So CBS the company doesn't want to air it. That is what they are saying.
But want to make it about FCC. Which if CBS is in the wrong they should be fined. But a company can decide what it wants to or not air. Remember this isn't a social media platform silencing people. This is a business/TV network deciding what it wants to air or not air on a show it produces. It is like them cancelling a sitcom or other "news" shows. They can decide if they want to or not. Now I could care less if they air it or not. But just saying it is a private business that isn't a social media platform. But it might boil down to the contract between CBS and the show. Which Colbert doesn't want to talk about. Would rather say TRUMP BAD.
Trump sued CBS last year over their editing of a Harris interview. Now owned by Paramount, CBS caved and settled for $16 million then hired right-wing Bari Weiss to run its news dept. When you write that CBS is just "deciding what it wants to air or not air" you conveniently ignore all this.To ignore the context makes your partisan hackery glaringly apparent.
NO.... you are ignoring the fact with that interview they didn't edit out Trumps. That is why he SUED. It is a form of defamation. It is why they settled because they knew they would lose. IF it wasn't going to lose they would have taken it further. FACTS YOU LIKE TO IGNORE.
So someone getting hired and taking a company into a different direction isn't a company airing what they want? Companies can't do that? Again this isn't a social media outlet. This is a business producing and airing shows. They can choose or not choose what to air. But when you "edit" one interview and not another. That can open you up for defamation. Also something that nobody knows but the business side and lawyers. What does it say in the contracts between CBS and Colbert's show. I am sure Colbert doesn't have a clue what is in those contracts. If Colbert is smart he would set up an interview with the Republican and do the exact same questioning. Then if that airs and this one still doesn't. He has perfect ammo for his complaint. Plus lawsuit.
Ok. Before an election, there is a thing called a "primary," where people registered with that political party get to vote for who will represent them. Texas is in early voting of their primary. Talarico's opponent is a Black woman named Jasmine Crockett. Many people said they should not run against each other. But it doesn't matter; one of them will win, and they're both excellent candidates. I personally believe that this plan was crafted on January 22.
MAGAts were too short-sighted to see it. Carr went in heavy-handed and showed his cards, as predicted. Now, he needs MAGAts to be outraged and offended on Jasmine Crockett's behalf. The chances of that happening are slim to none. The 1934 law doesn't apply to streaming platforms, and Carr was so busy kissing Trump's ass and being shortsighted that he didn't think to update it. By Talarico getting 'The View' sued and getting CBS to jump the gun, they have nationally taught Democrats how to get around this FCC censorship. Genius! I bet it was thought up by a hobbyist! Now, although Carr applied this rule to television, he didn't apply it to radio shows. What the hell are they going to do when ALL the right-wing radio hosts, whom I keep telling you I'm watching switch every day, start airing left-leaning candidates in the Summer? I'm grabbing popcorn! That is, of course, if we make it to Summer...
Maybe they settled because they wanted to get Trump off their back and give him a win so they could get on with their attempt to acquire Discovery Time Warner. But you ignore that. Just like you ignore the fact that $16 million was chump change to CBS and Paramount. You are awfully quick to adopt a far too simple explanation. Because you are a partisan hack.
This is correct. But to try to invoke "RACE" into it. How about the fact that Crockett is doing just as good of job putting her foot in her mouth as AOC has been lately. Just like Trump and others on the right do a fine enough job of doing the same.
I thought that was obvious. What you missed is that YOU, TOO, were making assumptions. But I'm "the tinfoil hat wearer." Just more proof you're a partisan hack. And clueless.
Yours assumptions are tinfoil hat. You thinking conspiracy. I am saying what rights companies have. They have the right to say what is and isn't allowed on their network with in the confines of rules and regulations. YOu are trying to say it is some big conspiracy.
I wasn't making assumptions about the lawsuit. It was the reason for it was biased and defamation. Also CBS is different rules compared to The Onion. With the licensing they have with the FCC. It is why they settled for "chump change" like you stated. You are the clueless one.
Not to mention your (unfounded) arrogance. I make assumptions, you make assumptions. But you have the arrogance to ASS-ume YOUR assumptions are somehow automatically valid and mine are "tinfoil hat." And I never said "it is some big conspiracy." That's YOUR fallacious ASS-umption. PS: are you even dimly aware that The Onion is a political HUMOR site? Not to mention that CBS's licensing with the FCC is for its BROADCAST stations not its network programming like CBS News. But thanks for admitting the settlement was chump change. In your case your intellect could be described as "chimp change."
According to her, CBS Legal advised the Colbert Show that broadcasting an interview with Talarico could be a violation of the Fairness Doctrine if they didn’t interview Crockett as well.
Colbert had a choice. Interview Crockett or don’t broadcast the Talarico spot. Colbert chose not to air the spot. This is a situation where I believe Crockett, CBS and the FCC over Colbert and Talarico.
My assumptions are contractual and the rights of businesses.
Yours are conspiracy theory. There is a difference. One is a hell of alot more plausible. No I didn't admit it was 'chump chance'.... I was using your own words. Again... you are misleading. SO typical liberal. No I did mention that The Onion is different than CBS.... another thing you are changing what I stated. You are correct but here is the question.... Where do "night shows" land.... with broadcasting or news? Once you dive into interviews things can change. Especially when it is POLITIAL..... So was the interview that Colbert talking about "news" or "entertainment"? This difference is why they got SUED by Trump with the 60 mins. 60 mins is considered more of a "news" show. But yeah... contracts, legalities, etc. Things you fucking IGNORE.
HMMMMM..... will Nicky understand this or not? Same goes for the reason on why Trump won his lawsuit or they "settled".
Also it allow Colbert to kick and scream about "censorship" and how unfair Trump's FCC is and what not. It draws more attention to his show than the actual interview would have. It also give Crockett a chance to comment on things, get name in press, and seem like the "level headed" one. Help raise her image. Then like Katie stated..... show how to do things in a round about way.
This brings up my point about how Colbert and The View that when they kick and scream about "censorship". They are in a different category than NEWS under the FCC. Just like when I brought up The Onion.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
