Idk, seems like he had $16mm worth of legitimacy to me.
Colbert cancelled
31,272 Views |
587 Replies |
Last: 16 days ago by captkirk
Thread needs more Sydney Sweeney pics.
Sea Speed said:
Idk, seems like he had $16mm worth of legitimacy to me.
They "settled" because Trump was using the lawsuit to hold up the merger. Not because he had a case. That's... the whole point of what we're discussing. But bad faith arguments are the norm around these parts, so I wouldn't expect anything less.
'Cept you don't know that. That's why this back and forth is pointless. You don't know. It feels nice for the anti-trump crowd to claim, and it feels especially nice for a failed comedian who ran a show into the ground, but the settlement was reached for reasons none of us are privy to.
Here's Google Gemini's word-for-word take on the matter, sourced from reporting on/facts about the matter…
After the settlement was finally reached, the merger itself wasn't official approved until today, which just so happened to be in the immediate wake of these three things happening, in this order…
July 15: Ellison meets with FCC Chairman Carr to discuss Skydance's "commitment to unbiased journalism"
July 18: Paramount/CBS cancels The Late Show with Steven Colbert
July 23: Skydance publicly promises to eliminate all DEI initiatives
Then, finally, today Carr made it plain as day…
Do I have verifiable proof of quid pro quo, re: the $16M settlement? No. But in addition to the Carr statement above, every last expert and their dog agrees on what happened here. This board is seemingly the only place on the internet where a handful of posters, who are just as bias as I'm being accused of, think otherwise.
You guys cannot keep arguing against this with a straight face.
Quote:
A recent lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global, over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, is widely seen to have played a significant role in delaying the finalization of the merger between Paramount and Skydance Media.
While the lawsuit was technically a civil matter separate from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) review of the merger, media analysts suggest that the prospect of a drawn-out legal battle with the sitting President, and potentially blocking the sale, weighed heavily on Paramount's decision-makers.
Ultimately, Paramount agreed to settle the lawsuit with Trump for $16 million. Although the company maintained the lawsuit was meritless, the settlement occurred just weeks before the FCC voted to approve the merger.
After the settlement was finally reached, the merger itself wasn't official approved until today, which just so happened to be in the immediate wake of these three things happening, in this order…
July 15: Ellison meets with FCC Chairman Carr to discuss Skydance's "commitment to unbiased journalism"
July 18: Paramount/CBS cancels The Late Show with Steven Colbert
July 23: Skydance publicly promises to eliminate all DEI initiatives
Then, finally, today Carr made it plain as day…
Quote:
In a statement announcing the approval Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr explicitly stated that the deal was only allowed to go through after Skydance agreed to make ideological changes to news programming on Paramount's CBS and to end all diversity programs at the company.
"Skydance has made written commitments to ensure that the new company's programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum," Carr said. "Skydance will also adopt measures that can root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media."
Do I have verifiable proof of quid pro quo, re: the $16M settlement? No. But in addition to the Carr statement above, every last expert and their dog agrees on what happened here. This board is seemingly the only place on the internet where a handful of posters, who are just as bias as I'm being accused of, think otherwise.
You guys cannot keep arguing against this with a straight face.
TCTTS said:Sea Speed said:
Idk, seems like he had $16mm worth of legitimacy to me.
They "settled" because Trump was using the lawsuit to hold up the merger. Not because he had a case. That's... the whole point of what we're discussing. But bad faith arguments are the norm around these parts, so I wouldn't expect anything less.
LOL. OK bud. Perhaps they didn't want their actual journalistic standards and editorial credibility exposed during the discovery process. The facts were not in their favor.
You guys really are just making fools of yourselves at this point.
TCTTS said:
You guys really are just making fools of yourselves at this point.
Yeah, its us that looks like a fool
I haven't defended Colbert in any way in this thread. In fact, I've been critical of him numerous times. But nice try.
TCTTS said:
I haven't defended Colbert in any way in this thread. In fact, I've being critical of him numerous times. But nice try.
You've cooked up an unfounded, conspiracy theory on why an unpopular, money losing show got cancelled. Shows that lose money get cancelled. End of story.
Seriously, can you not read?
I showed my work and sourced my points in the post above.
You can disagree all you want, but calling it "unfounded" and a "conspiracy" is patently, provably wrong. Mine is simply the majority opinion, shared by most experts. Yours is, undeniably, not.
I showed my work and sourced my points in the post above.
You can disagree all you want, but calling it "unfounded" and a "conspiracy" is patently, provably wrong. Mine is simply the majority opinion, shared by most experts. Yours is, undeniably, not.
TCTTS said:
Seriously, can you not read?
I showed my work and sourced my points in the post above.
You can disagree all you want, but calling it "unfounded" and a "conspiracy" is patently, provably wrong. Mine is simply the majority opinion, shared by most experts. Yours is, undeniably, not.
LOL. "Experts."
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion? Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/tired/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
TCTTS said:
Why not actually go through my argument point-by-point and show exactly how it's "unfounded," when it is literally the "founded"/majority opinion. Instead of, you know, reverting to the typical/cliched mocking and LOLs that are doing everything but actually engaging with the substance/facts.
Give me a list of the "experts" you're relying on to form your opinions.
Sure. After you give me a list of the facts you're relying on to form yours.
I'm the one who's already sourced dates, quotes, and a summary of the consensus found on the matter.
The burden of the argument is no longer on me. It's on you to refute it.
I'm the one who's already sourced dates, quotes, and a summary of the consensus found on the matter.
The burden of the argument is no longer on me. It's on you to refute it.
TCTTS said:
Sure. After you give me a list of the facts you're relying on to form yours.
I'm the one who's already sourced dates, quotes, and a summary of the consensus found on the matter.
The burden of the argument is no longer on me. It's on you to refute it.
Its on me to refute your wacky suppositions and conspiracy theories?
Look there are 4 actual facts:
-30+ year old institutional shows do NOT just get canceled. Without re-tooling first. They just don't. Try to find a way to do it cheaper first, etc. There is a soap opera playbook for this. But you don't just cancel a 30+ year old show without saying what you're putting in its time slot.
-That Paramount/Skydance merger took WAY longer than it should have. There was little to nothing for the FCC to hold it up over, so something was obviously amiss.
-CBS settling with Trump on something nobody has ever won a lawsuit on before is not normal. Sure, people settle lawsuits all the time they might win to make them go away. But that's a hefty settlement to "make it go away".
-Trump is also out there crowing that "the new owners" have offered him "$20M in ad time and time slots". Why is he negotiating for ad time and time slots with Skydance? Why does he need ad time and time slots? That's shady as fkn hell, and anybody who can't see that is blind as a bat.
-30+ year old institutional shows do NOT just get canceled. Without re-tooling first. They just don't. Try to find a way to do it cheaper first, etc. There is a soap opera playbook for this. But you don't just cancel a 30+ year old show without saying what you're putting in its time slot.
-That Paramount/Skydance merger took WAY longer than it should have. There was little to nothing for the FCC to hold it up over, so something was obviously amiss.
-CBS settling with Trump on something nobody has ever won a lawsuit on before is not normal. Sure, people settle lawsuits all the time they might win to make them go away. But that's a hefty settlement to "make it go away".
-Trump is also out there crowing that "the new owners" have offered him "$20M in ad time and time slots". Why is he negotiating for ad time and time slots with Skydance? Why does he need ad time and time slots? That's shady as fkn hell, and anybody who can't see that is blind as a bat.
I'm asking you to identify, what, exactly, in my post above is "unfounded," "wacky," and a "conspiracy theory."
Do you know how AI works in this instance? It discovers and indexes data/information from all over the web, analyzes it, and then synthesize the vast amount of information it collects about any given topic into a summary. In this case, the summary it came back with matched my "conspiracy theory" exactly. Therefore, by definition, it can't be a "conspiracy theory," seeing as the vast majority of facts/reporting on the subject agree with me.
That's basic common sense.
Now, could the countless sources it pulled from somehow all be liberal, like-minded, TDS-sufferring morons such as myself? Maybe? But the chances are infinitely small.
Otherwise, I simply presented factual dates and events, and then quoted the FCC chairman himself.
How any of that is "unfounded" or "wacky" is beyond me.
So, yes, it's now on you to refute it all.
Do you know how AI works in this instance? It discovers and indexes data/information from all over the web, analyzes it, and then synthesize the vast amount of information it collects about any given topic into a summary. In this case, the summary it came back with matched my "conspiracy theory" exactly. Therefore, by definition, it can't be a "conspiracy theory," seeing as the vast majority of facts/reporting on the subject agree with me.
That's basic common sense.
Now, could the countless sources it pulled from somehow all be liberal, like-minded, TDS-sufferring morons such as myself? Maybe? But the chances are infinitely small.
Otherwise, I simply presented factual dates and events, and then quoted the FCC chairman himself.
How any of that is "unfounded" or "wacky" is beyond me.
So, yes, it's now on you to refute it all.
20ag07 said:
Look there are 4 actual facts:
-30+ year old institutional shows do NOT just get canceled. Without re-tooling first. They just don't. Try to find a way to do it cheaper first, etc. There is a soap opera playbook for this. But you don't just cancel a 30+ year old show without saying what you're putting in its time slot. -Even Jon Stewart admitted that the show format is obsolete. He referred to it as a Blockbuster Kiosk inside a Tower records. Roll the tape. What sort of retooling do you suggest, short of hiring Joe Rogan?
-That Paramount/Skydance merger took WAY longer than it should have. There was little to nothing for the FCC to hold it up over, so something was obviously amiss. Not true. Media mergers go through extensive FTC / FCC/ Hart-Scott-Rodino reviews. A little over a year is not outside the norm.
-CBS settling with Trump on something nobody has ever won a lawsuit on before is not normal. Sure, people settle lawsuits all the time they might win to make them go away. But that's a hefty settlement to "make it go away". There are many reasons lawsuits are settled. Discovery can be very damaging in the court of public opinion.
-Trump is also out their crowing that "the new owners" have offered him "$20M in ad time and time slots". Why is he negotiating for ad time and time slots with Skydance? Why does he need ad time and time slots? That's shady as fkn hell, and anybody who can't see that is blind as a bat. Once a Purchase and Sale Agreement is executed, the buyer is who you negotiate with. The seller is prohibited from doing anything on their own. I do these deals all the time. Settling a lawsuit was definitely driven by the buyer. Its not shady at all
TCTTS said:
I'm asking you to identify, what, exactly, in my post above is "unfounded," "wacky," and a "conspiracy theory."
Do you know how AI works in this instance? It discovers and indexes data/information from all over the web, analyzes it, and then synthesize the vast amount of information it collects about any given topic into a summary. In this case, the summary it came back with matched my "conspiracy theory" exactly. Therefore, by definition, it can't be a "conspiracy theory," seeing as the vast majority of facts/reporting on the subject agree with me.
That's basic common sense.
Now, could the countless sources it pulled from somehow all be liberal, like-minded, TDS-sufferring morons such as myself? Maybe? But the chances are infinitely small.
Otherwise, I simply presented factual dates and events, and then quoted the FCC chairman himself.
How any of that is "unfounded" or "wacky" is beyond me.
So, yes, it's now on you to refute it all.
OK, AI boss. Didn't realize AI was your "experts"
The more you stall, the more obvious it becomes that you're not serious and, in fact, have no clue what you're talking about.
TCTTS said:
The more you stall, the more I know you're not serious and, in fact, have no clue what you're talking about.
If what you have insinuated here is accurate, it would be a quid pro quo and highly illegal. An enumerated high crime and misdemeanor and definitely an impeachable offense.
But AI told you so and you want to believe it, like Dorothy clicking her heels together. Good luck
-"Format is obsolete" is what re-tooling is, as I mentioned.
-This particular media merger had no qualms. This isn't Disney buying Fox and figuring out how to divest of the shared TV markets, etc. Skydance didn't have any of that.
-As a sitting president, you do not negotiate for ad time and claim it's $20M.
Meanwhile, you have the head of the Trump controlled FCC out saying things like this today:
That's crazy.
-This particular media merger had no qualms. This isn't Disney buying Fox and figuring out how to divest of the shared TV markets, etc. Skydance didn't have any of that.
-As a sitting president, you do not negotiate for ad time and claim it's $20M.
Meanwhile, you have the head of the Trump controlled FCC out saying things like this today:
You have the HEAD of the FCC out there talking about connsequences of how the President is covered.Quote:
"It's entirely possible that there's issues over there. Stepping back, this broader dynamic, once President Trump has exposed these media gatekeepers and smashed this facade, there's a lot of consequences,"Carr speculated. "I think the consequences of that aren't quite finished.
Carr added that America needs "a course-correction" in terms of media coverage of the presidential administration.
That's crazy.
"All the experts agree, trust me bro" on oceans rising by 2005 and flooding coastal cities, on 15 days to flatten the curve, on totally safe vaccines, etc. In the Year of Our Lord, 2025, I trust a one-legged Thai hooker more than claims of "all the experts" from a dude on a website who doesn't know and hasn't spoken to even a few experts.
Like I said above, you don't know.
What we do know is that Colbert was losing CBS a lot of money and is done. We can talk about that, because it's factual and funny.
Like I said above, you don't know.
What we do know is that Colbert was losing CBS a lot of money and is done. We can talk about that, because it's factual and funny.
20ag07 said:
-"Format is obsolete" is what re-tooling is, as I mentioned.
-This particular media merger had no qualms. This isn't Disney buying Fox and figuring out how to divest of the shared TV markets, etc. Skydance didn't have any of that.
-As a sitting president, you do not negotiate for ad time and claim it's $20M.
Meanwhile, you have the head of the Trump controlled FCC out saying things like this today:Quote:
"It's entirely possible that there's issues over there. Stepping back, this broader dynamic, once President Trump has exposed these media gatekeepers and smashed this facade, there's a lot of consequences,"Carr speculated. "I think the consequences of that aren't quite finished.
Carr added that America needs "a course-correction" in terms of media coverage of the presidential administration.
You have the HEAD of the FCC out there talking about connsequences of how the President is covered.
That's crazy.
I'm done arguing with you liberal doofuses. Call your Congress person to file articles of impeachment for bribery based on an AI search
Presented with an inarguable quote and the first thing you do is bolt. Typical, and not at all surprising.
Cliff.Booth said:
"All the experts agree, trust me bro" on oceans rising by 2005 and flooding coastal cities, on 15 days to flatten the curve, on totally safe vaccines, etc. In the Year of Our Lord, 2025, I trust a one-legged Thai hooker more than claims of "all the experts" from a dude on a website who doesn't know and hasn't spoken to even a few experts.
Like I said above, you don't know.
What we do know is that Colbert was losing CBS a lot of money and is done. We can talk about that, because it's factual and funny.
This is the "Hollywood" guy I had to explain to how box office finances works
TCTTS said:
Presented with an inarguable quote and the first thing you do is bolt. Typical, and not at all surprising.
What's inarguable? Sounds like you have a rock solid case for impeachment proceedings for bribery
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
TCTTS said:RangerRick9211 said:TCTTS said:
I realize that John Oliver has zero credibility among a number of posters here, is nothing more than a liberal shill, etc, etc, but he absolutely brings the receipts in the segment below, re: Trump's suing of Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes, showing just how stupid and unjustified the whole thing was, to rgvag11's point. It starts around the 13:44 mark, but the whole thing is worth watching...
I have no dog in this fight. I never voted Trump. Far from it. But I have some time to burn and wasted it on this thread for the lols.
I tuned in at the 12 minute mark. The receipts, in order:My conclusion:
- The Hollywood Reporter
- NPR
- 2 minutes of monologue
- CNN quotes "Legal experts"
- Ok, then he shows the two versions: 15:40 - 16:40. Clearly edited one terrible word salad for another less terrible word salad.
- I pulled the transcript myself and the snip from JO is accurate: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pbq6fcc0iltxnx3ahukmz/Transcript-Transcribed-Unedited-Interview-Footage-8-of-14.pdf?rlkey=7xvynvcj6is6eukyclmbg7i6u&e=1&st=6y60yary&dl=0
This will be my only contribution. I've wasted enough of my life on this nonsense. I've never watched Colbert. Conan gang for life.
- CBS did manipulate the answer. They used the first sentence in the preview. The second sentence in the actual aired take. This wasn't a time saving edit. If that was reason they would have used the first sentence (both chronologically + they aired it in the preview).
- CBS refused to release the entire interview. They refused to release the transcript (only doing so in Feb of this year). They did themselves no favors.
- The Fox massage: the edit is sequential. The video is 11:40 minutes of highlights from a 1 hour and 20 minute interview. But, Fox put them out at a day apart: Jun 2 and 3. They did not slice an answer, just stopped it short.
- You can't equate the two.
Edits: Why won't my emojis work mid-sentence, TexAgs? Taking them out.
Thank you taking the time to watch, and engaging in the actual substance of the video. While I don't completely agree, and definitely side more with rgvag11, you are at least arguing in good faith and make some good points.
You're all good, TCTTS. I guess at the end of the day the DNC/Harris should sue Fox for their edit. Shut up or show up. Both are wrong.
I do think transparency matters. I won't defend Fox News at all, like, at all. But they at least put the entire unedited version out there in the public. It took a lawsuit for CBS to do the same. I stand by my assessment.
Anyways, bail on this thread. You're good people on this sub and you're wasting life's precious minutes on it discussing a dumb topic. If half the stars on my post knew I actually watch JO every now-and-then (when it's an interesting topic) and live in Portland, OR, I'd be tar-and-feathered.
Also, rgvag11 is so lucky that I know "rgv" is the Valley (dad and entire dad fam is from Weslaco). Else, that's some initials and a cootchie that graduated in 2011.
What is his full quote? Was there more to it?
20ag07 said:
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
Again - present all your inarguable, rock solid evidence to congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Lord knows there is no shortage of phony impeachment processes initiated against Trump. I'm sure the dems in Congress are just waiting on all your AI evidence and inarguable quotes.
Cliff.Booth said:
"All the experts agree, trust me bro" on oceans rising by 2005 and flooding coastal cities, on 15 days to flatten the curve, on totally safe vaccines, etc. In the Year of Our Lord, 2025, I trust a one-legged Thai hooker more than claims of "all the experts" from a dude on a website who doesn't know and hasn't spoken to even a few experts.
Like I said above, you don't know.
What we do know is that Colbert was losing CBS a lot of money and is done. We can talk about that, because it's factual and funny.
Again, no one here has claimed to know any of this with utter certainty. We're simply arguing that it's damn fishy, probably likely, and typical of Trump. I just find it funny how much you guys go out of your way to ignore the sheer amount of coincidences required to believe what you do in that regard, so much so that you've resorted to nothing more than "Yeah, well you can't prove it" and "experts lol" instead of engaging with the substance of the coincidences themselves, Trump's long history with this kind of stuff, etc. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the consensus sides with my opinion. You can question who that consensus is, and unsubstantially compare them to global warming loons all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still the consensus.
I remember a simpler time, when if serious allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors were made against a sitting POTUS, the accusers actually had concrete proof. Guess I'm just a dinosaur.
This seems like a statement made with "certainty." If not, you need to work on your communication skills
Quote:
They "settled" because Trump was using the lawsuit to hold up the merger. Not because he had a case.
This seems like a statement made with "certainty." If not, you need to work on your communication skills
20ag07 said:
It's pretty damn inarguable that the head of the FCC saying that "there are consequences" for covering the president in a certain way the day that the let the merger through after sitting on it is exactly what happened.
That's not tin-foil hat sht. That's legit- he's out there telling the media how to cover. AND if you don't want people to think that's exactly what you're doing, maybe just don't go give interviews saying that's exactly what you're doing.
(And as always- a typical F16er will call you a liberal doofus if you disagree with anything Trump does, even if you've voted for him multiple times. Never quit guys.)
It took a 3-way vote to approve, friend.
Your beef is now with: https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/olivia-trusty .
Who approved it alongside the Chairman. She's pretty smart. But go for it.
Edit: OMG, TexAgs, handle periods at the end of links.