Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

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

#61

Post by atmavatar »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #38
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…

>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 Doesn't California have 54 reps, out of 485? And 90 out of ~800 Article III judges (lifetime appointment). It also collects $858 billion a year in state and local taxes that it gets to do mostly what it wants with

If California was apportioned the same as Wyoming, it would have 68 or 69 representatives (depending how you round). Not to play favorites: Texas would have 50 or 51 representatives.

Even if you just count the House of Representatives, smaller states have a per capita advantage.

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

#62

Post by bitshiftfaced »

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…

People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor...

"Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).

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

#63

Post by foogazi »

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…

> which would completely negate their structural advantage.

You think it’s going to be enforced against their side ?

Read the room

My favorite dictator quote:

> To my friends everything, to my enemies the law

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

#64

Post by xscott »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #62
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…

People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor... "Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).

Language changes over time, and I remember recent memes where a cute girl says something like "claiming you're moderate means you know conservatives don't get laid" (presumably because of abortion politics). It makes me wonder if the moderates actually became liberal or if they just don't want to use that word any more.

After all the polarism in "reality show politics", my diehard liberal friends seem less liberal to me, but they'll state which team they're on more fervently than ever.

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

#65

Post by snowwrestler »

pseudalopex wrote: post #58
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.

It is unlikely Carr will be FCC chair past January 20, 2029. (If he makes it that long.)

However, all those conservative billionaires will still own their media companies. Expanding the coverage of the equal time rule would hand the next Democratic administration a big club to swing at them.

Hey maybe for his next act, Carr will revive the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed under Reagan.

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

#66

Post by cwillu »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #53
filoeleven wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not.

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

#67

Post by maxlybbert »

wrs wrote: post #39
apparent wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, should apply there for sure. I wonder if Democratic politicians would want to go on conservative talk shows, though. My general understanding is that Republican politicians are more often refused speaking slots on non-Right media, whereas Democratic politicians don't want to go on Right media.

You’re saying Republican politicians are demanding to be interviewed by Steven Colbert? And even if they were, that would matter? (I would think Mr. Colbert would love to have a bunch of R politicians lined up to skewer on his show.)

I know what Colbert said, and what Colbert claims CBS said. But I feel like something is being left out.

The equal time requirement wouldn’t prevent Colbert from interviewing a political candidate. And it wouldn’t require Colbert to send invitations to anybody. It would require Colbert to allow a competing political candidate to appear if the candidate demanded it.

CBS could decide they don’t want that hassle. Colbert could decide he doesn’t want that hassle. But the law as it stands doesn’t prevent the interview.

I actually remember when Reagan’s FCC decided to stop enforcing equal time. Plenty of people complained about how the change would ruin America. Now they seem to believe Reagan was right after all.

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

#68

Post by maxlybbert »

AshleyGrant wrote: post #41
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Doesn't California have 54 reps, out of 485? And 90 out of ~800 Article III judges (lifetime appointment). It also collects $858 billion a year in state and local taxes that it gets to do mostly what it wants with

Yes, but it only has two senators. The 39.5 million people in California have the same Senatorial representation as the less than 600 thousand people in Wyoming. In what world is that fair or remotely democratic?

The people who wrote the constitution had plenty of experience with the First and Second Continental Congresses, and the Congress set up by the Articles of Confederation. And Parliament, and state legislatures. They both loved and feared democracy. Not everything in the constitution is meant to be democratic.

Senators were originally appointed by state governments to prevent the federal government from slowly weakening the states ( https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-2-3/A... “To further allay Anti-Federalist concerns regarding concentrated federal power in Congress, the Federalists emphasized that bicameralism, which lodged legislative power directly in the state governments through equal representation in the Senate, would serve to restrain, separate, and check federal power”). That’s not really “democratic.”

In grade school, we focused on the fact that states with small populations weren’t enthusiastic about letting larger states set national policy. Sure, New York would have been happy to have more influence in both the House and the Senate than any other state, but Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut weren’t going to sign under those terms. Horse trading to get them to join wasn’t “democratic” either, but they wouldn’t have joined any other way.

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

#69

Post by nullocator »

RickJWagner wrote: post #56
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]

Is it? Citizens in Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota have ~3x the voting power as citizens of California, seems pretty easy to win many of the things you mentioned on rural townships.

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

#70

Post by jjtheblunt »

jmyeet wrote: post #51
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)

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 votin…

Definitely excellent citations, will read them all. thanks.
Post reply on HN