If you have a way to contact ABC's attorney, Paul Clement, please point out to him that he and the entire ABC legal crew seem to be missing a very key point: a simple syllogism can easily prove that no violation of the equal-time rule could POSSIBLY have occurred, regardless of whether or not the rule actually applies to the program The View.
As a refresher, the so-called equal-time rule DOES NOT require that competing candidates must also be hosted on a show. What it requires is that, if any opposing candidate REQUESTS equal time WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED 7-DAY WINDOW, they must be given it.
So here's the syllogism -- let's break it down into all of the logically possible cases:
(a) Either an opposing candidate (Jasmine Crockett for the Dem primary, or even as a stretch, Paxton & Cornyn) requested equal time from ABC, or they did not. If none of them did, then it's game over -- no violation is possible, full stop.
Or (b), one of them DID request equal time. There are two sub-cases here:
(b1) ABC agreed, or
(b2) ABC refused.
If ABC refused (case b2) a bona-fide request for equal time (leaving aside the Q of whether the Equal Time Rule even applies to The View), that would have been huge news and the "losing" candidate would have trumpeted the unfairness from the rooftops. Since that never happened, we can assume that (b2) never happened. If Carr wants to dispute this, let him bring the receipts from the complainer.
As to sub-case (b1), if ABC agreed to an equal-time request, that would ipso facto prove that no violation had occurred, regardless of whether or not the opposing candidate ever took them up on the offer. Again, the rule doesn't require ACTUAL equal time, just the opportunity.
So, to sum up:
(a) No violation is possible, by definition;
(b1) No violation is possible, by definition;
(b2) Could not possibly have occurred.
Put that argument in front of a (logical) judge, and it's summary judgment time.
"[The View] received a declaratory ruling back in 2002 that it constituted a bona fide news program."
Who *didn't * receive such a declaratory ruling? Tucker Carlson. Of Fox News fame. Fox is an unalloyed & unapologetic arm of the GOP and, these days, of Trump's MAGA. The many affiliated broadcasters who carry their one-sided shows should be investigated, and have their licenses revoked. Bartiromo, Kudlow, Hannity - all Trump hacks. And there's the fact that Fox is the showcase for those auditioning for the Trump admin.
I look forward to the very many regulatory investigations in 2029.
This mug is both power-mad and on the fast train to defeat. Ignominy awaits, if history is kind. We must ensure that Jefferson’s vision remains true: “Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune [is inevitable]…”
So good of the Trump “administration” to create its own “Goon Show”.
Great reporting.
If you have a way to contact ABC's attorney, Paul Clement, please point out to him that he and the entire ABC legal crew seem to be missing a very key point: a simple syllogism can easily prove that no violation of the equal-time rule could POSSIBLY have occurred, regardless of whether or not the rule actually applies to the program The View.
As a refresher, the so-called equal-time rule DOES NOT require that competing candidates must also be hosted on a show. What it requires is that, if any opposing candidate REQUESTS equal time WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED 7-DAY WINDOW, they must be given it.
So here's the syllogism -- let's break it down into all of the logically possible cases:
(a) Either an opposing candidate (Jasmine Crockett for the Dem primary, or even as a stretch, Paxton & Cornyn) requested equal time from ABC, or they did not. If none of them did, then it's game over -- no violation is possible, full stop.
Or (b), one of them DID request equal time. There are two sub-cases here:
(b1) ABC agreed, or
(b2) ABC refused.
If ABC refused (case b2) a bona-fide request for equal time (leaving aside the Q of whether the Equal Time Rule even applies to The View), that would have been huge news and the "losing" candidate would have trumpeted the unfairness from the rooftops. Since that never happened, we can assume that (b2) never happened. If Carr wants to dispute this, let him bring the receipts from the complainer.
As to sub-case (b1), if ABC agreed to an equal-time request, that would ipso facto prove that no violation had occurred, regardless of whether or not the opposing candidate ever took them up on the offer. Again, the rule doesn't require ACTUAL equal time, just the opportunity.
So, to sum up:
(a) No violation is possible, by definition;
(b1) No violation is possible, by definition;
(b2) Could not possibly have occurred.
Put that argument in front of a (logical) judge, and it's summary judgment time.
It is most concerning that Carr isn't even trying to hide his intentions. Flat out suppression of free speech. What are we willing to do about it?
"[The View] received a declaratory ruling back in 2002 that it constituted a bona fide news program."
Who *didn't * receive such a declaratory ruling? Tucker Carlson. Of Fox News fame. Fox is an unalloyed & unapologetic arm of the GOP and, these days, of Trump's MAGA. The many affiliated broadcasters who carry their one-sided shows should be investigated, and have their licenses revoked. Bartiromo, Kudlow, Hannity - all Trump hacks. And there's the fact that Fox is the showcase for those auditioning for the Trump admin.
I look forward to the very many regulatory investigations in 2029.
Fox News us not a broadcaster, it is on cable. None of the FCC's arguments can touch them. Ditto for CNN and MS NOW.
That was excellent. Thank you very much. Absolutely terrifying, but excellent.
This mug is both power-mad and on the fast train to defeat. Ignominy awaits, if history is kind. We must ensure that Jefferson’s vision remains true: “Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune [is inevitable]…”