Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural townships, and the nation continues to undergo a process of urbanization as young people continue to move to cities.
Normally, a healthy response to this would be to realign and target a more popular set of messaging and policy objectives. Instead the American Right has decided instead that this popularity (and the reflection in media) is a threat to its ability to continue serving a shrinking pool of wealthy benefactors.
It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat.
Republicanism doesnt work for anyone but the wealthy, it will do everything in its power here.
apparent [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You lost me at "Conservatism has largely been unpopular outside of rural township". This is not what I've seen at all. The culture war issues continue to hurt the Left, pushing moderate Dems toward the Right. Take the latest trans-identified shooter, for example. The NYT refers to the shooter as having gone by two names. Why not admit the person was trans-identified?
Trump has certainly made the Right unpopular in lots of ways, but conservatism is not just Trump. As people look towards 2028, I think the Republicans may take the lead, unless the Democrats stop embracing so many 80/20 issues.
atoav [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations.
So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but the way it is now it is a dictatorship of the minority, even if you ignore all the blatant ways of voter disenfranchisement.
Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Ideally you'd want a party to have to listen to their voters. Gerrymandering, predicting voter behavior and throwing out the ones who might not vote for you are all the shameful behavior of traitors to democracy.
This has to be stopped and punished on every political level, as long as you still have a say.
miki123211 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is why I find Social Media regulation to be so dangerous.
We shouldn't give our[1] government too much leverage over any company that controls what people can say. If we do, we may be solving a very serious problem, but creating one which is even more serious. If the government can apply large fines to social media companies, and also has a large amount of discretion about which companies it prosecutes, it's very easy for them to make a deal where a company won't be prosecuted if they remove speech that the government doesn't like.
[1] Use whichever definition of "our" you like, the point is equally valid regardless of country.
barcodehorse [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I find the death of 2016 conservatism and the advent of the extremist, more violent and hateful republicanism very interesting. It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as. Now the Right has their own form of that in those who scroll on Twitter and attack immigrants behind their backs. I feel like, within the next year or so, there will be a vast swath of former republicans who are so violently radicalized that they will do the same thing those protesting George Floyd's death in 2020 did. It's just interesting how cyclical it all is.
beart [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I'm not sure this is a fair comparison.
The radicals on the far-right control three branches of the federal government. The George Floyd protestors were barely able to influence their local boards.
squarefoot [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as.
That's the result of well known disinformation tactics by certain media in concert with police forces: wait or provoke a violent outburst in a otherwise peaceful protest, often triggered by carefully planned repetitive police charges, then be ready to film when protesters discharge their frustration against what they have nearby like shops windows and cars, make a enraging video out of it and show only that in prime time to families dining.
This is higly abusive. Talks shows have been generally considered exempt from the Equal Time provision since the Regan administration. It it was applied consistently Fox News is baiscally violating it 24 hours a day.
apparent [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Fox News is doesn't use airwaves, so it's not subject to this requirement.
miltonlost [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Conservative talk radio hosts then. Still hypocritical and clear evidence for further politicalization by Carr
apparent [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yeah, should apply there for sure. I wonder if Democratic politicians would want to go on conservative talk shows, though.
My general understanding is that Republican politicians are more often refused speaking slots on non-Right media, whereas Democratic politicians don't want to go on Right media.
CGMthrowaway [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is how a country slides into oligarchy. Quiet threats, regulatory scrutiny, tax audits, license reviews aimed at TV networks and newspapers until they decide it’s safer to stay quiet. And once the media falls in line, you have to ask what else is being forced into compliance behind closed doors, long before the public realizes what’s happening. What's next? Protesters swept up under sweeping surveillance and detention policies, speech narrowed in the name of "public safety", certain narratives becoming untouchable, etc.
hypeatei [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You copy pasted this comment[0] then when I clicked reply it was slightly edited. What exactly are you doing?
Had the wrong thing in my clipboard, my bad. Was writing the comment in notepad first
catapart [3 hidden]5 mins ago
based on this users comments in a similar story from earlier, this seems like a bot.
hypeatei [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yeah, I think so too. I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted. I wish HN showed an edit history because that was a 1:1 copy paste at first.
outside1234 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This. We are in very serious trouble people.
rexpop [3 hidden]5 mins ago
What're you going to do about it?
bobomonkey [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Use publicly owned airwaves, expect to have to abide by the campaign finance rules. Can't just donate excellent coverage to just one candidate.
dabinat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It just says they have to give equal time, not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. But the other candidates have to make a request to be included and no-one made any requests.
Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.
nomel [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> not prevent someone from coming on the show completely.
No, they weren't prevented from coming on, as the article poorly points out. It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This makes complete sense, if you've watched an intentionally biased show like Colbert.
jabroni_salad [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Alright, then apply the rule to talk radio as well.
nicole_express [3 hidden]5 mins ago
They just now changed how they enforce the rules. Of course they have a legal pretense for their action; everyone has a legal pretense.
These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.
outside1234 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is obviously true. The real challenge here is that this rule is only going to applied to one party.
To me, this seems reasonable, since I could imagine all the networks skirting the intent in any way possible.
SpicyLemonZest [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This notice was published as a flagrant act of unlawful retaliation against late night shows for criticizing the sitting President. I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action, even if the Trump regime might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement. As the only non-regime FCC commissioner remaining has pointed out, the FCC specifically did not engage in the actual rulemaking procedure that's normally required to change these rules, because if they had their retaliatory motivation would have been a huge obstacle.
nomel [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action
Legitimate or not, the policy is what's there now, until challenged. You agree with that:
> might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement
And, clearly, so do their lawyers.
apparent [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Doesn't apply to news shows. The key question is whether late night shows are news shows.
BirAdam [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I think you were downvoted for tone, but I think your general point is valid.
I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.
hexis [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Could have just invited Ken Paxton if all he wanted to do was inform voters.
apparent [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Dems haven't even had their primary yet. He'd have had to been open to all the other Dems, before even getting to the Republicans.
HN.zip
It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat. Republicanism doesnt work for anyone but the wealthy, it will do everything in its power here.
Trump has certainly made the Right unpopular in lots of ways, but conservatism is not just Trump. As people look towards 2028, I think the Republicans may take the lead, unless the Democrats stop embracing so many 80/20 issues.
So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but the way it is now it is a dictatorship of the minority, even if you ignore all the blatant ways of voter disenfranchisement.
Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Ideally you'd want a party to have to listen to their voters. Gerrymandering, predicting voter behavior and throwing out the ones who might not vote for you are all the shameful behavior of traitors to democracy.
This has to be stopped and punished on every political level, as long as you still have a say.
We shouldn't give our[1] government too much leverage over any company that controls what people can say. If we do, we may be solving a very serious problem, but creating one which is even more serious. If the government can apply large fines to social media companies, and also has a large amount of discretion about which companies it prosecutes, it's very easy for them to make a deal where a company won't be prosecuted if they remove speech that the government doesn't like.
[1] Use whichever definition of "our" you like, the point is equally valid regardless of country.
The radicals on the far-right control three branches of the federal government. The George Floyd protestors were barely able to influence their local boards.
That's the result of well known disinformation tactics by certain media in concert with police forces: wait or provoke a violent outburst in a otherwise peaceful protest, often triggered by carefully planned repetitive police charges, then be ready to film when protesters discharge their frustration against what they have nearby like shops windows and cars, make a enraging video out of it and show only that in prime time to families dining.
My general understanding is that Republican politicians are more often refused speaking slots on non-Right media, whereas Democratic politicians don't want to go on Right media.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47050245
Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.
No, they weren't prevented from coming on, as the article poorly points out. It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This makes complete sense, if you've watched an intentionally biased show like Colbert.
These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.
This says it now does (and parent is right): https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-sho...
To me, this seems reasonable, since I could imagine all the networks skirting the intent in any way possible.
Legitimate or not, the policy is what's there now, until challenged. You agree with that:
> might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement
And, clearly, so do their lawyers.
I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.