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

#71

Post by SpEd3Y » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

squarefoot wrote: post #34

barcodehorse wrote: post #27

I find the death of 2016 conservatism and the advent of the extremist, more violent and hateful republicanism very interesting. It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as. Now the Right has their own form of that in those who scroll on Twitter and attack immigrants behind their backs. I feel like, within the nex…

> It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as. That's the result of well known disinformation tactics by certain media in concert with police forces: wait or provoke a violent outburst in a otherwise peaceful protest, often triggered by carefully planned repetitive police charges, then be ready to film when prote…

Not saying this is the case, but I heard an argument made about this on the other side. Saying the ICE situation is manufactured by the Democratic party by not playing ball like they did in the Obama times. Instead they encourage protests and and "wait or provoke a violent outburst" that's "often triggered by carefully planned repetitive" tactics like blocking ICE vehicles "then be ready to film when" an inevitable violent act happens then "make a enraging video out of it and show only that in prime time to families dining".

Again, not saying that's the case, I'm not from the US so I don't much care, but it's funny to me that both side accuse each other of the same strategy.

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

#72

Post by RickJWagner » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

nullocator wrote: post #69

RickJWagner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[flagged]

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

#73

Post by g19fanatic » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

RickJWagner wrote: post #72

nullocator wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

i believe you have that backwards, senate gets 2 representatives per state. house gets based on population (less gerrymandering!). but your point still stands

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

#74

Post by squarefoot » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

SpEd3Y wrote: post #71

squarefoot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as. That's the result of well known disinformation tactics by certain media in concert with police forces: wait or provoke a violent outburst in a otherwise peaceful protest, often triggered by carefully planned repetitive police charges, then be ready to film when prote…

Not saying this is the case, but I heard an argument made about this on the other side. Saying the ICE situation is manufactured by the Democratic party by not playing ball like they did in the Obama times. Instead they encourage protests and and "wait or provoke a violent outburst" that's "often triggered by carefully planned repetitive" tactics like blocking ICE vehicles "then be ready to film when" an inevitable v…

I'm not from the US as well but that's true: those tactics are used on both sides, although they may be more visible where protesting happens more often, which is the case today with the Trump administration. It's part of the way governments attempt to reduce support to protesters by painting them as all violent.

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

#75

Post by RickJWagner » Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 8:21 PM UTC

g19fanatic wrote: post #73

RickJWagner wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

i believe you have that backwards, senate gets 2 representatives per state. house gets based on population (less gerrymandering!). but your point still stands

[flagged]

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

#76

Post by nomel » Thu, Feb 19, 2026, 7:49 AM UTC

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #57

nomel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 incredib…

> 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.

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

#77

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Thu, Feb 19, 2026, 7:31 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #76

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 incredib…

> 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 th…

> 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.

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

#78

Post by sejje » Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 2:45 AM 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…

Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett.

Then he lied about it and the network corrected him.

But okay, yeah they pushed the boundaries and all that bullshit.

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

#79

Post by AshleyGrant » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 10:47 PM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #68

AshleyGrant wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weakeni…

You completely avoided my question and just gave a lecture on why it is the way it is.

I am well versed in why the Senate is structured the way that it is. That is beside the point. The simple fact is we have a legislative structure that does not properly give voice to voters in larger states while over-representing people who choose to live in small states. It is patently unfair and should be fixed.

There is no universe in which the vast swaths of unpopulated land in Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, or the Dakotas deserve the same amount of legislative power as the densely populated states of California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

But here we are, and this country has borne the painful lessons of a Constitution that over-represents residents of these lightly populated states through the tyranny of minority rule.

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

#80

Post by AshleyGrant » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 10:49 PM UTC

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #42

AshleyGrant wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't think it was ever supposed to be. The Senate was set up by the founders to be picked by the State Legislatures anyway, not a direct vote. Did you read the Federalist Papers?

Both you and the other person who responded to me completely avoided the question I posed and hid behind "The Founding Fathers said it should be this way, so it is that way."

I didn't ask why it is the way that it is or if it is operating to the plan presented by the Founding Fathers.

I asked in what universe is it remotely fair or democratic. Care to try and come up with an answer to that question?