It is a great illustration of how transition to the authoritarianism happens (I've seen it happen in Russia in 2000s). At first you don't even need censorship, you just need to scare owners of channels/newspapers enough, so that they self-censor.
Fear is the enforcement mechanism because it can't be challenged in court.
It is long past time for everyone in tech to take a long hard look at the current situation and stop doing anything that financially benefits Musk, Ellison, or Thiel.
Chilling effect has a long history of being well considered as unconstitutional harm in the courts
Indeed. Mark Zuckerberg has long said the administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID-related content, including satire and humor. And now the administration has ended public funding for NPR and PBS. Chilling effect
It goes back even further, just see the 1941 FCC “Mayflower Decision” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_doctrine
When you say "the administration", it's worth noting you're describing actions by two different administrations. Both political parties have tried to silence dissenting views through soft censorship.
Didn’t Putin then run for a third term and because he corrupted the voting machines, remain in power? He started having dissenters abducted by plainclothes masked men in vans for the fear factor. Quietly, dissent stopped and everyone learned that when you go against Putin, you face defenestration.
I'm sure the CBS political officer^W^Wombudsman advised against airing the interview:
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-5537152/cbs-news-elliso...
If only they could "slip on some tea"...
Rough spot in time to be:
- Once print newspapers were no longer a thing, even local news outlets are struggling to stay alive, and are resulting to sensationalism and entertainment as news - Corporate sponsors retain a huge influence in mainstream news (or have outright purchased it and use it for partisan politics). - "Social" media resides in (you guessed it) corporate-owned walled gardens. - Even those willing to speak out are being targeted by federal agencies
Wondering where others are finding great places to learn what's going on, what's actually relevant to me, and what I can actually do about it.
There's a decent amount of non-profit news. I read NPR a lot and donate to them and Propublica. I think one of the big issues is advertising so news you actually pay for is a lot less likely to clickbait you.
Ah yes, NPR who famously doesn't advertise but just tells us about new products! That sponsor programs!
There's something "Very HN" to see a comment in a discussion about literal political censorship of the news media pointing out the horrifying hypocrisy in one of those media sources running... something sort of like advertisement.
Is this what kids mean when they tell people to touch grass? My generation would accuse you of having lost the plot.
Pablo Torre, the last true sports journalist in America.
Not all the legacy newspapers are failing; NYT is doing well. There are other news sources beyond legacy newspapers, broadcasters, local news, and social media. There are wire services (AP, Reuters), insider access journalism (Axios, Punchbowl, Semafor), public media (NPR, PBS, BBC), investigative journalism (ProPublica), digital-first outlets (Politico, Vox), and the growing wave of small, indie , creator-led media (YouTube, Substack, Patreon).
NYT as a news organization is, charitably, part of the controlled opposition. They are not meeting this moment at all, through cowardice or intentional complicity I'm not completely sure.
Someone already mentioned NPR. BBC also does a great job reporting on US and international issues. New York Times still does strong reporting. And there are local sources too, such as the Colorado Sun, LA Times, SF Chronicle, or SF Gate (obviously I’m in the US).
LA Times is in the process of getting Bezosed/Murdoched by their billionaire political activist owner.
The interview in YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
Barbara Streisand
1.5M views
Weird how Larry Ellison manages to do this to everything he touches
If its any consolation, I think CBS news will fail miserably. The new captains are at the helm of a sinking ship, which has been taking on water for decades.
Maybe a cynic will say "this was the plan", but if it was, its not a very good plan? If anything, tech executives benefited enormously from their opponents being overly attached to legacy media communication strategies. When Bezos kills the Post or Ellison kills CBS, the talent doesnt magically disappear.
Smacks of state media control don't it?
From Umberto Eco's essay on Fascism:
> On the morning of July 27, 1943, I was told that, according to radio reports, fascism had collapsed and Mussolini was under arrest. When my mother sent me out to buy the newspaper, I saw that the papers at the nearest newsstand had different titles. Moreover, after seeing the headlines, I realized that each newspaper said different things. I bought one of them, blindly, and read a message on the first page signed by five or six political parties — among them the Democrazia Cristiana, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Partito d’Azione, and the Liberal Party.
> Until then, I had believed that there was a single party in every country and that in Italy it was the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Now I was discovering that in my country several parties could exist at the same time. Since I was a clever boy, I immediately realized that so many parties could not have been born overnight, and they must have existed for some time as clandestine organizations.
What I think is fascinating here in this case isn't just the suppression of any old free speech, it's trying to hide the presence of political options.
"fear"... come one now... the headline is hyperbolic.
The change here is that late night interviews are not "bona fied news" so equal time rule kicks in. CBS can have the on-the-air interview, but that equal time must be given to the opposition. I believe just an offer must be made (else i would think the opposition can "censor" the other side indirectly... i could be wrong here).
This is a change from the past where the fcc declared leno's interview with schwarzeneggerer a bona fide news interview (thus exempted from equal time).
> The change here is that late night interviews are not "bona fied news"
Not always the case with Section 315, and late night and talk shows have been exempted in the past. The problem here is that this is on a case-by-case basis, and we have a particularly politically-charged executive agency.
>The change here is that late night interviews are not "bona fied news" so equal time rule kicks in
I'll give you "fear" is the wrong word for a company openly courting the administration, but if the equal time clause applies here because CBS is over-the-air using "a public good", it feels like we're long past a time where it should apply to _at least_ cable stations. Ideally, the whole thing would be put back in place how it was before the Regan or Rush Limbaugh era decimation of it (IIRC), but with the net and podcasts and youtube, et al, this is just me getting old and seeing some weird value in locking the splinters of the barn door.
They cite that this goes against the long standing rule and they cite the selective enforcement against Colbert and Kimmel before the interview. Two people the president has directly attacked.
They also cite that they have elected to not enforce the rule against conservative radio hosts.
> Carr suggested the exemption should no longer apply to programs he characterized as being “motivated by partisan purposes.”
I know the timing makes this seem cravenly partisan, but revoking an exemption like this could be motivated by a desire to ensure fairn-
> while the FCC chair was targeting late-night talk shows, he had made clear that right-wing talk radio would not be subject to the equal time notice.
Ah, well.
The right has an extremely large chip on their shoulder when insisting that the their _more popular media outlets_ do not count as "mainstream media" because... reasons.
That's insane. We're talking about the government threatening a station if they air an interview with a political rival.
Tbh, in this case the fault lies more with CBS for obeying in advance. The FCC hasn't actually made the rule change yet.
The FCC opened a probe on The View[0] for hosting Talarico. They haven't made a rule change, but they're definitely acting as if the rules already say what they want it to say.
[0]: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fcc-opening-probe-the-view-a...
Already in 2026, Colbert has hosted Senator Jon Ossoff and Governor Josh Shapiro who are both up for re-election this year. Why no probe in those cases?
This whole fight is about something called the "bona fides news exception." Basically, in 2006 the FCC ruled that late night interviews were always bona fides news interviews (and therefore not subject to equal time), on January 21st FCC Chairman Brendan Carr wrote a letter suggesting (but not declaring) that the 2006 ruling was incorrect and might be revoked.
Separately, currently elected politicians are pretty much always considered to be bona fides interview subjects, even if they happen to be running for reelection, because e.g. the Governor of Pennsylvania expressing opinions is news.
If CBS lawyers wanted to fight and bring Talarico on, they would probably win- the letter is not actually changing the rule, and the FCC would have to defend the rule change in court and would probably lose. But the point is that CBS has determined to be working towards the Fuehrer, and wants to do so, and so they are doing what they are doing.
Like you said: re-election. Re-election just maintains the status quo. The concern here is Talarico specifically, and that he might flip Texas.
Talarico's potential future senate seat is already occupied by someone in his own party though
> Talarico's potential future senate seat is already occupied by someone in his own party though
...??
Both current Texas Senators are Republicans. Talarico (a Democrat) is running for Cornyn's seat
Cynicism warning, but my honest guess is they see that the Colbert problem will be solved in June and so don't feel the need to spend any effort on him.
Correct. CBS is now owned by Larry Ellison's son. They are big supporters of the current administration. This act, among others, shows that they are willing to silence dissenting voices on media properties they own.
This is exactly how effective censorship works. For example, what most people don't understand about Chinese censorship is that the foundation of their system is that everything is attributable to someone eventually. So they start by targeting anonymity. Then when something they don't like is published and gains traction, the originating party and the major distributors are punished -- sometimes very publicly. The chilling effect is that people will learn to self censor. Oh and they keep the rules really vague so you always err on the side of caution.
CBS self censoring is basically the same thing.
The Chinese government can then say "What censorship?" or "It's rare" and now the FCC can do the same.
Playing whack-a-mole is not a good strategy for censorship. The chilling effect of self censorship is the winning strategy.
The chilling effect is the entire point. An FCC source literally told CNN, "the threat is the point." CBS isn't being randomly skittish. Paramount needs regulatory approval for its WBD acquisition, paid $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit right before needing FCC approval for the Skydance merger, and canceled Colbert days after he criticized that deal. ABC suspended Kimmel after FCC threats. The FCC opened an investigation into The View just for having Talarico on.
And yes, Larry Ellison is a hardcore Trump supporter, but even if he weren't, this is how every network is behaving. Disney's Bob Iger is a Democrat and ABC still paid Trump and suspended Kimmel. When the government holds regulatory leverage over your business, "obeying in advance" isn't cowardice you can blame on the network, it's the intended mechanism of state pressure.
> "obeying in advance" isn't cowardice you can blame on the network, it's the intended mechanism of state pressure.
No, there is no reason to absolve the agency of anybody with any power (eg money and platform). The ownership class is kowtowing to Trump because they think regardless of whatever happens, they will be relatively fine as long as they go along. And they are probably right, even as Trump leads our country off a cliff. But that doesn't mean they get to escape judgement for being cowards.
Nah the fault lies with the American public for talking the freedom/exceptionalism talk, social projection of grit and ruggedness while the reality is learned helplessness and codependency
democracies past, present, and future inevitably crumble as the need to cater to the demos grows greater and greater with every generation of voters.
i know this is a contrivance but nevertheless: we don't consult the entire hospital how to treat my heart condition yet we accept on face value that obeying the vagaries of the hoi polloi is the best way to decide who controls the levers of power in civil society.
Our country is being run by unaccountable elites and they're doing a terrible job. They're not catering to anyone other than their donors.
Having grown up rural, fixing farm equipment, rebuilding cars, which propelled me towards a degree in electrical engineering (and after that an MSc in math), my colleagues the last 20 years have watched a lot of TV and played all the video games but can barely bake a potato.
"Unaccountable elites" are enabled by know-nothings in corporate management, software engineering teams, accounting, HR "just following orders".
The lack of muscle memory to be self sufficient keeps people in their lane and unable to look away, fix their own stuff, make their own stuff.
When labor knows nothing but just following orders leadership is empowered to build and fill gulags; what are the people going to do? Resist en masse? Not when they are addicted to GrubHub delivery of Subway.
This is arguably worse, isn't it? The administration gets to say that it was the network's own decision and that they had no role in it. Taking over news and public media with the help of oligarch buddies is much more effect than a public spat with them.
It's definitely worse, I'm just saying one shouldn't lay the blame entirely on the government here -- CBS is an eager partner in this, not a victim.
Normal authoritarian state behavior, no?
> Normal authoritarian state behavior, no?
Yes.
And the most surprising thing about this particular story to me is that a lot of people (here in the comments) seem surprised about it.
I don't mean to normalize this, because it isn't normal, but anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention over the past year+, this didn't arrive out of the blue.
It's like people are "oh I thought Project 2025 was just a meme, lol"
My understanding (please correct me if it's incorrect) is that the "worst-case" scenario for a broadcaster is that they may have to upload a record of political air time to a public file.
If an opposing candidate sees this, they can then request equal air time from that broadcaster.
The rule is in place so that one party or viewpoint can't dominate broadcast media. That's a good thing right?
The rule change here is that traditionally "bona fide" news programs have been, by default, issued an exception to the rule. That has spawned a bunch of "pseudo-news" shows that have also been claiming this exception. Here, the FCC is now saying "hey, you don't just automatically get granted an exception to the rule and get to call yourself a bona fide news program if you're not actually one"". That seems completely reasonable to me.
Broadcast media is held to this FCC standard because they are granted a monopoly for a broadcast spectrum, and it isn't physically possible for a competitor to broadcast on the same spectrum. Streaming etc... doesn't need to follow these rules.
I do think it's wrong that talk radio doesn't seem to be held to the same standard, though.
The worst case scenario now is not limited by process and law. Compliance with politics is taken into consideration for all government business. For examples, see the executive orders blacklisting specific law firms, the withholding of funds to states or areas that vote Democratic, and the threat of investigation into a network after a host said something the President didn't like.
Up until this month, talk show interviews were exempt from the equal time rule.
This is a terrifying level of chilling effects. What are we to consider about our nation at this point? "Free speech" has long been a term with contested definitions, but this certainly sounds like its death in every sense.
The shift from democracy to dictatorship isn't a cliff that a lot of people imagine it to be. It's a gradual slide with no abrupt changes in between. If you're waiting for a signal, you'll get it at the bottom of the ramp.
Free speech goes as far as the people who defend it.
CBS and its parent company are greedy cowards. If they won't defend free speech they're the ones causing its downfall.
Governments rule only with the consent of the people.
If you lay down and give away your freedoms you aren't the victim, you're the perpetrator.
Victim blaming?
Greedy for trying to stay in business.
If you didn’t fight hard enough it’s your fault?
You let the government of the hook to easily.
By your logic you‘re a perpetrator too because he don’t blame the real bad guy
> Greedy for trying to stay in business.
If CBS were headed by someone with gumption and less willingness to kowtow to the government, they could resist this pressure and still be fine. Worst case scenario, a merger would get rejected and they would be targeted by some spurious lawsuits. Going out of business is not a realistic risk.
What is a risk, however, is non-optimal shareholder value. We live in a world where the stock price is more important than anything else, including doing the right thing.
For CVS the stock price isn't the driver. It's owned to 77% by the Ellison family, who certainly want to make a buck, but also want political influence and control.
> they could resist this pressure and still be fine
Precisely. See also: TACO
There are lots of things that where unthinkable before Trump.
But it seems this is just business between billionaire buddies
How is CBS a victim here? They have shown by their actions (Bari Weiss, the 60 Minutes neutering, etc) they are fully backing what Larry Ellison and Sons want them to pump out. This isn't victim blaming, it's pointing out a complicit conspirator.
If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator? CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.
> If you give in and comply without a fight, are you actually a victim or are you actually a collaborator?
That is victim blaming. Heard the same from judges about rape victims.
> CBS is controlled by Ellison, which makes this look a lot like collaboration.
That changes this completely. That isn’t being a coward, that’s just good old quid pro quo from billionaire buddies.
We're not talking about rape, and you're begging the question.
Yes.
I'm blaming victims.
If you're suffering from government oppression and you go home and cry instead of stand up for your rights, I'm blaming you for your oppression.
You're only a victim if you die with your boots on, so to speak.
You can do that if you are responsible for yourself but there are lots of people with jobs behind that.
It’s not on you to decide they have to die with you.
But the fact that Trump buddy Ellison owns CBS takes that in a completely new direction.
I'm not engaging with someone arguing the point of appeasing, bootlicking cowards.
Can’t decide, is this a strawman or ad hominem.
Beside this case I guess you never where responsible for hundreds of peoples lives.
Or maybe talk to some mothers and fathers what they endure to protect their families what you would call appeasement.
Recall it was the same lawnmower^W Ellison-owned CBS that last minute pulled a 60 Minutes report on CECOT. They didn't blame that one on the government.
Given that, I believe the higher ups at CBS wanted this to happen, but are colluding with the executive branch or misrepresenting the situation to shift responsibility.
Well, what can the average person do to get CBS to air it?
You can call your local affiliate to complain:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-tv-stations-affiliates/
Better yet, call their advertisers:
https://stopmediabiasnow.com/cbs-advertisers/
Watch/like/comment/share the YouTube upload:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
More indirectly, you can support the Talarico campaign (fueling a financial Streisand effect could help discourage similar moves in the future):
CBS is responding rationally (cowardly, certainly, but also rationally) to an administration that is misusing the tools of state.
Change the administration.
> CBS is responding rationally (cowardly, certainly, but also rationally) to an administration that is misusing the tools of state.
CBS is complicit. The Ellisons bought it and installed Bari Weiss for this very purpose of being a (very) lightly camouflaged state media.
They'll respond to a loss of business or reputational damage.
Reputational damage is a less useful tool today, when so many of the people in power at CBS have personal reasons for wanting to curry favor with the administration. So, loss of business: simply boycotting or changing the channel can help.
I think corporate media is mostly lost. We need to build something new. Pay attention to things like The Bulwark or Liberal Currents. It's really early days for all that, so who knows where things go, but people like Bezos would rather destroy media outlets than sell them to someone who would allow them to speak out against the regime.
I have been The Bulwark listener/subscriber since day one. Those people are keeping me sane.
That said, their day will come. Just like in Russia, after the low-hanging fruit is cut, the state will come for The Bulwark and Steve Jobs's widow, because The Atlantic is going be get increasingly annoying.
This is doomerism, and I get the pull of it, but I have been trying to avoid it lately, because at the end of the day, it is doing the work of the fascists for them. It is "complying in advance" to prematurely admit defeat. We are not Russia.
Liberal Currents is great. Bulwark is too, but I want to remind people that they are a center-right publication. Yes they hate the hell out of the infernal despicable corrupt sodden actions now, and are quite eloquent & good calling for some moral character & values.
But they're still on the right, and crucially in writing in because sometimes people don't actually know that. Do read/listen! But please be aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bulwark_(website)
(In case it's not obvious Liberal Currents is quite left.)
Sure, this is correct. But... these are strange times. I'm old enough to remember Bill Kristol the neocon from the Iraq war days and the other day he was quoting Chuck Schumer on Blue Sky saying "Abolish ICE!". Me from 2002 would have really struggled with that one.
You can't get CBS to air it, but you can let people know not to watch CBS.
And eventually, future calculations from CBS about whether they have more to lose by suppressing the story or airing it will favor the latter. Or so few people will still watch CBS that their business fails. Either way, it's a win.
Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
Support for such measures (eg welfare, healthcare, unionization, high taxes etc) is usually low among Americans.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
The prob has always been the FCC didnt recognize the internet as a Broadcast Medium. Which it is. Anyone can get their message out to a billion people if the algos deem its going to make the platform money. This means the platform support 1 to All messaging ie Broadcast. Thanks to Claude Shannon we know if everyone is given free broadcast capability like giving everyone a mic connected to the same sound system, without a coordination mechanism we get massive noise. How do ppl react to not being heard? They shout louder and louder or keep repeating their message. Amplifying the noise even more. Thats exactly whats happening on the internet today. We had the same issue with radio back in the day when anyone could stick tower on their roof and start broadcasting. This is why Spectrum gets licensed to solve the interference and noise problem. Americans are fed from birth that Free Speech is a right. But no one tells people before the internet Broadcast was not free. You either owned a newspaper, radio station, TV/sat spectrum to broadcast. There is a serious category error happening because the FCC didnt recognize the platforms are really broadcast mediums.
The difference is the airwaves are a limited transmission method. A broadcast medium is not regulated because it's dangerous, it's regulated because it's scarce.
None of the statements in your comment support the idea that the internet is a broadcast medium in the sense relevant to the FCC. It's a medium made entirely of 1-1 connections.
Note that newspapers are an older technology than radio, and they function in exactly the same way that the internet does, and there's never been a question of whether they are secretly "broadcast media".
It's a terrible look for CBS. At the same time, I find it unbelievable that they don't fire Colbert. This is obvious gross insubordination, and he is an employee.
His final show is coming in May, and I'm sure that they can expect Colbert to continue to embarrass them (as the spineless sycophants they are) every week until then. It's a tremendous self own.
Ha, it's spineless that they are self-censoring themselves. Whatever happened to Freedom of the Press?
I know things may look bleak, but America has a large, loud, well-funded contingent of free-speech advocates. As soon as Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Thomas Chatterton Williams hear about this, there'll be hell to pay!
And Elon Musk will absolutely lose it on Twitter.
All we need now is for zompolits* to be attached to all companies and we too can raise the sickle and hammer!
Unlimited Free Speech, itty bitty living space. - Aladdin's Genie
I have no idea what this means
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ85y3q6K8c
Many people in or related to the current administration have spoken in favor of free speech, which feels quite ironic.
>Many people in or related to the current administration have spoken in favor of free speech, which feels quite ironic.
Indeed. Our government, like most governments across the world in 2026, has moved way beyond the naive notion of "free speech." Talking about it now is either nostalgia, or lies
we'll need more facts but if there is substance to this then the reaction from Bari Weiss (now cbs news editor-in-chief and a long-time public advocate of free speech) and team will be interesting.
It will not be interesting because she has never been an advocate of free speech.
She has defended free speech disliked by both the left and the right on occasions.
She famously left the NY Times after defending the publication of a contrarian op-ed by (Republican) Sen. Tom Cotton.
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/06/nx-s1-5563786/bari-weiss-cbs-...
Although apparently not a fan of Jimmy Kimmel as a comedian, her Free Press objected to his suspension. "... the FCC’s coercion undermines our most fundamental values"
https://www.thefp.com/p/jawboning-and-jimmy-kimmel-free-spee...
And on the same topic, the FP editors wrote: "At last, something we can all agree on: Pam Bondi has no idea what she's talking about."
https://www.thefp.com/p/pam-bondi-vs-the-first-amendment-fre...
For president, she has voted for Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
It's fair to call her a centrist.
"Centrist" is an utterly meaningless term, as the only thing it implies is not one of the two major-partisan extremists. You can call me a centrist, with my views tending towards more libertarian perspectives. Back a few decades ago when the major parties' Venn diagrams overlapped a bit more, you could call people at the intersection of the parties' authoritarian policies centrists. And as for Bari Weiss, you can can call her centrist because she will do the bidding of her employer regardless of which Party's administration they are currently bribing.
Either the OP was being sarcastic or they’re unaware of the difference between free speech and Free Speech™
what i meant is this may be a good real world litmus test. i dont claim to know if there are differences or not between her word and actions - i have not followed her closely. but i always like 'tests' like this for heads of media orgs as free speech (Free Speech) imo needs to be the backbone of those orgs
She has always and consistently advocated for free speech when it was beneficial to her or her allies/benefactors
Bari Weiss cut her teeth in college trying to get professors fired for criticizing Israel. She's hardly an advocate for free speech.
Bari Weiss is not a long-time anything, she ran a blog for a couple of years and has been appointed head of CBS to run it into the ground.
Will it? Weiss seems to understands her role here very well. Her competence at it is still in question but she is consistent. CBS is state media now, she'll say what she's expected to say.
> a long-time public advocate of free speech
What? I thought she was associated with & supported by Republicans.
Already in 2026, Colbert has hosted Senator Jon Ossoff and Governor Josh Shapiro who are both up for re-election this year. And in Q4 '25 he hosted Ruben Gallego, Elizabeth Warren and Jim Clyburn who are also up for election. I'm not sure why he couldn't air James.
The article calls it a "FCC crackdown," but where is the evidence that specific guidance or threats came from the FCC? Colbert cited only network lawyers offering conservative counsel. An alternate possibility - though unlikely - is that this was cooked up as a PR stunt to Talarico past Crockett in the Democratic primary
It's a change Carr has publicly contemplated making, but hasn't yet. This is more about CBS under Ellison-controlled Paramount (who is on a quest to consolidate a conservative media empire) to curry favor with the administration by obeying in advance. (The CBS policy is new.)
In FCC DA 26-68 they gave public notice of their change of interpretation/enforcement of the equal time rules to apply to this situation.
> In FCC DA 26-68
Jan 21. Shapiro appeared Jan 26.
Uh, why exactly are we inventing a completely speculative alternate possibility when this is perfectly in line with Brendan Carr's multiple public statements and recent examples wielding FCC regulatory power to strong arm media organizations that he claims have a pattern of liberal bias, as well as the recent actions of CBS.
We could also speculate that the poster throwing out speculations is itself an account controlled by a foreign state actor (or a domestic one) trying to muddy the waters of discussion.
We shouldn't do that, but we could.
A strong piece of evidence against the FSA theory is that the posts are pretty ham-handed and unsubtle. But maybe that's part of the plan.
It is far more likely for this to be CBS falling in line rather than some method of boosting Talarico.
Heck, if CBS hadn't shown itself to be in Trump's pocket, I would say this is malicious compliance to draw attention to the FCC's skullduggery.
Weird, I thought America was the land of the free and the home of the brave?
All marketing is meant to induce feelings that compensate for reality's deficiencies.
I use cat litter that is "99% dust free". I'll give you one guess what that remaining 1% by weight is.
The interview is on YT. Instead of complaining here, share it with your network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
It is trivial to do both.
"Didn't air" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means the interview didn't go over the airwaves via broadcast towers. The full interview is online, which thanks to the Streisand effect already has millions of views and therfore helped CBS in terms of funding. This can be seen as a 4D chess move by CBS. They'll certainly do this again if they're hitting millions of views.
> This can be seen as a 4D chess move by CBS.
It isn't. CBS is owned by the Ellisons, who are big Trump supporters. They are absolutely complicit in attempts to quash dissenting voices.
You're right that the Streisand effect is in play here, but it's not 4D chess. It's garden-variety incompetence, because the policy makers in the government are too old to see anything other than broadcast TV as the most valuable medium.
Comedians have a knack for succinctly expressing the truth:
> "Let's just call this what it is: Donald Trump's administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV because all Trump does is watch TV," Colbert joked.
It's 4D chess by Colbert and his producer, not the network.
The youtube video currently has ~1.4 million views. Colbert averages 2 to 3 million television viewers per night, plus some number of youtube views that I haven't looked up the stats for.
That is, this interview has been seen by fewer people than it would have, had it been on television.
> "Didn't air" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means the interview didn't go over the airwaves via broadcast towers.
That means exactly what I thought it meant. It's still just as bad.