The FCC Wants To Police How Many Conservatives Appear on The View
The equal-time rule is an antiquated regulation that becomes more obsolete with each passing year.
This week, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr announced new directives for TV networks to follow in order to maintain their broadcasting licenses.
"For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as 'bona fide news' programs—even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes," Carr wrote Wednesday on X. "Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities."
When a qualified candidate for public office appears on a licensed broadcast station in the weeks before an election, under the equal opportunities requirement—better known as the equal-time rule—the network must "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office." The law includes exceptions for "bona fide" news coverage: If a network covers a news story about the president, for example, the law does not then require covering every other presidential candidate the same amount.
The new directive says that the FCC, when determining whether a particular broadcast is exempt from the rule, would consider criteria such as "whether decisions on the content, participants, and format are based on newsworthiness, rather than partisan purposes, such as an intention to advance or harm an individual's candidacy."
The memo is a bad idea for several reasons. Even taking Carr at his word that certain shows are hopelessly partisan, that hardly justifies using government power to change them. Besides, Carr seems to relish his reputation as President Donald Trump's "media attack dog"—when he's the one in charge, should we really trust his agency to assess whether The View has enough conservative guests on?
In fact, the argument that broadcasters must be tightly regulated to give Americans access to a broad range of information makes little sense these days. When the equal-time rule originated in the 1930s, it applied to radio, and for much of its subsequent history, the three broadcast networks were the only TV channels. The average household now has access to hundreds of cable channels, not to mention streaming services, YouTube, and social media—none of which are subject to the FCC's heavy hand.
Carr threatens network daytime and late-night shows with reprisal if they don't offer candidates equal time. But Fox News' late-night show Gutfeld!, which draws more viewers than any of the networks, can have on any guests it wants, since the content of cable TV generally falls outside the FCC's purview. The same goes for social media platforms like TikTok, where 1 in 5 Americans regularly gets their news. The idea that ABC, NBC, and CBS control the flow of information is quaint.
Broadcast networks have been losing viewers for years. "Streaming represented 44.8% of TV viewership in May 2025," Nielsen found in June 2025, "while broadcast (20.1%) and cable (24.1%) combined to represent 44.2% of TV." In other words, 80 percent of all that we watch on TV is not even subject to the same level of FCC regulation, including the equal-time rule.
The decline of broadcast doesn't mean Carr's memo is insignificant. In fact, it could lead to onerous governmental nitpicking of the sort that has already been a trademark of Carr's time heading the FCC.
In September 2025, ABC briefly pulled Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show after Carr threatened FCC action, stemming from his interpretation of a joke in Kimmel's monologue that mentioned the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Right away, Carr gloated about Kimmel's suspension and suggested daytime talk show The View could be his next target.
"I would assume you could make the argument that The View is a bona fide news program," he told conservative commentator Scott Jennings. "But I am not so sure about that, and I think it is worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether The View and some of these other programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs."
It seems he got his answer. "The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption," Carr's memo argues. "Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent."
Of course, assessing "partisan purposes" is a very subjective task, and Carr has proven eager to use government power against his political opponents.
Carr complained when then–Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, briefly appeared on NBC's Saturday Night Live days before the 2024 election. He accused NBC of "biased and partisan conduct" and "evad[ing] the FCC's Equal Time rule." And when Trump filed a bogus lawsuit baselessly accusing CBS of maliciously editing its preelection interview with Harris on 60 Minutes, Carr held up parent company Paramount's pending merger until it agreed to settle the lawsuit and institute "significant changes" in how its news division operated.
Carr "sees correcting anti-Trump bias as an important part of his job," Jacob Sullum wrote in the February/March issue of Reason, in a piece about the FCC's history of policing speech. "In fact, Carr seems eager to embrace what he once derided as 'a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the "public interest."'"
The equal-time rule is an antiquated regulation that becomes more obsolete with each passing year. It's no longer the case that broadcast networks are Americans' only—or even main—source of information. It shouldn't be up to the FCC to decide if talk shows are the right amount of partisan. If viewers don't want to watch, it's easier than ever to just watch something else.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
So now you want conservatives to *ignore* the law?
It's funny how you hate these laws passed by Democrats - once they're used against Democrats.
It's screeches like these that prevent libertarians from being taken seriously. They are totally fine not enforcing laws that they don't like, just like the left.
The best way to make bad law go away is to apply it to everyone.
The oft-abused neutrality rule that dates back to 1927, obliquely infringes on the 1A, and applies to all broadcasts should be repealed, but if the oft-abused 1997 "neutrality rule" that specifically infringes on the 1A on several points, dates 30 yrs., and only applies digital communication of computer services on the internet gets repealed, the internet and all of Western Civilization (the parts of Western Civilization that don't have it don't count) will fall.
They don't want no rules or even fewer rules, they want *their* rules.
To be fair... the 1927 rule only applies to OTA newscasts.
Thanks for the clarity, my intended meaning was more "multi-media, radio and television" as opposed to de rigueur if not de facto *just* social media or user-content sites on just the internet.
All broadcast news gets regulated out of existence, one way or the other? Yeah, that's a problem. A fraction of the internet (no matter how much time the terminally online may spend there) gets deregulated and left to its own devices? Pretty sure nobody's gonna die from that.
Libertarians for strictly enforcing un-libertarian laws. Plus this law likely violates 1A...
No it doesnt sarc. It is part of the leasing rights for OTA dumdum. Has been upheld for a century. Education isnt your strongest trait.
"The FCC Wants To Police How Many Conservatives Appear on The View."
This is just one of many examples why the FCC should be terminated.
I hold the view that agreeing to appear on "The View" is proof someone is not a conservative.
The 'equal time' rule - another anti-constitutional gift from the progressive New Deal that should never have been enacted and is long overdue for repeal.
...but until it is, it should be enforced.
Leftie outlets have a long tendency of ignoring it.
No, thanks. Biden lefties also wanted to enforce the fairness doctrine to stop misinformation.
Cite a reference of the Biden FCC using the fairness doctrine to stamp out MAGA lies?
Cite something I didn't state?
First...
Republican broadcasters love having retarded leftists on. The opposite is jot true.
https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/reinstate-the-fairness-doctrine-2
You can look up the views of Sohn who he nominated as well.
Here is Biden calling for the FCC to handle web content.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/6/war-on-web-biden-has-deputized-fcc-to-police-inter/
That is about non-discrimination in internet access. Another thing MAGAs hate.
Describe the discrimination. This should be good.
They just used government force to get the internet to do so. No fairness doctrine needed for him.
...and the Democrat you will vote for in 2028 will be exponentially worse.
Last election I voted for Javier Milei for president. I did have to hold my nose and vote for Lockdown Larry (Hogan) for Senate, but he was better then Anglebrook. And prior to that voted for Trump backed gubernatorial candidate, Dan Cox.
I might do that in 28. God knows the LP isn’t going to nominate anyone with any sane positions, if the writing staff here is anything to go by.
They didn't use force. There was an implied threat, which was obviously wrong, but no explicit threat like mob boss Carr made to get Kimmel fired.
Full retard achieved sarc.
Direct emails from Biden, his admin, the FBI contacts, and many congressman vs... a podcast appearance.
You truly are a dem defending retard.
"stemming from his interpretation of a joke in Kimmel's monologue that mentioned the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk."
You're a weaselly little shit, Lancaster.
He writes for Reason. Weaselly is an assumption.
The View can always stop classifying themselves as a news show and give up their liability protections, or must follow the law as has been around for over 100 years regarding equal representation of air waves.
Or you can ask Congress to change the law.
This is the Central Scrutinizer
The white zone is for loading and unloading only
If you gotta load, or if you gotta unload, go to the white zone
the view sinks to new low ...
https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/the-view-clyburn-slavery-pam-grier-lynching/
Stupid bitch
Uh... Yeah man. Equal-Time does sound a lot better than partisan letters of censorship. Shutting down entire social networks. Funding the right-kind of journalism. Hiring EU to send threat letters.
Course it is the "easy" button.
The only real cure is to impeach every single [D]emon-rat linked to government-forms of censorship.
More speech is always worse than less speech - Reason
What a retarded framing. You believe in the gov't imposing speech on private companies' programming. That's forced speech. Any faggots excluded from The View can create their own View. That's teh libertarian POV. But you're too much of a moron to realize that.
I get it sarc, youre uneducated. We all know this.
The reason The View chooses to label themselves and be held to this regulatoon is 1) OTA and 2) declared themselves news for added liability protections.
Both are not free speech because they gain government granted benefits in return retard.
Trump filed a bogus lawsuit baselessly accusing CBS of maliciously editing its preelection interview with Harris...
Almost made it through the article, but I'm sticking to my policy of not reading past the first lie.
The FCC Wants To Police How Many Conservatives Appear on The View
Just give the policy a catchy name. I propose Network Neutrality.
1. The obvious libertarian position is to get rid of the FCC.
2. Baring that, the only appropriate action is strict enforcement on ALL parties. (On the plus side of that, the assholes who have been using it against conservatives and libertarians for decades will wail and gnash their teeth).
Honestly I would have instantly agreed with you before 'journalism' put on so much clown makeup they started to look like Pravda. I think I still agree, but I'm not as certain anymore.
This being said, at no time I'm aware of has American 'journalism' been unbiased or about truth. It's actually quite amusing that the prize for excellence in journalism is named after Pulitzer. Might want to look into that guy and the history of the prize before declaring this is a new issue.
Might want to look into that guy and the history of the prize before declaring this is a new issue.
The New York Times was originally a Northern Republican newspaper. It was notable for publishing accounts from correspondents in Confederate States during the Civil War. "All the news that's fit to print" was an aspersion to Pulitzer-style yellow journalism.
It's current illustrious status despite its insular and fact-free reporting is similarly ironic.