Speaker 1: Hey, that folks. It is Wednesday, February eighteenth, Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 1: He is leaving the Late Show in a few months,
Speaker 1: but he is not gonna go quietly, apparently, and a
Speaker 1: public war of words and statements has erupted. And with that,
Speaker 1: welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. CBS versus
Speaker 1: Colbert is playing out quite publicly. This is no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily funny. He's made some funny remarks.
Speaker 2: But you hate to see this, but I appreciate his freedom.
Speaker 2: He is free.
Speaker 3: He is free to say what he wants because he
Speaker 3: has already been told Baye. And so now he actually
Speaker 3: sits in a very comfortable spot. It's that place when
Speaker 3: you know you literally have nothing to lose. And if
Speaker 3: he wants to burn the house down as he goes,
Speaker 3: he kind of can.
Speaker 1: You know what? You know what? We want to make
Speaker 1: sure and you won't let you hear it all if
Speaker 1: you haven't heard. But he's not burning down the house.
Speaker 1: I thought now he could have. I thought he brought
Speaker 1: the temperature down a little bit on night too. And
Speaker 1: what we're talking about, folks. Stephen Colbert, lay show host,
Speaker 1: of course, has publicly accused CBS of squashing an interview
Speaker 1: he had scheduled for Monday's show. But now CBS has
Speaker 1: come out and refuted that, saying the network did not
Speaker 1: kill the interview. So Colbert came back in response to
Speaker 1: that last night and called BS on c B s
Speaker 1: is where we are, so Robes. So your point about
Speaker 1: the freedom. Yes, late last year they announced he was
Speaker 1: going to be the show was going to go away
Speaker 1: in May. He's a few months away. But the backstory here, Robes.
Speaker 1: He's trying to he was trying to do an interview
Speaker 1: with a candidate quite frankly nobody's heard of on a
Speaker 1: national level.
Speaker 3: Correct, And he was told that he could not air
Speaker 3: that interview on CBS because of well, something that is
Speaker 3: kind of nebulous at this point in terms of where
Speaker 3: it should be applied. But this equal time rule that
Speaker 3: we've heard FCC chairman kind of talk about when it
Speaker 3: comes to shows that weren't under this rule that broadcast
Speaker 3: networks are. When you are a news program, you cannot
Speaker 3: give in an election year, one candidate from a party
Speaker 3: airtime and not give that equal opportunity to a candidate
Speaker 3: from the other party. That makes sense. You don't want
Speaker 3: to have a unevenly weighted news program where people aren't
Speaker 3: given the option to see both sides or to hear
Speaker 3: both sides.
Speaker 1: Standard stuff, long standing understood.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, so that has not typically applied to entertainment shows,
Speaker 3: late night shows, talk shows. These are shows that aren't
Speaker 3: deemed as basically I'm just saying, like objective news programs,
Speaker 3: these are not the same. Cable news also doesn't apply
Speaker 3: because they're not con considered places.
Speaker 2: Where people would go to for objective news coverage.
Speaker 1: Yes, and this has been a long standing rule on
Speaker 1: new broadcast that works. This is where this counts in broadcast.
Speaker 1: You cannot simply it's a good rule, and I understand
Speaker 1: it why it needs to be equal time. Fine, but
Speaker 1: this is a long standing tradition, long standing. So yes,
Speaker 1: Carr is threatening this. So Colbert is claiming that CBS
Speaker 1: killed an interview he was going to do with a
Speaker 1: guy by the name of James Tillerica.
Speaker 3: I got his name right to Allarica, Like, yes, we
Speaker 3: actually had to look it up because he's Look, he's
Speaker 3: a Texas state representative and that's not typically going to
Speaker 3: be a household name nationwide.
Speaker 1: But it's relevant now because of a Senate race down
Speaker 1: there that is relevant. Jasmine Crockett has gotten into it.
Speaker 1: He's a Democrat, James to Allerico, but they are going
Speaker 1: up for the seat that John Cornin holds. This is
Speaker 1: a big deal, a national race. Can they flip this seat?
Speaker 1: That is why James Tallerico is relevant. So he was
Speaker 1: scheduled Robes to do an interview that was going to
Speaker 1: air on the show on Monday. That did not happen,
Speaker 1: and they end up still putting it somewhere for people
Speaker 1: to see it, but it wasn't on the broadcast.
Speaker 3: Yes, they put it actually on the YouTube channel correct
Speaker 3: that is associated with the Colbert Show. But Colbert instead
Speaker 3: of just going quietly, which I would say typically if
Speaker 3: he were in a contract year wanted to stay with
Speaker 3: the network, this probably wouldn't be something we would see
Speaker 3: him air out. Look, a lot of things happen behind
Speaker 3: the scenes. We've been in the news business where we've
Speaker 3: had interviews that have been shelved, stories that they've said
Speaker 3: aren't fit for air.
Speaker 2: That does happen, and you don't really get.
Speaker 3: To talk about it publicly because you're having a relationship
Speaker 3: and a conversation and an understanding with your boss about
Speaker 3: what's appropriate and what's not. So it is interesting to
Speaker 3: see him now have the license and really have the
Speaker 3: platform to say exactly what is going on behind the
Speaker 3: scenes and call people out for things that he doesn't
Speaker 3: think are correct, including the people who write his paychecks
Speaker 3: or sign his page.
Speaker 1: And this is what he said on Monday that started
Speaker 1: at all after announcing I think Jennifer Garney was going
Speaker 1: to be on the show, he said, quote, you know
Speaker 1: who was not on Who is not one of my
Speaker 1: guests tonight. That's Texas State Representative James Tillericho. He was
Speaker 1: supposed to be here, but we were told in no
Speaker 1: uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly,
Speaker 1: that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then
Speaker 1: I was told in some uncertain terms that not only
Speaker 1: could I not have him on, I could not mention
Speaker 1: me not having him on. And because my network clearly
Speaker 1: doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: That's how he opened the segment. So your kind of
Speaker 1: eyes got big, like, WHOA, where's he going? He cracks
Speaker 1: a joke but ropes throughout this thing. He was fiery,
Speaker 1: and he looked pissed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and wouldn't you say, though I know we said,
Speaker 3: or you said, he's not burning the house down. But
Speaker 3: if Stephen Colbert weren't in the position he's in now,
Speaker 3: wouldn't you say, that would almost be, if not assuredly
Speaker 3: be a fireable offense.
Speaker 1: Spend the bullefens at least.
Speaker 3: Yes, So he did something that we would never see
Speaker 3: someone do who is employed by a major company, who
Speaker 3: wants to stay employed by said major company. But he
Speaker 3: then explained the equal time role like we just did,
Speaker 3: and then said, call this what this is? Donald Trump's
Speaker 3: administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about
Speaker 3: Trump on TV boom.
Speaker 1: So he is talking about his own network, caving to
Speaker 1: a threat from the FCC chair who, of course, is
Speaker 1: just trying to protect his boss. The next statement here,
Speaker 1: Robes is one, Yes, I mean it's powerful. It really
Speaker 1: is a relevant statement that we should all pay attention
Speaker 1: to rogues because a lot of networks and companies are
Speaker 1: dealing with his exact thing.
Speaker 3: That's right, because he pointed out the FCC chairman, Brendan
Speaker 3: Carr only threatened to get rid of equal time. He didn't,
Speaker 3: he didn't make a change, He didn't say this is enforceable.
Speaker 3: He has suggested basically in a series of posts on
Speaker 3: x and social media, when he sees something he doesn't like,
Speaker 3: he threatens it.
Speaker 2: He kind of dangles it. But it hasn't actually happened.
Speaker 3: And so Colbert pointed that out and said car only
Speaker 3: threatened to get rid of equal time, but my network
Speaker 3: is unilaterally enforcing it, as if he had wow, and
Speaker 3: then went on to say, this decision is purely financial.
Speaker 1: The threat worked. This is going to be important over
Speaker 1: the next couple of years of this administration. If things
Speaker 1: like this are going to happen, what do you do?
Speaker 1: They didn't they We don't have to come after you.
Speaker 1: We don't have to revoke your license, we don't have
Speaker 1: to sue you. All we got to do is threaten you,
Speaker 1: and you'll get in line. That networks are going to
Speaker 1: have a lot of people don't have to grapple.
Speaker 3: With it because a lawsuit and threatening a lawsuit, and
Speaker 3: we've seen what happens when the Trump administration threatens a lawsuit,
Speaker 3: They almost certainly follow through with it if you continue
Speaker 3: said behavior or conduct that they deemed inappropriate. So you're
Speaker 3: right by just threatening a lawsuit any company, any media company,
Speaker 3: especially where profits are probably already thin, they are not
Speaker 3: going to want to poke the bear and take on
Speaker 3: the financial the significant financial cost of even fighting a lawsuit.
Speaker 2: They want to avoid lawsuits.
Speaker 3: Completely, and so in order to avoid the lawsuit, just
Speaker 3: go ahead and cower power to that threat.
Speaker 1: This is concerning, And he pointed out and when he
Speaker 1: made that statement, there were no jokes attached to it.
Speaker 1: That was a very serious statement. He wanted to get out.
Speaker 1: But that was Monday, So come Tuesday, Robes, CBS responds
Speaker 1: to what he said on the air and essentially saying Nope,
Speaker 1: that's not what happened.
Speaker 3: Yes, CBS News put out this statement in response to
Speaker 3: their employee, Stephen Colbert. The Late Show was not prohibited
Speaker 3: by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Representative James Talerico.
Speaker 3: The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could
Speaker 3: trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates,
Speaker 3: including Representative Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the
Speaker 3: for how the equal time for the other candidates could
Speaker 3: be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview
Speaker 3: through its YouTube channel, with on air promotion on the
Speaker 3: broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options.
Speaker 1: Huh, what do you make of again, We're going to
Speaker 1: get into He responded to this as well, they got
Speaker 1: guidance to who other so they were telling them you
Speaker 1: might get sued. And they're saying the decision was solely
Speaker 1: up to the late show. Correct.
Speaker 3: I think that they were saying, we would like you
Speaker 3: then to consider putting on these other candidates. Well, when
Speaker 3: someone says you should con and it's your boss, that
Speaker 3: means you have to.
Speaker 2: I mean that's the way I would take it. For sure.
Speaker 3: You can use whatever language you'd like, but when the
Speaker 3: person who is your boss or who is signing your
Speaker 3: checks tells you you should consider this, that means you
Speaker 3: need to do it. And so yes, I read that
Speaker 3: as them saying, so, if you have Tillerico on, you
Speaker 3: need to also consider You're going to have to consider
Speaker 3: putting these other two candidates on your show as well.
Speaker 1: Man, And they said, no, okay, so what do you
Speaker 1: do there?
Speaker 3: Because yeah, he said he's never in his twenty something years,
Speaker 3: he did say that has ever ever been told he
Speaker 3: has to consider putting on other candidates if he has
Speaker 3: someone on from one side of the aisle he.
Speaker 1: Did, he said, has never happened to him. Maybe this
Speaker 1: is where we are. I don't know what the response
Speaker 1: is going to be, but he excuse me from CBS now,
Speaker 1: because last night Stephen Colbert, as you just said, hopped
Speaker 1: on again and he in Ropes. He had some comments
Speaker 1: here that were a little I would say, disturbing if true,
Speaker 1: and gives us some insight into the relationship between Colbert
Speaker 1: and CBS. Stay here, we'll explain what he said, and
Speaker 1: we continue here on Amy and TJ. Stephen Colbert is
Speaker 1: in a very public war of words with his own
Speaker 1: network right now, as we've been talking about in Robes.
Speaker 1: He responded to the CBS statement essentially saying that, no,
Speaker 1: we didn't make him take this interview down. We didn't
Speaker 1: tell him he had to take it down. We just
Speaker 1: told him. It sounds like Robes. They told him, sure,
Speaker 1: knock yourself out, but you have to put these other
Speaker 1: two candidates on, and they didn't want to do that.
Speaker 2: That's what it sounded like.
Speaker 3: To me.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, I'm just making yes.
Speaker 3: But Stephen Colbert is saying, I've never been told I
Speaker 3: have to put on other people to compensate for having
Speaker 3: someone on who I'd like to have on my show.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, So CBS statement Robes they put out saying no,
Speaker 1: we didn't force him and explaining it. He seemed perplexed
Speaker 1: last night and responding to that. First of all, he
Speaker 1: read the entire statement on his show, but he seemed,
Speaker 1: at least to me, Robes perplexed as to why they
Speaker 1: would do that, And he said they put that statement
Speaker 1: out without talking to him.
Speaker 2: I mean, he basically called them liars.
Speaker 1: Damn. Okay, you can get right to it if you
Speaker 1: like to. I didn't want to get that was strong.
Speaker 1: But you're right. I'm saying yes, no matter how many
Speaker 1: words I use. Over here, he's saying, no, that is
Speaker 1: not what happened.
Speaker 3: I mean you said that CBS was. He said they
Speaker 3: were full of bs. So yeah, I mean it's he's
Speaker 3: we're all pointing in the same direction.
Speaker 1: Uh okay, So here you go. You were talking about
Speaker 1: he said, yes, he'd never been asked to do the
Speaker 1: equal time rule. He said, quote, I was really I
Speaker 1: was willing to let the whole thing go without ever,
Speaker 1: he said, excuse me, he was willing to let the
Speaker 1: whole thing go, but then they put out of this
Speaker 1: statement without ever talking to me. The corporation put out
Speaker 1: this statement. He holds this thing up, he says, it's
Speaker 1: a surprisingly small statement for how many butts it's trying
Speaker 1: to cover. Robes. I was surprised as he explained that
Speaker 1: the thing they're saying they're upset about, and how he
Speaker 1: explained the story the night before. They approved every single
Speaker 1: word of his script, and so now they're putting out
Speaker 1: a statement saying, oh no, what he said wasn't correct. Robes.
Speaker 1: We've been standards and practices. A lawyer, somebody looks through
Speaker 1: every word he's claiming. Everything he has said on TV
Speaker 1: went through the lawyers.
Speaker 3: And the interesting thing is this show is not live
Speaker 3: on the air. This show is taped and then broadcast.
Speaker 3: So there was and there always is time to make adjustments.
Speaker 3: If they didn't like what he said, they could have
Speaker 3: refused to let it go up. They could have asked
Speaker 3: him to retape or change something or take something out.
Speaker 3: There was time for them to make decisions even after
Speaker 3: he recorded that episode.
Speaker 1: You know what, I didn't check to make sure. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's the case, but I mean, yeah, even
Speaker 1: if it's a tight turn to get it brought. No,
Speaker 1: there is no tight turn. What are we talking about?
Speaker 1: They take it at five or something in the afternoon.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about coasts and what. No, you have hours
Speaker 1: to decide. You even can see what the East Coast
Speaker 1: reaction is on Twitter and change it for central. You
Speaker 1: got time to do that if you want to row. Okay, now.
Speaker 3: Ya?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: So he said he did everything right, he said, didn't
Speaker 3: he use the word? He obeyed the network and he
Speaker 3: still got publicly spanked.
Speaker 1: And then he spanked them back. This is a public
Speaker 1: back and forth. But Robes, I thought it was good.
Speaker 1: He at least used a line in there at one
Speaker 1: point where he said, I don't want to at war
Speaker 1: with my employer or my network. He said, I've never
Speaker 1: had an adversarial relationship, and I don't want to have one. Now.
Speaker 1: I thought there was a seriousness in the tone in
Speaker 1: that moment, and there were points throughout when he was
Speaker 1: doing this and he was sitting at the desk. This
Speaker 1: wasn't the monologue where he seemed genuinely upset, not an
Speaker 1: angry way, but almost hurt and disappointed.
Speaker 3: Yes, and even perplexed like a gas like Wait, I'm
Speaker 3: so confused if CBS approved every word of my monologue
Speaker 3: and I used their language, not mine, and they still
Speaker 3: put out a statement after the fact that seems like
Speaker 3: there's some pr war going on. There's no one's actually
Speaker 3: basing this on a foundation of good faith. This seems
Speaker 3: to be about one upping one another in the public
Speaker 3: good faith.
Speaker 1: It's gone.
Speaker 2: That's gone, completely out the door.
Speaker 3: That's gone, especially after he had his little dog crap analogy.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I forgot to even mention that he what's
Speaker 1: the line there? You see it?
Speaker 2: He said.
Speaker 3: For the lawyers to release this without even talking to
Speaker 3: me is surprising. I don't even know what to do
Speaker 3: with this crap. And then he had a little little
Speaker 3: doggy bag. All of us dog owners know what it's like,
Speaker 3: and we have to bend down and pick up the
Speaker 3: crap on the side of the sidewalk.
Speaker 1: He did that thing very carefully with that CBS statement.
Speaker 1: Picking up makes me want to watch tonight, though.
Speaker 3: Look, he's got three months, give or take left, and
Speaker 3: I can't see a scenario in which CBS would do
Speaker 3: themselves any favors by punishing him, by taking him off
Speaker 3: early or canceling his show right now, Like I feel
Speaker 3: like you never know. I mean, I was just imagining
Speaker 3: and at this point he'd probably say, who cares? I mean,
Speaker 3: I think he would care, but he's he is making
Speaker 3: a decision to now go on the air and just
Speaker 3: be transparent, which is not something that you can typically
Speaker 3: do in these types of situations. But honestly, given what
Speaker 3: we've seen with networks, newspapers, lots of folks now changing
Speaker 3: how they cover things, perhaps even or what they say,
Speaker 3: or just being extra careful, this is refreshing to at
Speaker 3: least see someone like Stephen Colbert kind of just laying
Speaker 3: it all out there and saying, here is what's happening
Speaker 3: behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: FYI.
Speaker 3: I appreciate for one, and it is entertaining, but it's
Speaker 3: also important. I think both can be true. Well, thank you,
Speaker 3: as always everyone for listening to us. We will continue
Speaker 3: to be watching the developments over at CBS News along
Speaker 3: with so many other stories, so continue.
Speaker 2: To check our feed.
Speaker 3: We are always on top of things on Ami Robac
Speaker 3: alongside TJ.
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.