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.
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
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.
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.
Precisely. See also: TACO
But it seems this is just business between billionaire buddies
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.
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.
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.
[0]: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fcc-opening-probe-the-view-a...
...??
Both current Texas Senators are Republicans. Talarico is running for Cornyn's seat
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Change the administration.
CBS is complicit. The Ellisons bought it and installed Bari Weiss for this very purpose of being a (very) lightly camouflaged state media.
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.
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.)
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.
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):
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_CECOT
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/22/g-s1-103282/cbs-chief-bari-we...
The segment was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote internally that "pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."
The critical point: Alfonsi's team had requested comment from the White House, State Department, and DHS. They refused. Weiss then used that silence to kill the story, saying they needed "the principals on the record and on camera." As Alfonsi put it, "Government silence is a statement, not a VETO." Accept that standard and the administration has a pocket veto over any story simply by not responding.
Weiss's other objections included demanding the men be called "illegal immigrants" instead of "Venezuelan migrants" (many had applied for asylum and were not here illegally), and pushing for a Stephen Miller interview, which the administration had already declined - hence the "pocket veto". The decision came days after Trump publicly criticized CBS.
The bulk of their staff objected to it, either on or off the record.
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.
What? I thought she was associated with & supported by Republicans.
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
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.
Jan 21. Shapiro appeared Jan 26.
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.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-5537152/cbs-news-elliso...
- 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.
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.
> "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.
That means exactly what I thought it meant. It's still just as bad.
That is, this interview has been seen by fewer people than it would have, had it been on television.
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
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.
It goes back even further, just see the 1941 FCC “Mayflower Decision” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_doctrine
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".
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.
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).
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.
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.
They also cite that they have elected to not enforce the rule against conservative radio hosts.
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...
DeepYogurt•1h ago