Late-night host Stephen Colbert accused his network, CBS, of refusing to broadcast his interview with Texas Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, during Monday night’s airing of “The Late Show” for fear of running afoul of the Trump administration.
Colbert said CBS canceled Talarico’s appearance on air in light of guidance issued Jan. 21 by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, which directed daytime and late-night TV talk show hosts to offer equal airtime to all political candidates running for a given office. Talk shows have long been exempted from these “equal time” rules when conducting “bona fide news interviews,” allowing them to book political candidates without bringing on their opponents.
Talarico “was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said in a segment explaining the cancelation. “Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”
The interview was set to air on Monday night’s show the day before the start of early voting for Texas’ March 3 primaries. Talarico is vying for the Senate Democratic nomination against U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Dallas.
Are you suggesting only agnostics should govern?
Talarico said in the interview he wants the separation of church and state to return as the current blend diminishes both.
Wouldn’t that be something?
But that’s not what I said. I said keep your religion outta my government. I didn’t say you couldn’t have religion.
In the statement “keep your religion outta my government”, the line between ‘keep your religious beliefs from influencing governmental decision making’ and ‘people belonging to a religion should be restricted from participating in the running of government’ is quite fine, which is why I asked.
I appreciate your answering.
Ok, I see your point. It is a fine line. But I’m trying to make the distinction here that Talarico’s popularity is in a large part because of his vocal religious take. I firmly believe in separating church and State, and just because I agree with what one “church” is saying doesn’t mean we should invite the devil in the door yet again.
While my personal belief is that relgions should be abolished and I would much prefer no relgious individuals ran for government positions trying to ban someone off of thier beliefs like that with how prevelant relgion is today would just be setting bad precedent that could be turned against a population when you have people like the pedo in chief out governing the world. I will say any devout relgious person running would have me question how unbiased they could be as truly believing in fairtales and myths just already shows a severe deficiency in critical thinking skills.
With that being said I would still vote a sock into office over the domestic terrorist group that is the republican party. Perfect is the enemy of good so if this indivual at least truly believes in separation of church and state I am not going to dwell on their cognitive dissonance regarding religion as it seems to be helping keep them objective and move us in the right direction again.
You’re really sleeping on the comma. They might seem unnecessary, but they are not.
angry atheists think anyone who follows any religion at all is automatically idiot… meanwhile they usually are religious themselves about something else that is traditionally a religion. like the ‘new atheists’ crap.
religious belief is a basic aspect of being a person, no matter how much people deny it.