guests choices can even be considered a problem.
> Their lawyers recommendation, and Colbert's response and behavior, aligns with the case if they did refuse guests
Colbert's response and behavior also happen to align with his desire to remain contracted with CBS; the lawyers' recommendation aligns with CBS's desire to cater to the whims of the current US administration.
> Is there some reference you're going off of related to this, that makes it clear they didn't [refuse any guests]?
Colbert would say yes without hesitation. He has no reason to refuse the guest because he would take the opportunity to skewer them. I daresay he would revel in it. This equal airtime requirement does not also require equal consideration of opinion. It seems more prudent to look for evidence that this actually occurred; for example, has anybody come forward to complain about being refused as a guest on Colbert's show? One would think someone concerned about publicity would be very interested to do exactly that (unless it would be defamatory, of course).
> Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but, a strongly left leaning show, with a strong left leaning audience, whose whole routine is making fun of republicans, refusing republican guests does NOT seem all that crazy.
For the reasons I describe in the previous paragraph, that would be illogical for him to refuse, additionally for the reasons as noted in this case: it could be considered illegal to do so. On this topic of conspiracy theories, it appears a more likely one is that this current US administration, known for its bullshit, is just offering more bullshit.
CBS is now run by a right-wing billionaire. The equal time rule is being used as cover to kill an interview that the Republican administration doesn't like. Same way CBS keeps killing 60 Minutes reporting that does the same.
Well, see, the problem is that the race is currently at the primary election stage. So both candidates are Democrats.
So, if you give coverage to one candidate, that is favoring that candidate over the other. That doesn't seem fair.
But if you give both candidates air time, then you're giving air time to two Democratic candidates and zero Republican candidates. That can also be viewed as unfair (never mind that the Republican candidate is not in an election until November).
The only other option is to give neither candidate air time. That results in a less-informed electorate, and that's not a good outcome either.
All in all, the "give both candidates air time, even if they're both from the same party, as they will be in a primary" seems like the best answer, especially if it's applied to primary candidates from both parties. But it's not quite as straightforward a question as it appears at first glance.
This notice was published as a flagrant act of unlawful retaliation against late night shows for criticizing the sitting President. I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action, even if the Trump regime might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement. As the only non-regime FCC commissioner remaining has pointed out, the FCC specifically did not engage in the actual rulemaking procedure that's normally required to change these rules, because if they had their retaliatory motivation would have been a huge obstacle.
The problem is that the policy will not be challenged if people accept it as legitimate. Talk shows aren't common enough or important enough that a challenge is guaranteed to come. And so the ratchet of authoritarian takeover advances a little bit further, as Donald Trump works towards his quite explicit goal of making it illegal for the media to say bad things about him.
They just now changed how they enforce the rules. Of course they have a legal pretense for their action; everyone has a legal pretense.
These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.
I think you were downvoted for tone, but I think your general point is valid.
I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.
reply