Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat • Hacker News Board

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#51

Post by jmyeet » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:15 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #37

atoav wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations. So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but t…

> Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Isn't their main assertion that only citizens should vote? (something like 80% of people claiming allegiance to both parties said the same, last i saw, but numbers surely fluctuate from poll to poll)

No. There is a long history of Republican voter disenfranchisement:

- In the 1980s The RNC created the Ballot Security Task Force [1], which was a scheme to strike people off the voter rolls by sending them a mailer if they didn't respond. This led to a consent decree requiring "preclearance" for any voter roll enforcement that lasted 25+ years [2];

- Republicans lead the charge in restricting access to mail-in voting because it's used more by Democratic Party voters [3] despite there being no evidence of fraud;

- In response to Arizona turning blue in 2020, Republicans went on a massive voter suppression spree [4], which disproportionately impacts Native Americans [5];

- Nationally, the push to have a street address unfairly impacts Native Americans who often don't have an official sstreet address if they live on a reservation. That's not an accident. It's the point;

- Even the push to force people to have birth certificates is aimed at Native Americans and poor people. There are quite literally millions of Americans who don't have them [6];

- Even if you have the necessary documentation to get an ID, you may have problems getting access. Again, this is by design. For example, Louisiana closed a bunch of DMV offices in minority areas such that the only DMV in certain black-majority areas was only open one day a month [7];

- The so-called SAVE Act recently passed by the house required your birth certificate to match your ID. Well, that's a problem for married women [8].

- States such as Florida have used private firms to strike people off the voter rolls if their name sounds like a convicted felon anywhere else in the country [9].

And why are we doing all this? There is zero evidence of voter fraud on a large scale [10]. And those convicted of voter fraud are most commonly Republican anyway [11].

But let's just say that we want an ID to vote. Why don't we fund the Federal government to issue it and make sure it is readily available and cheap or free? No, we can't have that because it's never been the point.

At some point you have to realize that they don't care about "integrity". Voter suppression is the point because it's the only way they can win elections.

Lastly, I feel compelled to remind people of Lee Atwater's famous 1981 remarks [12]. Republicans went from overt racism to being ever more abstract but the goals remained the same: to disproportionately impact black and brown people.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force

[2]: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-securit...

[3]: https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influence...

[4]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ariz...

[5]: https://azmirror.com/2024/06/06/100-years-after-citizenship-...

[6]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill...

[7]: https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/one-day-a-month-is-no...

[8]: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-59684/save-act-married-w...

[9]: https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2000/06/23/hundreds-of-vote...

[10]: https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid...

[11]: https://archive.amarkfoundation.org/the2020election/voter-fr...

[12]: https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/lee-atwaters-infamous-...

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#52

Post by JohnTHaller » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #30

dabinat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 issu…

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.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#53

Post by CGMthrowaway » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

filoeleven wrote: post #46

jjtheblunt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Isn't their main assertion that only citizens should vote? (something like 80% of people claiming allegiance to both parties said the same, last i saw, but numbers surely fluctuate from poll to poll)

It's an assertion not backed by data. Non-citizens voting is infinitesimally small. Between that, Noem saying out loud "we want the right people to vote", and Trump calling for nationalized elections, it's clear what the real purpose is.

Early in-person voting and making election day a federal holiday are things everyone on all sides ought to be able to rally behind, together. Idk if any of that is in the SAVE Act though

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#54

Post by josefritzishere » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

apparent wrote: post #9

josefritzishere wrote: post #8

This is higly abusive. Talks shows have been generally considered exempt from the Equal Time provision since the Regan administration. It it was applied consistently Fox News is basically violating it 24 hours a day.

Fox News is doesn't use airwaves, so it's not subject to this requirement.

Fox News affiliates do, and the FCC also regulates cable TV, satillite, telephony and even internet (to different extents) so this could be construed to apply quite broadly.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#55

Post by atoav » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #37

atoav wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations. So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but t…

> Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Isn't their main assertion that only citizens should vote? (something like 80% of people claiming allegiance to both parties said the same, last i saw, but numbers surely fluctuate from poll to poll)

As if that ever was a huge problem in the US. If you want people to vote and want to avoid disenfranchising US citizens there are ways to do that as demonstrated by the majority of countries on earth. When I vote for example in the EU (Austria), I proactively get a letter from the state (since I am in the voter register). With this letter and some ID card I can show up in the polling location on the weekend and vote after proofing I am the person on my ID card.

What if I am not home? I go to a website a month before the vote, they send me a letter and I vote whenever I like before my election.

Everybody has such an ID card since that card is what you would also show to proove your identity elsewhere. And since we have working social welfare every slice of the citizen population can also afford it.

If you want to solve that problem, it is possible. If you want to solve it, that is. Right wing parties will always use non-citizens as scapegoats that are at the same time draining the welfare state and stealing your jobs. Oh, and you votes. Believing them without citation is the problem here.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#56

Post by RickJWagner » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

SimianSci wrote: post #12

Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to move to cities. Normally, a healthy response to this would be to realign and target a more popular set of messaging and policy objectives. Instead the American Right has decided instead that this popularity (and the reflection in media) is a threat to its abilit…

[flagged]

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#57

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #30

dabinat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 issu…

> 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.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#58

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #43

I think it’s funny that while GOP supporters are investing tens of $billions to take over popular broadcast and social media brands to privilege their point of view, Brendan Carr threatens to invoke the equal time rule, which would completely negate their structural advantage. This is kind of like when conservatives spent years wrapping their advocacy in the banner of free speech, and then Brendan Carr announced that…

> I think it’s funny that while GOP supporters are investing tens of $billions to take over popular broadcast and social media brands to privilege their point of view, Brendan Carr threatens to invoke the equal time rule, which would completely negate their structural advantage.

Why assume the rule would be applied fairly? Carr said they would not enforce it against right wing radio.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#59

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36

outside1234 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously true. The real challenge here is that this rule is only going to applied to one party.

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 R…

Carr said they would not enforce the rule against right wing radio.

Re: Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

#60

Post by decremental » Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #44

SimianSci wrote: post #12

Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to move to cities. Normally, a healthy response to this would be to realign and target a more popular set of messaging and policy objectives. Instead the American Right has decided instead that this popularity (and the reflection in media) is a threat to its abilit…

> It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. To be clear, they were “handed power” by decisively winning a national election, which sort of undercuts your opening statement about how unpopular they are.

[dead]