A (0:00)

You know who is not one of my guests tonight? That's Texas State Representative James Talarico. He 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. Then. 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. Scary time in America. Everybody likes to say they're for free speech. Everybody likes to say they're against censorship until they don't like the speech, until they'd rather see somebody or something not platformed. There is so much wrong in this situation. Now, there is a little boost also that I'll talk to you about. Somebody's a big winner here. Somebody's a big winner. And there's a lot that's a big loser. And this is also a window into something that is so dangerous and so little is known about it. And I will take you through the history and I will take you through the mystery that is our quickly eroding fundamental freedom. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Look, everybody in the speech game wants as much latitude and freedom as possible. You have to understand the history, you have to understand the inconsistency of. Okay. And then you got to get into the really sticky business, which is what? Principle versus purpose. And what does that mean? Well, is all speech the same? Well, content restrictions. The Supreme Court's been very clear. Other than porn, specifically kiddie porn. No, you can't have content based restrictions because it's a slippery slope. And yet where has that left us? It's left us where complete nonsense bullshit gets as much protection as what you should actually know. That's part of the frustration of freedom. But you have to realize where all this comes from. Why is Colbert barred from showing James Talarico, the Texas state representative who's in the race for U.S. senate against Jasmine Crockett? Okay, who is his in party rival now? Because of this race. They've been nice to each other, but she is the Democratic Party's favorite. I don't know why Talarico is so superior to her in so many different levels, but he is a white male. And that party does very much want to put its imprimatur on diversity, but man, they are trading down in every other way. But that's my opinion. Let's put it to the side. Talarico is the winner. You now know James Talarico's name in a way you never would have. I've had him on here a couple of times. I've had him on at News Nation. I was an early adopter to him. Why? He represents the best of the Democratic Party. He comes from a place of faith and conviction. He is eloquent. He is studied, and he is fair. And he believes in big ideas about helping the most and staying away from the negativity. It really is a beautiful demonstration of politics, and I am a big fan of his. He wins. Kind of like Don Lemon. Not so much Georgia Fort. Why? Because you guys aren't giving Georgia Fort. You don't even know. You're like, who? What? That's the other journalist that was arrested by the Trump administration in Minnesota. Don won't mention her because he's too, you know, kind of, I guess, into the limelight and into his moment and into being a martyr, which the left is gonna regret because he's eventually gonna say things you're not gonna wanna own. Meanwhile, Georgia Fort made all the right calls, different calls than he did. I mean, you could argue entering was a little dicey, but I don't think it really changes the legal analysis. But she doesn't get any of the shine. She's not getting any of the support. And I worry for her in taking on the federal government, even though I think their case is bullshit. So the way Don and Georgia are kind of elevated by this negative outcome. So is James Talarico now, is James Talarico doing anything wrong? Absolutely not. Move him out of the analysis. Is Stephen Colbert Absolutely. Yes. He is absolutely doing something wrong. 100%. Something illegal? No way. Well, but what about the equal time rule? That's not how it works. I'll explain. But is he doing something wrong? Yeah. He's given the middle finger to his employer. He does not own his show. He does not own the right to broadcast it. CBS does, and he works for them. And they told him to do something and he didn't. And they would be absolutely in their right to fire him. I don't know why they haven't now. Maybe it's because they have mixed feelings about why they want to get rid of him in the first place. Maybe Colbert is right and this is about capitulating to the Trump administration. Okay, Feel any way you want about him. He's also a lesser player. Now we get into the main players, okay? The federal government and cbs. Did CBS do the right thing here? No. No way. Did they do the right thing. Shame on Paramount. I can't say shame on. On Barry Weiss, the new editor or whatever she is of CBS News. Because this isn't CBS News. Although news will come into the analysis. This is CBS Entertainment, which will also come into the analysis. CBS is wrong. Why? There is no such thing as preemptive equal time rule. This is not how it works. The way the equal time works is this comes from the 1934 Communications Act. It is his only radio and over the air television. Why? Because we're stupid, that's why. Because it's antiquated. And for all the updating that we do, we haven't done it here. Why? Because the businesses thought they were getting more freedom by convincing lawmakers and regulators to not regulate. So it's radio and broadcast, okay, which is what? Abc, NBC, cbs, Fox. Okay, now Fox News, Fox. So as to those two things, the FCC has domain over their licenses. There is regulation over cable. There is almost no regulation over Internet. Okay, but none of them fall under this. This is where the equal time comes from. And equal time is what it sounds like. If you have on Talarico, you then need to have on the Republican. Or you could argue you then need to have on Jasmine Crockett, you got to have on his opponents. That's the equal time rule. Okay. Why? Come on, it's a parody rule. I. Look, do I have a problem with it? Yes, I have a problem with it. Why? I don't like the government telling us how to practice free speech. I think the government should only be in the business of going after people that chill free speech. But in fact, they are the ones chilling it. Does equal time chill it? Not necessarily, but it does make you offer equal time to people who you may not find of equal worth. And that comes down to basically being a content restriction, in my opinion. But that is my opinion, not the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme Court has upheld the equal time rule. Now, is it a little funky as a legal analysis? Yeah, because it kind of feels like government regulation of free speech. Cause it is. But policy overrode this simple principle. Okay? So the Act 29 replaced, 34 tested a million times. And the Supreme Court has held that's equal time. Now we start going down the slippery slope after the equal time rule. Okay? There was then the Mayflower doctrine. Have you ever heard of that? The Mayflower doctrine was specifically about radio because radio was everything back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s. TV didn't really become a thing until the late 50s, 60s, okay? The Mayflower Doctrine was. You can't have any editorial consideration. So that's how Murrow and his boys covering World War II had to adopt and adapt. They had to adopt a new kind of manner to adapt to the restriction, which was what an editorial. So what they decided to do was to get around the Mayflower Doctrine, which was no editorializing. They would say, hey, this is specifically an editorial. So you don't have to worry about thinking, I'm slipping it into the news. I'm just gonna tell you right now what's going on. And they'd be sitting there with their cigarette, and it would say the following opinion is not necessarily the right. You probably remember that growing up, if you're from a real generation, like Generation X. So he'd be saying, war is hell, whatever it was, okay, that was the Mayflower Doctrine. They then get rid of it and replace it with something that was loosely referred to as the Zapple Doctrine or the Fairness Doctrine. What was that? So this was a long time ago. It was 1949. Zapple was a government commissioner, and he came up with this idea that it's really not just about the participant, and it's not about not editorializing. You can't do that because. Perspective. Where's the line of me offering you perspective versus opinion? Okay, if somebody lies and I say, this person just told you something that is demonstrably false, now is that an opinion? Or. Or no, it's true. The person actually did lie. But isn't. Is that editorializing? It got to be too mushy. So they replaced it with the Fairness Doctrine. And the Fairness Doctrine was what it sounds like, which is. All right, you just said why the SAFE act is good to have voter id. Now you got to have on why it isn't good. And because there's a diversity of opinion on just about everything. So Zapple was the guy's name and they just named it after him. Then came what I would argue was right but wrong. Right but wrong how? 1985, they get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Why? It was seen as having a chilling effect, which was the opposite of the intent. The intent of the Fairness Doctrine was more speech. I am always in favor of more speech. Okay, why? Two reasons. No censoring. And second is the better ideas will become apparent. Now, how did I screw up? I screwed up because I assumed that the better ideas would be getting the dominant amount of exposure. It's not so much in social media. You hear bad ideas getting more attention than the right ideas or Good ideas or better ideas all the time. So I was kind of wrong about that. But I would still err on the side of more speech and anti censorship and no control with except with one exception. One exception. The algorithms on the social media platforms are poisoned by design. No other media agent. Look at this. Look at it. You had the equal time. You had the Mayflower, you had the Zapple, the Vereness doctrine. Yet all these things, you have none of them on social media. None. They create algorithms that play to the worst of us, that deliver us mis and disinformation, provocation and outrage. All these other things were legislated to not allow that. But here we allow fucking all of it. Why? Well, we wanted to let the Internet grow. We didn't want them to be overwhelmed with litigation in our 19934 Internet Act. Yeah, well guess what? We overcorrected, okay? Section 230 that exempts them from any kind of responsibility or litigation was a huge mistake. It has to be removed. These mofos are designed in the platforms to divide us for dollars. And you are rewarding people wittingly or unwittingly with, you know, rewarding them for amplifying animus and minority opinions. Okay, back to telo. So I'm going to take you through why they did what they did and why it went wrong and how it has to be put right before it's too late. Now we're going to go into an advertisement because I got to pay, right? But you don't have to watch it. You can go to YouTube. I got these new subscriptions. You can get it without the commercials if you want. You can get more of me. You can get exclusive content. You can get content. I don't put other places. You can get contact with me directly in small settings or even one on one. Negotiable all through these different tiers of subscriptions on YouTube. Support comes from One Skin. You familiar with OS1? Are you? OS1? What is that? That is One Skin's proprietary formulated peptide. It is their patented and much coveted ingredient that is proven to target senescent cells. What are those? Those are the cells that give you the wrinkles, fine lines, the loss of elasticity in your skin. Guess who's been noticing that lately? Me. Guess who's got One Skin in the house as a result? Me. It has been validated in four different peer reviewed clinical studies. I don't want to look old. I don't want my skin to look like a catcher's mitt. So I use one Skin. Why? I believe in the peptide. Why? Because it's science proven. Why else? Because a lot of people use it. It's got a ton of reviews and the safety record is great. 1500 harsh or irritating ingredients not in one skin. Well, what's people's experience with it? Well, it's got over 10,000 five star reviews. All right, that's got to mean something, right? Editors have named One Skin a leader in skin longevity. I mean, what else you need to know? Born from over a decade of longevity research, One Skin's OSO1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging and help you deal with it. All right, if you go right now for a limited time and try OneSkin, you'll get 15% off using the code CUOMO@Oneskin.co CUOMO O N E S K I N C o forward slash.15% off with the code Cuomo. Now they're going to ask you where you heard about them. You know what to say. Cuomo sent me. So let's talk about why now that you bought your merch for free agent and being an independent and being a critical thinker and showing that you are different with a nice mug and a blankie. Let's talk about why this went so wrong. CBS did not have to bar this interview. Why all they had to do was tell Colbert he needed to have on Jasmine Crockett or the Republican. That's the equal time fix. There is no more Fairness Doctrine. It went away in 1985. Why? Because they believed it was having a chilling effect, which I believe was kind of wrong minded. So they got rid of the Fairness Doctrine because they felt that it was making people hunt for different perspectives on things where maybe they didn't see them or maybe they didn't weight them equally. Well, I think that's called journalism. And again, I'm okay with government being completely out of the speech business, but I do think we're in a position now where a fairness doctrine may be helpful because you have all these outlets that only have on one side. I mean, when's the last time you saw any real Republicans on ms? When's the last time you saw real Democrats who aren't patsies who are clearly a different level of talent being inferior than the righties on Fox? I mean, you ever watch the Five? You really think the lefties and even get a word in edgewise or anything other than a pinata for that little toxic troll and the other guys? So again, I don't want to content regulation for sure. I don't want government regulation for sure. But the idea that we have the FCC and that they're making rules, why doesn't it apply to everything then? Because where we need it most is where we have it the least, which is social media and the platforms with their algorithms. So CBS Paramount had no reason to preempt this. Are they allowed to? Yes. Why? It's their call. It's their platform. Oh, yeah, but Colbert wanted to do it. Fuck Colbert. He works for them. Colbert's definitely in the wrong now. I would argue he's fighting the right fight, but it's not his fight to have, it's his bosses. And he should quit. But he wants to scratch, so he doesn't. Now, why did they not have to preempt? Because all they had to do was balance it with equal time. Well, they didn't want to do that because they didn't want to get into that game with the. Well, that's their choice. But it's not the law and it's not the common practice. By the way, the common practice is more speech inclusivity, expanding the coverage. Now, here's another aspect of the law that you have to understand. Why would Colbert be part of equal time? Not all media is part of equal time. What do you mean? Bonafide news. What does bonafide mean? In good faith. So what is that? Newscasts, My show. Cuomo on News Nation, other 60 Minutes, 20, 20, you know, other shows, news shows. Why? Because we give those outlets the discretion to put on what they think is fair. That's the exemption. So equal time, the Zapple doctrine or anything else has not applied to a newscast. It's not. Tonight we have on James Talarico and then right after this, I'm going to have to have on the Republican or the Democrat running against him. We don't do that. So they have given talk shows, daytime talk shows and nighttime talk shows the same exemption. Now, here's the funny thing. Daytime talk shows and nighttime entertainment shows are shit compared to news shows. They're all entertainment and, you know, non news. Right. And I do think it's a sad commentary that comedians have become more of a touchstone for our politics than your major news anchors. Maybe there's a good, maybe there's a bad. I don't know. Bothers me. Doesn't have to bother you. But isn't it weird that completely non news things were included in the exemption of the equal time rule? But think about if they're not, why would you have entertainment shows have to adhere to the equal Time rule. So even though they're not exempted for the same basis of principle, which is don't tell the media, the news media, don't tell journalists how to be fair, as the government, you don't get to do that. We do include the least fair outlets that aren't even news. Why? Because why would they be in the equal time game? He's a comedian, you know what I mean? Who's looking for balance on that? It's all live daytime talk shows. Even more so. It's like whose baby is it? So why would they have to balance anything? So now they're saying, well, maybe at night you don't get that equal time rule. So you got to start having people on from both sides. But how's that entertaining? I mean, the guy's a comedian. How is he going to be as funny with someone he doesn't want to interview as someone he does want to interview? Well, they never have righties on. Well, that's why Fox News is killing it, right? I mean, that's why all they're. Because that's where people go if they want that. And there happen to be a lot more people who don't want it than those who do. Okay, why? Because we see what the audience saturation is. And if you want it, why are the podcasters killing it? Why are all the pod bros and Megyn Kelly and all these other dividers for dollars? Why are they doing so well? They're mostly being watched by righties and a new breed of independent, which is really a righty. And there are a lot of independents that are really lefties that left the Democratic Party. I'm in favor of any independent because I think the parties are killing us. Support comes from factor. Let me tell you. You want to get your fitness right, you got to get your food right. I don't have time. I just had to grab something I decided not to eat. No use factor. Okay. Factor makes healthy eating easy. Why? Because they prepare the meals designed by dietitians, crafted by chefs, so eat well. Without the planning, you don't need to cook nothing. Quality, functional ingredients, lean proteins, lots of veggies, whole food ingredients, healthy fats, no refined sugars, no artificial sweeten sweeteners, seed oils, meals that fit your goals and schedule. Healthier eating, calorie management, more protein done, easy and affordable, and diversity 100 rotating weekly meals to keep things fresh and delicious. Okay? High protein, calorie, smart, Mediterranean, GLP1. Whatever you want, whatever you want. It's all right there, okay? Plus the new musclepro collection that supports strength and recovery for you big UN's out there, head to factor meals.comquomo50off and use the code CUOMO50OFF. One word, CUOMO50OFF. And guess what? You'll get off 50%. See that you're smart already. Eat like a pro this month with Factor New subscribers only varies by plan. One free breakfast item per box for one year while your subscription is active. So equal time comes from a long time ago. Does not apply to the Internet. Crazy. Does not apply to cable. But they regulate that in other ways. So it's just radio and tv. So CBS has a right to be worried about it. They just didn't have to preempt it. Paramount did not have to preempt this. Did they do this to please the Trump administration? That's for them to answer. But I don't know how it isn't. I don't know who else benefits from this. This is James Talarico. This guy is not like some firebrand Trump basher. He's one of the most positive, progressive people in the country in terms of leadership. You know what I mean? Like, he's not Trump's enemy. Right? Jasmine Crockett I could see. I mean, she's a little bit more of that fire flamethrower kind of deal. You know, I'm not judging it, I'm just delineating it. But yeah, of course Paramount wants to get its deal done. And look, Paramount may buy cnn, they might buy Warner. They are Trump's buddies. So it is interesting to me that they would be so obsequious to Trump when he really likes them and wants them to do more because he thinks they'll cover him more fairly. And maybe that is what they're doing by telling Colbert. We don't want to have people on who are anti Trump, even if it's a mild version like James Talarico. But to say that it's a pre preemptive move for the equal time doctrine is bullshit. Just say we want to be nice to Trump. Don't try to make it like you're being high handed and don't have the lawyers handle it. It's not a legal issue. It's not. It's not a legal issue. Doing it preemptively is not a legal issue. You don't have to do that to satisfy equal time. So your answer to having equal time is having no time. That's your answer. That's more fair than what the equal time doctrine is supposed to be approaching, which is balance as Fairness, you're going to have just. Nothing is fairness. It's. Colbert is wrong, but I get why he's fighting that fight. Paramount is wrong. Is the FCC wrong? I don't know. It depends on the issue. On this one. I don't even know that they spoke about it. Right. This was all done for them. I do think that hunting after people for not being fair to Trump is a little obvious when it's coming from the Trump administration. Do I think there is a need for the Fairness Doctrine again? No. And if there was going to be anything like it, seeing how we do have these things in place now, it should be on social media. I think social media needs it the most. It has the most reach. I think it's the most corruptive. I think it's got the most misinformation and disinformation. I think it's the most. It is the worst example of everything that regulators have ever been worried about. That's what I think. Now what do I think should happen? I think Dallarico should come on my show. Why? Because I get the bona fide news exemption and I don't have to have on the other side. But guess what, here's the kicker. That is my brand is being fair. I would have on Jasmine Crockett and I would compare the two. Maybe not the same night. That's a lot of Texas Senate. But I would do it and I'd have on the Republican. Why? Because at News Nation, what I believe I'm doing there is all voices are welcome. I don't censor, I don't shade in terms of the guests, I have them on and I want them all to be strong voices and I look for the strongest voices representing different perspectives. For instance, I don't have any problem showing an ID when I vote, but I do understand the policy arguments about why it will have a chilling effect and disenfranchise people who vote now. And I don't think it's going to do anything for illegal voting because I don't know illegal voting is a real thing. And the idea is, well, we don't know that it's a real thing or not because we can't check. That's bullshit. That's called a strawman argument. That's not a real thing. You can't play on the non existence of a fact. You're playing on the unknown. That's just conspiracy. Think so? Get the strongest voice who's in favor of it. And their argument is pretty simple, right? It's just everybody shows an ID for everything. All I'll say is this. If this act goes into practice, do you believe that it will have more or fewer people voting who are citizens? I say it has to have fewer. Has to. Because you're not gonna have 100% compliance. And I think the right is absolutely okay with that because they believe that the people who won't be voting aren't their voters because they're poor and black, but a lot of them are poor and white. And I think they're making a mistake. But be that as it may, tell me this in terms of fairness and how we do this in the practice of journalism, so that I don't need the government to tell me to do it. Why is it that the same people who want you to have voter ID do not want you to be able to register to vote when you get that ID as a driver? Motor voter. They didn't want motor voter. Why? Well, illegals can get driver's licenses and then they can register to vote. Yeah. You know who else, Ken? Citizens. And you know how more common it is with citizens than with illegal people? Like a million times ten to one, That's. That's what you're doing. So, again, what is your real motivation? I don't believe it's safety. I don't believe it's about making sure only people who are citizens vote. I think it's about having fewer voters. Why? Because it's better for them. They're playing to a minority in this country, not the majority. That's fairness. And I'll have on the best people to make the arguments on both sides. And then you can decide because you're a critical thinker. And the equal time rule has been in since 1934 and has been approved again and again and again by the Supreme Court. And I don't love the rulings, but that is the ruling. I do not think we need the government to tell us how to practice journalism or how to practice fairness, especially when you can see what a government administration can be about. Do you really want the Trump administration to be telling you how to practice fairness or journalism? I don't. Do we need the fairness to auction back? No, for the reasons I just said. Did CBS need to do this preemptively? No, they did not. Paramount did not need to do this. Well, the fcc, though, has said they have concerns. So then have the other side on. What's wrong with that? More speech, not less. Don't censor. Allow the best ideas to rise. Our problem is social media, where none of these rules are at play. And as a result, their whole business model is designed on an algorithm that feeds us exactly what radio and TV cannot capitalize on. Doesn't that sound fucked up to you? It does to me. Support comes from Irestore. It's a new season, Always a great time to reset. And if you want to take your hair seriously, this is an ad that you should pay attention to. Why? Because I've been using the at home device from Irestore. Okay. It's got 300 lasers, 200 LEDs. Red light therapy is a thing. How do I know? Because I read about it. It's clinically proven to help regrow hair. Why do I want that? Because I don't want my hair to be falling out. That's why. The best part is it's effortless. You just pop it on a few times a week while you're literally doing nothing in the house. And it just looks like you're sitting around with a bicycle helmet. On. On. If you want to go all in on your hair transformation, you can also pair it. Use your Elite. That's my little magic helmet. With the Revive plus Max growth kit. Or their buy it in gummies or all of them, really. I mean, I believe in throwing everything you got at a problem. I believe that when you have a problem, you know what you do about it, right? Everything you can. The Revive plus Max growth kit is basically your whole healthcare lineup in one place, right? You get your thickening shampoo and conditioner. You get the growth activator serum, you get the advanced hair growth formula. Everything you need. If you've been waiting for the right time to upgrade your hair routine, guess what? It was yesterday. Start now if you want things to change. Irestore is offering big savings for the spring savings plan. Just go to the site and use the code cuomoirestore.com you're going to get an exclusive discount on the Irestore Elite. That's my magic helmet. The code is cuomoirestore.com Please support the show when they ask you, how'd you find out about us? Cuomo sent us. Support comes from Lisa. You know what I love about Lisa? I like the way it's spelled. L, E E S A. You know what else? I like elegance. I like precision. Lisa has both. Really? Yeah. You get that soft, calming, sink in moment. But the support is tailored so perfectly to my sleep habits that I wake up feeling aligned. There's a word I use really rarely, unless I'm talking about my car. Leesa has a lineup of beautifully crafted mattresses. What you sleep on matters my brothers and sisters, not just because they help you keep out the bed bugs, but but because they help you keep in the integrity of restfulness. Each mattress designed with specific sleep positions and feel preferences in mind. How do you sleep? Guess what? You're not unusual. And Leesa has matched the way you sleep to what they sell. The mattresses are meticulously designed, assembled in the usa, exceptional quality. Okay? And here's the nice thing. It's not just about sleep. It's about impact. Lisa donates thousands of mattresses every year to those in need, partners with organizations like Clean Hub to help remove harmful plastic waste from our oceans. See, they do well as a business, but they also do good things as a business. I dig that. Go to Lisa.com for 30% off mattresses. Plus get an extra $50 off with the promo code CUOMO exclusive for my listeners. That's L E-E-S-A.com promo code CUOMO plus. And you will get an extra 50 off. So when they ask you, where'd you hear about us? You know what to say. One word, baby. Cuomo. Let's discuss. Because we're all free agents. Thank you for subscribing. Thank you for following following. Thank you for checking me out. SiriusXM in the morning, 7 to 9 Eastern Channel 124. POTUS. That's a feedback mechanism. A lot of calls, some big name guests, but a lot of calls. Me and you dosor us as you're getting ready in the morning. The podcast, you go to YouTube, you get your subscriptions. You get the level of involvement you want. You get the level of me in your life that you want. You can get the merch, which, look, again, I'm not selling Cuomo wear. I mean, that is so insufferably arrogant. And who cares about Cuomo? Cuomo's not the brand. Right. I'm just the delivery device. The brand is being independent, being a critical thinker, being different than these lemmings and pack animals that just believe that as long as the other side is a little worse than they, they win. They're the problem. You want to be a free agent. You want to wear your independence. That's why I sell the merch now. Good question. What do I do with the money from the mugs and the blankets and the thing and that? I give it away. I give it away. Have I screwed that up? Yep. How? I don't have a foundation or something like that, so I'm just kind of doing it and getting killed on the taxes. I'll figure it out once the money becomes real enough, where it's worth dealing with. But remember when I gave, like 10 grand a couple of different times to my friend who's running Inara, that organization in Gaza to help kids who are affected by the war? That's where it came from. The dad that who had to drive Uber because the shutdown kicked him out of working as an air traffic controller. I gave him 10 grand. That's where it came from. So you can feel good about buying the merch because that's where the money's going to go. Crowdsource contributions we can all feel good about. All right. And Then, News Nation, 8P Eastern and Midnight every weekday night. Thank you very, very much for giving me the opportunity. I'm trying to be busy because the battle is here. Let's get after.