> The point the parent comment brings up is that "equal airtime" requires that someone actually request to go on the show and be refused.
Their lawyers recommendation, and Colbert's response and behavior, aligns with the case if they did refuse guests.
Is there some reference you're going off of related to this, that makes it clear they didn't? Or does Carr possibly have knowledge that they did, as part of the (as the article points out) ongoing investigation, resulting in their lawyers making the recommendation?
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but, a strongly left leaning show, with a strong left leaning audience, whose whole routine is making fun of republicans, refusing republican guests does NOT seem all that crazy. I would personally expect it, just to prevent their staff from the usual Twitter mob death threats for "platforming nazis"! I also think this whole thing is unreasonable, but I also think it's unreasonable to have 6 companies control 90% of the media, giving them the domination where their guests choices can even be considered a problem.
> Their lawyers recommendation, and Colbert's response and behavior, aligns with the case if they did refuse guests
Colbert's response and behavior also happen to align with his desire to remain contracted with CBS; the lawyers' recommendation aligns with CBS's desire to cater to the whims of the current US administration.
> Is there some reference you're going off of related to this, that makes it clear they didn't [refuse any guests]?
Colbert would say yes without hesitation. He has no reason to refuse the guest because he would take the opportunity to skewer them. I daresay he would revel in it. This equal airtime requirement does not also require equal consideration of opinion. It seems more prudent to look for evidence that this actually occurred; for example, has anybody come forward to complain about being refused as a guest on Colbert's show? One would think someone concerned about publicity would be very interested to do exactly that (unless it would be defamatory, of course).
> Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but, a strongly left leaning show, with a strong left leaning audience, whose whole routine is making fun of republicans, refusing republican guests does NOT seem all that crazy.
For the reasons I describe in the previous paragraph, that would be illogical for him to refuse, additionally for the reasons as noted in this case: it could be considered illegal to do so. On this topic of conspiracy theories, it appears a more likely one is that this current US administration, known for its bullshit, is just offering more bullshit.
Their lawyers recommendation, and Colbert's response and behavior, aligns with the case if they did refuse guests.
Is there some reference you're going off of related to this, that makes it clear they didn't? Or does Carr possibly have knowledge that they did, as part of the (as the article points out) ongoing investigation, resulting in their lawyers making the recommendation?
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but, a strongly left leaning show, with a strong left leaning audience, whose whole routine is making fun of republicans, refusing republican guests does NOT seem all that crazy. I would personally expect it, just to prevent their staff from the usual Twitter mob death threats for "platforming nazis"! I also think this whole thing is unreasonable, but I also think it's unreasonable to have 6 companies control 90% of the media, giving them the domination where their guests choices can even be considered a problem.