Free speech includes the freedom to say things that destroy your career. Colbert can stand on a soap box in Time Square and run his pie-hole all day long. It’s different when he is working for someone. Then his value is measurable.
One thing that isn’t widely publicized is that most of the technical people who work for the networks don’t actually work for the networks. My nephew works for the company that the technical work on many, maybe all of these shows. He’s currently working for ESPN but he’s worked on the Daily Show and Seth Meyers. He has worked NFL games that were on several different networks. He’s never worked directly for a network, he works for this third party company. When the show ends they won’t be firing the technical staff since they don’t work for them.
To be clear, since you’re being vague:
If Donald Trump made cancelling Stephen Colbert a condition of the government approving the Skydance-Paramount merger, is this Stephen Colbert’s fault because he “made it political”? Would it be a violation of free speech?
And it’s approved.
I’d say yes. It is the government treating a company differently based on their speech. Isn’t that the definition of a First Amendment free speech violation?
With the implication that Colbert is not?
Nothing stopping Colbert from expressing his views. There’s no law that says CBS has to fund his political tyrades.
Yeah. No shit. Try to keep up.
The problem is the Federal Government withholding approval of a major merger unless the company involved fires a guy.
Telecommunications companies are supposed to adhere to ethics standards. If Colbert wasn’t generating revenue for CBS as mentioned above then his non-stop political attacks didn’t help with the merger process. It was a cancellation born in Heaven.
The New York Times reports on the conditions that the FCC imposed as part of its approval of the merger (of Skydance and Paramount). These conditions are clearly political.
Brendan Carr, the chairman of the F.C.C., said in a statement that the agency had approved the deal after receiving assurances from Skydance that the new company would be committed to unbiased journalism and would not establish programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
What does “telecommunications companies are supposed to adhere to ethics standards” have to do fuck-all with the rest of your post?
If they canceled his show (which I have never watched by the way) a few months ago or whatever, it wouldn’t be a problem. The Feds partially predicating the merger on canceling the show is unconstitutional interference. Please stick to the actual discussion.
Rupert Murdoch laughed so hard at this line that his flapping wattles propelled a sailboat across the English Channel.
Moderating:
The back and forth between @Magiver and several other posters is getting disruptive to the thread. @Magiver - I didn’t single you out with the @ for your arguments, which is up to the thread to resolve, but because your posting history indicates this is part of a pattern of more aggressive than appropriate arguments from you. To all, keep it down to level of heat appropriate to P&E, or open a secondary thread in the Pit if you like.
No warnings issued at this time.
So I think it’s pretty clear, both in what you’ve said, and what you refuse to answer, that you believe that it is not only ethical, but a good thing (“cancellation born in heaven”) that the president should be able to corruptly pressure corporations to fire people critical of him for excercising their free speech rights. That seems like an obvious first amendment violation both legally and in spirit, and the fact that the president is doing it through controlling government favors to corporations actually makes it seem worse, rather than better, than simply directly suppressing his speech because it’s working through two layers of corruption.
Edit: I saw the note above after I posted, but I don’t think I’m engaging in anything aggressive or inappropriate with the above post.
You’re good @senorbeef - I did specify it was up to the thread to resolve, and to keep it to a level of heat appropriate to the forum, which it seems to do. It isn’t a hijack from the topic (at least not yet) and I’m not here to moderate the facts of the discussion.
I’d argue that presidents, like all politicians, have plenty of examples in the past of either saying something in the media is bad or even trying to effectively get it cancelled or even banned. This could be anything from Bush’s comment that America needs to be more like The Waltons and less like The Simpsons to show hearings in Congress that don’t actually do anything other than give politicians a chance to grandstand to possibly things like the TikTok ban or Trump’s comments and actions towards CBS and various CBS properties.
I’d argue that none of these are good and the amount of bad varies in degree. But there’s very little the public can do to respond to such actions.
But the workers will know who instigated the firings. As will their colleagues (in many cases fellow union members) working the same jobs in other shows. There is a huge difference between “you’re fired today” and “you have 10 months for you and your employer to find something else for you to do”.
Not saying that CBS would be legally barred from immediate cancellation. Just saying the fallout could spread far beyond The Late Show staff.
I wonder if the late shows are still the great money generators. Viewership is down, so ad revenue prolly is too. So that might factor in a little.
Pretty well covered earlier in the thread. Late-night talk shows almost undoubtedly are not “great money generators” anymore: ratings are not just down, but are now a small fraction of what they were in the heyday of Carson, Leno, and Letterman, especially among the 18-49-year-old target. Colbert is outdrawing Kimmel and Fallon by quite a lot, but even so, the absolute audience size of his audience is still tiny. And, yes, small audience = lower ad revenue.
CBS’s announcement of the cancellation of Colbert’s show overtly cited “this is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.” However, the presence of this thread in the P&E forum, rather than Cafe Society, underlines most people believe: that CBS is using the financial situation as justification for making a decision which also is pretty clearly meant to curry favor with Trump.