That's insane. We're talking about the government threatening a station if they air an interview with a political rival.
[0]: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fcc-opening-probe-the-view-a...
...??
Both current Texas Senators are Republicans. Talarico (a Democrat) 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.
[1] https://latenighter.com/news/jon-ossoffs-colbert-fcc-equal-t...
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.
No, there is no reason to absolve the agency of anybody with power (eg money and platform). The ownership class is kowtowing to Trump because they think regardless of whatever happens, they personally 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.
Resistance requires an active, costly choice. The entire structure of public companies, fiduciary duty, short-term shareholder pressure, regulatory dependency, incentivizes compliance. That's not an excuse, it's the point. The system is designed so that capitulation is the path of least resistance, which is exactly why the blame has to center on whoever is exploiting that structure rather than on each individual institution for failing to be heroic. The firms and universities that did fight back (Perkins Coie, Harvard, Jenner & Block) won in court every time, while the ones that cut deals (Columbia, Paul Weiss, Brown) gave up money and autonomy for nothing the fighters didn't get for free. But fighting required leaders willing to accept real personal and institutional risk. Expecting that as the default rather than addressing the coercion creating the dilemma is how you end up with a system where everyone folds and nobody's responsible except the victims.
Of course, increasing the cost of capitulation is one place where consumers actually have power. Disney suffered 1.7 million streaming cancellations after suspending Kimmel, and Kimmel was back on the air within five days. That works. But notice what it required: massive organized public pressure aimed at the company and political pressure aimed at the FCC. Not just finger-wagging for being cowards.
That's fair, this lines up with where I am mostly coming from - we shouldn't absolve blame from one group by focusing it on another.
But your second paragraph then goes on to do that? We're dealing with a societal attack where the fascists are trying to topple all of our societal institutions into a self-perpetuating low-trust low-authority state. If they achieve in doing that, then the Schelling point becomes to not resist as it will be costly and ineffective. But the point we're at now, we should all be pushing to resist the fascists to prevent them flipping the dynamic.
Practically, you're overstating what fiduciary duty to shareholders requires. I'd also say you're also overstating the regulatory threat, as you went on to point out how the organizations who have resisted the fascists haven't really lost out by doing so. You can also apply this argument to politicians like Congress, judges, etc who don't want to rock the boat. But surely it's not sensible to absolve them!
It's not just a matter of "finger-wagging", rather it's pointing out that if the people with outsized power just go along rather than standing up to this, then they're in the same exact camp as the hardcore openly-Trump fascists. Maybe that camp will be lucrative if the fascists do succeed at conquering our society, or maybe they can be stripped of their stature and power when they fail. A lifetime ban on being a corporate officer or board member for abusing that position to try to overthrow the United States wouldn't be out of line.
I was thinking about this a bit in the context of that "March for Billionaires". Why did that seem preposterous? Because billionaires don't deserve a gold star simply for being billionaires! Rather they get credit for what they do with that wealth to help our society. And no, the value they created by growing a business doesn't count - rather when you get that level of wealth, you can use it to move back up the gradient of market optimization, and fix the problems we have that come from being stuck in local minima. If they want recognition and goodwill, this is the work they have to do. And if the poor billionaires really can't think of anything useful to do with that wealth, there is some really low hanging fruit like ending food poverty in the US.
And to be clear, I'm not saying fiduciary duty requires capitulation. CEOs can absolutely make the case that resistance serves long-term shareholder interests, and the evidence backs them up. Costco is thriving after, and arguably because, they held firm on DEI. Target capitulated and lost $12.5 billion in market value and its CEO resigned. I started shopping at Costco for this reason and haven't been in a Target since Trump took office, after shopping their regularly. What I am saying is that the short-term incentive structure of public companies makes capitulation easier, which is exactly why the coercion works so well and why it's the bigger problem. The system erects hurdles to doing what's right, and often what's even in a company's own long-term interest.
FWIW your post nudged me to focus on Costco again. I had signed up for a membership to buy some appliances, but I haven't really incorporated it my day to day household purchases. A bit of activation energy because their warehouse is somewhat far away, the parking lot is always swamped, their website experience is clunky and hostile, etc. But I should at least be able to add them to the rotation.
But then you have to trust the government that manages the regulatory agency to act in a socially-beneficial; and only at most half the US population does at any given time.
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.
"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.
the people get what they deserve. if democracy was a functional system of government then by its own underlying assumptions the citizenry right now would be shooting, bombing, & stabbing these so-called elites. But we are held in subjugation as a result of our own fealty. It is a choice.
As for the corpos.. Cancelled Disney and Hulu when Kimmel was taken off. Maybe it's time to cancel Paramount+ too.
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.
How?
Everything I've seen is that is specifically what's going on, do you have different information?
The only threat to pulling a license would be if they didn't comply with the FCC rule change, that we've both agreed is reasonable, correct?
Do you have specific examples of the administration threatening to pull a license due to criticism? If that's the case, I'd certainly be vehemently against such action, just as I was when the government illegally acted to suppress and censor alternate viewpoints during covid.
As you say, the FCC has declined to pursue talk radio programs over this issue, even though they're clearly subject to the rule in principle. That's not a mistake, it's because those programs push viewpoints the President favors so he doesn't want to punish them.
I think the article and the video summaries I've seen of that interview are a little deceptively edited, but the idea appears to be the same.
Apparently, it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information [1] within certain guidelines, and that can indeed cause a license revocation:
"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”
The FCC chair referenced this law in response to Jimmy Kimmel claiming that the Charlie Kirk shooter was "maga":
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”
While this was demonstrably untrue, and it was widely known to be untrue at the time, I agree that it doesn't appear to meet the FCC standard I quoted above.
I actually find the FCC rule itself a bit disturbing, as it seems to position the government as an arbiter of truth.
It isn't a new problem, Jefferson struggled with how to deal with it too [2]
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle"
What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a FCC license? Who gets to determine whether it's false?
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...
[2] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp...
This seems like begging the question. The issue here obviously isn't truth vs untruth, it is fealty to the regime vs opposition to the regime. All the evidence points in this direction, and there isn't a better case yet made in the opposite.
Witness the example cited above: right-wing talk radio, famous for spreading untruthful info and agreeing with the regime, is let off scot-free. Or how the regime itself spread untruths about Alex Pretti after they killed him. That categorically debunks any purported "truth vs untruth" decision criteria and seems to confirm the fealty vs opposition decision criteria.
Fun thought experiment: re-read this situation, but imagine it took place in russia, by putin's hand. Like seriously, what oppressive regime in modern history HASN'T had some variation of silencing the opposition "for broadcasting 'false information'"?:
> On the morning of March 4, the last remaining independent news outlet in Russia — the award-winning Novaya Gazeta — announced the end of its reporting on the war in Ukraine in response to Russian government demands.
> A new law that bans the “dissemination of knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces — and carries up to a 15-year penalty — was the final blow. [0]
The problem isn't simple, and there don't seem to be obvious answers - civilizations have been struggling with it since recorded history.
I assume you're not trying to make the point that exceeding authority is a characteristic limited to the current administration are you?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We've been asking this since at least 1st century Rome.
I think it's more important to evaluate systems, institutions and their effectiveness than specific politicians.
Neither the conversation nor the country can really move forward without that shared understanding of where we're at now.
If you aren't able to see how the issue is much broader than any specific politician, it's difficult to move a conversation forward.
You may want to take a serious and critical look at how these problems have been a part of all politics throughout history.
If your viewpoint is that the current team is the bad guy, but some other team is the good guy, it just means that their propaganda has been effective with you.
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.
Were the leaders of Vichy France victims? No, they were collaborators.
Where all the people of France that didn't choose to fight to their death collaborators?
Where all the people in the concentartion camps collaborators. Do you blame them or the real perpetrator?
I find it strange to put the blame on the middleman instead on the source of all that.
There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance.
Without people there is no corporation.
And I‘m pretty sure the people in corporations are still alive so your Soylent Green example is nonsense.
> There's a difference between not fighting and obeying in advance.
Sometimes not. If you know in advance what will happen, not fighting can be the better option. At least for the moment.
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.
When they come for YOU.
Seriously this is why people use to take every government transgression and overreach so seriously. Now multiple times a day it's something that would have been a straight SCANDAL in the past.
It's happening right now y'all because it was always happening and will always happen without constant push back.
Don't wait!
Right now they're 'flooding the zone' - a Steve Bannon slang for confusing and causing fatigue among people with far too many scandals far too often. I hope history will will remember him and his ilk with the reputation they deserve.