politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can you explain this for a non American?
CBS got pressured by a regulatory agency (federal communications commission) to not air Talarico’s interview under some bullshit (radio and public tv broadcasts are supposed to give “equal airtime” during elections to political rivals to avoid the partisan bullshit we see with our media.)
Talarico is currently in a primary election for us senate in Texas (a primary is against other people in the same party, to decide who that parties nominee is)(his competitor, is Jasmine Crocket… who is an amazing woman, I’d be happy with either but I want Crocket.)
He’s also a pastor who’s been calling out Christian nationalism and advancing fairly progressive causes., and scaring the shit out of people that are of a Nazis persuasion.
So, CBS said they couldn’t air that segment.
So instead Colbert dumped it on YouTube.
The YT video has gotten 6.5 million views, which for perspective, they would have expected about 2 million if it aired.
So this is another example of censorship going wrong.
In reality, CBS is doing exactly what it wants to do, which is to be a mouthpiece for the Conservative Propaganda Machine, but they are using the FCC as a handy excuse, like it isn't their own fault.
FCC chairman Brendan whatshisbut did come out and say it would violate equal time some how.
So yes, CBS is choosing to self-censor and be that mouthpiece, but also it would have aired of Brendan didn’t say anything. At least that’s my read.
And i guess the 2.5M$ are campaign donations that came from a link attached to the youtube video?
Not really?
Here’s the interview.
People just went and donated on their own.
Edit: I just double checked the video is at 10 million views.
Strange, I wonder why it shows 7.5m views for me (5 hours after you saw 10m). I wonder if Youtube gives different view counts by region, which would be...interesting.
Maybe I fucked up and read subscribers? The mobile page had 10 mil where it looked like views just now, expanding the info says 7.4 mil.
Either way it’s a fuck ton more than the 2-3 mil they’d have had if they just aired it. (Gotta be honest it’s not Talarico’s best.)
You did. It's 10.6 million subscribers, 7.5 million views.
Do I understand correctly that "equal time" in a primary would mean giving equal time to the Jasmine Crocket? Because honestly, I don't really see the downside.
Im fact, I believe Colbert said he's interviewed her twice already.
Laws like this only work if they are uniformly enforced.
The shell game is when the enforcement agency or parent company takes initiative during an election cycle versus when they choose not to. (top down enforcement) You can certainly complain from the bottom up and take it to court, but by the time it gets litigated the election is already over.
Technically, yes.
But, we’re doing the whole Nazis thing right now so it’s just a bullshit excuse.
But she’s already been on twice (and her response to all this was basically “well I don’t mind another go…”
Adding to FuglyDuck's good explanation, there's another element. Not quite all broadcast (over-the-air, non-cable television, i.e. publicly accessible for free) TV follows this rule, as talk shows are co sidereal to be entertainment and are excluded. So the FCC threatened to remove the exemption for talk shows, meaning CBS wanted to play it safe and not risk the government making this a problem, even though it's not (currently) against the rules.
It is a California government coastal erosion photo that included Barbara Streisand's house. She sued to remove it from the internet because she believed it was an invasion of her privacy.