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

#81

Post by maxlybbert » Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 6:54 AM UTC

AshleyGrant wrote: post #79

maxlybbert wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 univ…

You asked:

"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?"

I answered "Not everything in the constitution is meant to be democratic."

I'm sorry if you are not capable of understanding how that answers your question.

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

#82

Post by hn_acker » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 1:34 AM UTC

sejje wrote: post #78

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.

> 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.

How did Colbert lie? And do you have a source for the supposed lie? The equal-time rule does not obligate proactive actions from the broadcaster such as invitations or "extend[ing]" an offer. The equal-time rule requires an equal opportunity for political opponents to use a broadcast station, and it is up to each political opponent to reach out and assert their intent to use the equal-time rule. Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request.

> Then he lied about it and the network corrected him.

No, CBS lied about what the equal-time rule requires.

> He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time

Don't pretend that the "law about equal time" is the same in 2026 as it was in the 95 previous years [1]:

> Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until FCC chair Brendan Carr issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption.

[break to avoid mixing quotes from different parties]

> He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time

Could you explain how you reached the number 95? I don't get 95+-1 from 2026-1927 or 2026-1934 [1].

> and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett.

CBS didn't want to air the Talarico interview because CBS didn't want to be forced to provide equal time in case Jasmine Crockett would have used the equal-time rule to get her own interview. Colbert did not oppose and has not opposed having Crockett on in relation to the equal-time rule.

I get the feeling that you're pretending to be angry on Jasmine Crockett's behalf. What's more, it seems like you want to be angry at Colbert and are projecting your feelings onto Jasmine Crockett. But why does Jasmine Crockett seem to have no issue with Colbert's actions [2]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule#Details

[2] https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/politics/jasmine-cro...

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

#83

Post by hn_acker » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 3:31 PM UTC

hn_acker wrote: post #82

sejje wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. How did Colbert lie? And do you have a source for the supposed lie? The equal-time rule does not obligate proactive actions from the broadcaster such as invitations or "extend[ing]" an offer. The equal-time rule requires an equal opportun…

I made a mistake with the sentence

> Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request.

I should have written: Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, so her non-existent request couldn't have been denied by CBS or Colbert. CBS does not violate the equal-time rule until CBS were to deny an interview request that relies on the equal-time rule.