
FCC to investigate, 'take appropriate action' on Colbert’s Trump rant - ryan_j_naughton
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332132-fcc-probing-colberts-trump-putin-joke
======
aisofteng
To go on a slight tangent but one I think very relevant here, considering
other comments here about the overt politics of late night talk shows, such as
another commenter's remark about not recalling previous late night hosts
resorting to so many partisan jokes, it seems most people are neither aware of
the former FCC's Fairness Doctrine nor its repeal:

>The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders
of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public
importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view —
honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been
under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in
1987. The FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine, in
August of 2011.

Quote taken from:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)

There used to be a requirement for broadcasting companies to make a good faith
effort to present all sides of a topic and to actually accomplish that goal to
a reasonable degree. I am not sure of the historical origins of that policy,
but I imagine it was put in place in recognition of the ability of media to
sway public opinion and therefore to what degree it could be abused by
powerful players with an agenda.

I am generally against any governmental regulation of how people communicate,
but in this case the regulation was not about content, per se, but about the
fairness and integrity of our national information delivery channels. I don't
know why this was repealed - I keep meaning to research it - but in any case,
the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is a chief causal factor for the state of
American media today.

As much as I appreciate Colbert now, as much as I watched and enjoyed the
commentary by Stewart, Colbert, and others as political pundits, it is also
very clear to me that part of their success in what they do is due to
affirmation of political views they share with their viewers - and that that
can be (and, in my opinion, has been) overall very detrimental because it has
led people to silo their beliefs and become more close minded to hearing
opposing viewpoints. Furthermore, the role of such pundits has become that of
trading in-depth analysis for entertainment and laughs.

I generally agree with what seem to be Colbert's views and often think he is
very sharp and insightful. However, in the context of what I said above and
considering how much influence he has, I think that the complaints and
investigation discussed in TFA are well-founded.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
The conceptual problem I have with the Fairness Doctrine - never having known
a world in which it existed - is that it could force broadcasters to give
equal time to ideas that do not have equal merit. If we had anti-vaxxers in
1986, would they have to get equal time on every news channel? What about
Obama birthers? Abstinence-only sex ed?

Or, what about the fact that the current administration has no interest in
doing anything beneficial to non-wealthy Americans? I consider that a
demonstrable fact; must my hypothetical network give time to seriously
considering the possibility that the GOP has rural America's best interests at
heart, just because someone in politics claims that that's the case?

------
blackflame7000
It seems like every late night comedian doubles as a political commentator
these days. Perhaps my memory is hazy but I didn't recall previous late night
hosts having to resort to as many partisan jokes for laughs. IMO it's lazy
humor that lacks originality and plays on people's hate. Its like making fun
of the outcast at school because it's vogue. If we want harmony in this world,
we can't go around calling everyone we disagree with a moron.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Edit: I made a comment inappropriate for HN.

~~~
ovao
I don't think there's any particular shortage of news outlets covering the bad
side(s) of the Trump administration.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Not with the kiddy gloves off there isn't.

~~~
ovao
Maybe I don't understand what that means in this context. Why is making crude
jokes more useful/effective/beneficial than reporting on issues and having
mature discussions about those issues?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
To have a mature discussion with an emotionally challenged child is to give
him way more validation than he deserves.

------
gigatexal
wow... his comments were pejorative but I think they are or should be
protected under free speech. I don't think they were defamatory any more than
the president considering mainstream news as 'fake'. And his show is comedic
in nature... that should mean something in his defense.

Is saying this about the president really that bad given the alleged Russian
ties to the election and the president's overall ... um polarizing policies?

"The only thing your mouth is good at is being [Russian President] Vladimir
Putin’s cock holster,"

~~~
philiphodgen
I think the FCC will respect the first amendment but may object to the potty-
mouth sentence you quoted. They went after Howard Stern in a similar
situation.

More to the point, Mr. Colbert should be ashamed of himself. Have some
decency, Mr. Colbert.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Decency with regards to what exacly?

~~~
gozur88
Language.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
He's a comedian, grow up.

~~~
gozur88
Doesn't matter who he is. This is broadcast television.

~~~
jsiepkes
In the land of the free you can't say cock on TV before 22:00. What's next?
Decency police like in Iran?

~~~
gozur88
It turns out people with children aren't very open to having their kids
exposed to adult material on television. This is not a new thing, either -
it's been that way since day 1.

Unlike mobile providers, broadcast companies didn't pay for the spectrum they
use. It's a public resource that is licensed to them, and part of that license
involves restrictions on language and also depictions of gore and sex.

~~~
jsiepkes
Public service? Maybe your confusing it with some European models but in the
US there is nothing public about it. Broadcasters pay big bucks to companies
like Comcast to get their station transmitted.

And if your kid is not old enough to hear to word dick then he should be in
bed long before 22:00.

~~~
gozur88
Maybe you don't understand how things work in the US. This has nothing to do
with cable. It's about over-the-air broadcast. If it had just been cable there
wouldn't be a problem.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
What does delivery medium have to do with anything? I guarantee no kid knows
the difference. They press channel up and channel down. It makes no sense why
one would be upset over that.

~~~
gozur88
As I pointed out above. The medium is important because the spectrum is a
public resource, and cable isn't.

------
grappler
Over-The-Air (OTA) TV to me is something left far, far behind, somewhere in
the mid-aughts. A wasteland of advertising and inferior content compared with
what is available online or even on cable.

Kids especially, the ones who are 'protected' by regulations covering OTA TV,
aren't interested in OTA TV. That's why OTA TV is programmed for demographics
that are approaching or past retirement, and it's why TV companies are talking
deals with Snapchat.

Or am I in a bubble?

------
mcphage
It's amazing how strongly HN pushes for free speech for Nazis, and racists,
and any other unpleasant people. But for a late night talk show host
criticizing a terrible president? All I see is "won't anybody think of the
children?!"

------
MrTonyD
My complaint is that Colbert's humor reflects wealthy New York values - and he
never makes jokes about the actual problems which caused many to vote for
Trump (yes, some Trump supporters are racist - but many have real issues with
the wealth transfer to the 1% and the myriad consequences of that transfer.)
Where are the jokes about hiding billions offshore and avoiding taxes and
undermining community values? Colbert, sadly, is part of the problem. Like
Trump and Clinton, Colbert thinks he illuminates while he is really only
promoting a different set of class values.

~~~
dragonwriter
> but many have real issues with the wealth transfer to the 1%

Then why'd they vote for the party of wealth transfer to the 1%?

Or do you mean "have a problem with" in the same sense that an addict is said
to "have a problem with" a drug?

~~~
gozur88
>Then why'd they vote for the party of wealth transfer to the 1%?

Oh? Which party is that? Who do you think unrestricted immigration benefits -
blue collar types or wealthy industrialists?

~~~
majormajor
> Oh? Which party is that?

Both of them, but the Democrats make a more convincing pretense of wanting
policies to offset it :|

~~~
gozur88
I don't think very many people are convinced any more.

