As a side note, “talarico” is a slang in my country for a man that sleeps with engaged women.
Colbert’s most-watched “The Late Show” political interview of all time is with then-candidate Donald Trump on Sept. 23, 2015, which now boasts 17.85 million views
Wait. Colbert interviewed Trump??
Anyone got a link to the video that’s not on YouTube
Is 6 million views a lot for him? How does that compare to his other videos?
I’ve been thinking this was a prime candidate for the Streisand effect since I first heard about it. Good for him.
TV super duper dead
“Well, shit, that didn’t work.” - MAGA, again.
This is the second time in the last few months they stopped CBS from airing something and it resulted in more people seeing it (the 60 minutes segment about the El Salvador prison being the other one)
CBS is run by out of touch maga boomers who want Colbert off the air anyways. They want to turn CBS into Fox News, and these are just the growing pains.
It’s like in the fifth Harry Potter book when Hermione gets Rita Skeeter to interview Harry about Voldemort’s return, and it’s published in Luna’s dad’s magazine, and Umbridge bans it, thereby inadvertently ensuring every student at Hogwarts reads it
Aka the skeeter effect
Whose beach shack is that?
It’s Barbara Streisand’s.
The term was coined in 2005 by Mike Masnick of Techdirt after Barbra Streisand attempted to suppress the publication of a photograph by Kenneth Adelman showing her clifftop residence in Malibu, taken to document coastal erosion in California.
Shy of those houses being there, what’s so bad about the sea reshaping the shoreline? Hasn’t that been going on for quite some time already, like, a few hundred million years or so?
Things humans have done, like damming rivers, have accelerated and altered coastal erosion patterns to a huge degree.
It’s a natural phenomenon but AFAIK it can be accentuated or accelerated by the rise of the sea level, or the passage of boats and vessels. It can be entirely normal, but it can also be provoked or worsened by other factors. And that’s why we document and do some research about it?!
I’m not a climate scientist but luckily the Wikipedia’s article on the Streisand effect has a link to coastal erosion if you want to know more.
That makes sense. We want to understand our impact on the environment. I guess I was just wondering why it seemed like an inherent problem, but I suppose it’s more a question of whether we’re disturbing the natural process in ways that ultimately cause undue detriment to the ecosystem.
“Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous”
Can you explain this for a non American?
It is a California government coastal erosion photo that included Barbara Streisand’s house. She sued to remove it from the internet because she believed it was an invasion of her privacy.
Adding to FuglyDuck’s good explanation, there’s another element. Not quite all broadcast (over-the-air, non-cable television, i.e. publicly accessible for free) TV follows this rule, as talk shows are co sidereal to be entertainment and are excluded. So the FCC threatened to remove the exemption for talk shows, meaning CBS wanted to play it safe and not risk the government making this a problem, even though it’s not (currently) against the rules.
CBS got pressured by a regulatory agency (federal communications commission) to not air Talarico’s interview under some bullshit (radio and public tv broadcasts are supposed to give “equal airtime” during elections to political rivals to avoid the partisan bullshit we see with our media.)
Talarico is currently in a primary election for us senate in Texas (a primary is against other people in the same party, to decide who that parties nominee is)(his competitor, is Jasmine Crocket… who is an amazing woman, I’d be happy with either but I want Crocket.)
He’s also a pastor who’s been calling out Christian nationalism and advancing fairly progressive causes., and scaring the shit out of people that are of a Nazis persuasion.
So, CBS said they couldn’t air that segment.
So instead Colbert dumped it on YouTube.
The YT video has gotten 6.5 million views, which for perspective, they would have expected about 2 million if it aired.
So this is another example of censorship going wrong.
In reality, CBS is doing exactly what it wants to do, which is to be a mouthpiece for the Conservative Propaganda Machine, but they are using the FCC as a handy excuse, like it isn’t their own fault.
FCC chairman Brendan whatshisbut did come out and say it would violate equal time some how.
So yes, CBS is choosing to self-censor and be that mouthpiece, but also it would have aired of Brendan didn’t say anything. At least that’s my read.
And i guess the 2.5M$ are campaign donations that came from a link attached to the youtube video?
Not really?
Here’s the interview.
People just went and donated on their own.
Edit: I just double checked the video is at 10 million views.
Strange, I wonder why it shows 7.5m views for me (5 hours after you saw 10m). I wonder if Youtube gives different view counts by region, which would be…interesting.
Maybe I fucked up and read subscribers? The mobile page had 10 mil where it looked like views just now, expanding the info says 7.4 mil.
Either way it’s a fuck ton more than the 2-3 mil they’d have had if they just aired it. (Gotta be honest it’s not Talarico’s best.)
You did. It’s 10.6 million subscribers, 7.5 million views.
Segment itself was pretty banal. But watching the rightwing/ Chorus crowd coming in hard for Crockett is legit whiplash. And like, Crockett has always seemed… hollow? Or performative?
Something about her reminds me of Buttigieg. Like they a suit you can just shove money and a campaign into and it will self animate and start giving speeches.
This whole thing is giving strong Mamdani vibes, not in the nature of the candidates but the structure of the race, how corporate Dems and Republicans in the end came into alignment to try and stop them. I think capital is sensing its lost the ability to control the narrative around races like this.
But legit, watching crockett flameout while the chorus crowd glazes her has been wild.
I mean Talarico isn’t great and I still think flipping Texas is an op. Only thing Texas ever turns blue is peoples balls.
Could you give a one-liner on what Chorus is?
deleted by creator
I like Crockett for being a bit of a firecracker. She’s smart, she knows the law, and knows the exact right spots to push on to point out the obvious corruption of the right. She seems incorruptible.
Talarico has a softer approach, isn’t as combative, and leans on his faith a bit much I would say. I would say he probably plays better in Texas politics than Crockett might. He also seems incorruptible.
Two different personalities who are both qualified for what we need right now, but two different tools in a toolbox.
Crockett denies Isreals war crimes so for many that’s a non-starter. Though neither are perfect, I believe Talarico has committed to stopping offensive weapons transfers. I think he is marginally more progressive.
However both but especially crockett are still kinda mainstream Dems, Crockett does have the benefit of being on the house oversight committee and had good questioning to Pam bondi. She has a lot of the smoke, but her policies are same old same old.
That’s something that often gets lost in primaries it seems… regardless of which candidate you prefer, which one is going to beat the Republican nominee?
Definitely getting “can win in Texas” vibes from Talarico.
If Crockett is smart (and the interview I’ve seen has left me incredibly unconvinced on that) she’s bending herself into a pretzel for J Street PAC money knowing full well that’s spewing nonsense.
(Please forgive the source I wasn’t able to find the interview elsewhere while on mobile)
https://xcancel.com/KweenInYellow/status/2023925865931853872
Tal has a big up against crockett that will play big come the general election here in Texas.
Talerico is a white male. Crockett isn’t. This is Texas we are talking about and, as disappointing it is to say, it will play a massive role in an already uphill battle. He’s just more electable at face value for that fact alone.
I like both candidates, tal gets the edge for his funding methods to be sure, but the electability argument is a big one when you are talking about a Senate seat that hasn’t been held by a dem since LBJ.
She seems incorruptible.
Her election funding would suggest otherwise
Not sure what you’re trying to illustrate here?
The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors. She doesn’t take AIPAC money. What’s your point?
The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors
A plurality, but importantly not a majority.
She received more from large individual donors and PACs combined than from small donors.
Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…
Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don’t understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…
It seems it’s YOU that don’t understand: people rich enough to make large individual donations tend to be the kind of elites who expect something in return for their largesse, as do PACs.
With that in mind, it’s COMPLETELY reasonable to combine those groups to compare with the small donors who represent a wider swath of her constituency and thus incentivize less corrupt practices.
Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand
False, see above.
to a response you don’t understand
Equally false.
and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.
My fucking nonexistent god the projection! 🤦
Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?
The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It’s not AIPAC or corporate interests, it’s small donors.
What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?
She seems incorruptible
Didn’t she take money from AIPAC, while Talarico is reportedly not funded at all by them?
Nope.
Bruh what are you talking about?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Arsq9-90dyQ
Crockett is like, 10/10 took the Israel funded trip, 110% in the bag for Israel.
Literally data online saying that she didn’t take AIPAC money.
Alliances or voting history are different things. Don’t try to make a point if you can’t back it up.
What the fuck are you talking about. Watch the fucking clip where she fucking defends Israel’s genocide at every fucking maneuver. It’s right fucking there . Click on it.
If she didn’t take AIPAC money she’s done quite litterally every single thing you would do ID YOU HAD taken AIPAC money.
She’s FULL throated pro israel.
[Edit: I saw your down vote coward. Why don’t you defend your position that Crockett isn’t pro-Israel instead]
Crockett has always seemed… hollow? Or performative?
Which is EXACTLY why she’s been a darling of the DNC leadership.
Can’t get caught up in actual POLICY matters! That way lies inconveniencing the owner donors!
Something about her reminds me of Buttigieg. Like they a suit you can just shove money and a campaign into and it will self animate and start giving speeches.
Spot on. See also:
Bruh I’m fucking dying laughing at this. You woke the house fam.
Streisand Effect in full force
Adding an anecdote I quite literally never heard of Talarico before this debacle. But I sure as shit watched the full interview.
This administration never ceases to amaze me in its incompetence.
hahaha it’s already on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Streisand_effect_examples
love it
Link to the interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
The effect in full force.
Holy shit, what a crap website with a totally excessive number of popups and far too much fluff in the content. Glad someone posted a link to the interview.
It’s fine on Firefox (with uBlock Origin). Also not full of fluff.
It’s not exactly a short article, but they don’t even mention key things such as who the politician is (nor context about the guy) whose interview wasn’t allowed to be aired. They seem to be censoring him just the same as the TV station…
