Stephen Colbert Says CBS Killed an Interview Because of FCC Equal-Time Rule
If anything, the incident just provided further proof that the equal-time rule should be abolished.
This week, Stephen Colbert—host of CBS' The Late Show—interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a candidate in the state's Democratic Senate primary on March 3.
But it didn't air. As Colbert explained, CBS declined to broadcast the interview as a result of recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines relating to the equal-time rule. If anything, the incident just provided further proof that the rule should be abolished.
"[Talarico] 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," Colbert told his audience, who booed in reply.
According to Colbert, the network cited the equal opportunities requirement, better known as the equal-time rule. Stemming from the era when the limited broadcast spectrum was the only way to transmit radio or television, the equal-time rule says if a "legally qualified" candidate for public office appears on broadcast TV in the weeks before their election, the network must "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office."
In a statement posted to X by CNN's Brian Stelter, CBS said it did not keep Colbert from airing the Talarico interview, but it "provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule…and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled."
Talarico is one of three candidates running in the state's Democratic Senate primary, plus eight Republican candidates; under the equal-time rule, if CBS aired Colbert's interview with Talarico, it could be required to offer equivalent airtime to each of the other 10 candidates. CBS would only be required to make the offer, though any candidates that accepted would then mean the network must coordinate long-form interviews to air in the two weeks before the primary. (In its statement, CBS noted only that airing Talarico's interview could include equal-time considerations for his two fellow Democratic candidates, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and businessman Ahmad Hassan.)
The equal-time rule allows exceptions for "bona fide" news coverage, and for decades, this was understood to include interviews. Richard Nixon appeared on The Jack Paar Show in 1960 and on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In in 1968, each time just weeks before an election in which he was competing. During the 1992 presidential primaries, Bill Clinton endeared himself to younger voters by playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show.
But in a January directive, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sought to upend that interpretation.
Carr advised that going forward, "a program that is motivated by partisan purposes" would not qualify as "bona fide" news coverage exempt from the equal-time rule.
What qualifies as "partisan" motivation, as opposed to just catering to your overwhelmingly liberal audience? That's apparently in the eye of the beholder. As a result, networks are less likely to book liberal guests and risk running afoul of an FCC chair who apparently relishes his reputation as President Donald Trump's "media pit bull."
But even in the face of the equal-time rule, Colbert still did the interview. The full 14-minute video is available on the show's YouTube page, as well as on Paramount+, the streaming service of CBS' parent company. YouTube and streamers are both beyond the reach of the FCC's equal-time rule.
So, for that matter, is cable news: After he leaves CBS in May, Colbert could host a show on the left-of-center cable news channel MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), on which he only interviews Democrats, and the FCC would have no purview to complain.
That, ultimately, is the takeaway from this bit of jawboning—not that Carr is protecting the public's precious airwaves, but that there is little reason for them to be protected in the first place.
Last week, Colbert's broadcast averaged 2.45 million viewers; his interview with Talarico eclipsed that total within 24 hours of hitting YouTube. That's not to mention the number of people who watch it on streaming, or on social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok.
The equal-time rule originated in the era when radio was the only form of broadcast; it later expanded to include television, but for decades, that only included the major broadcast networks. Now, most Americans get their information online, either eschewing broadcast TV altogether or just catching it on streaming services or YouTube.
The equal-time rule even makes little sense in practice. On Wednesday, Colbert is set to interview Sen. Jon Ossoff (D–Ga.), a declared candidate in the 2026 midterm elections. But since Georgia's candidate qualification period does not begin until March 2, and the primary itself is not until May 19, Ossoff is not yet a "legally qualified" candidate as defined under federal law, putting him outside the equal-time rule's qualifications.
Clearly, for whatever merit the equal-time rule had when Congress first drafted it nearly a century ago, it has only become more unnecessary and onerous with time. Even when applied with some level of logic and fairness, it still constitutes a top-down federal mandate that a broadcast network air certain content, at a time when it has never been easier for consumers to find any content they want.
"Brendan Carr's FCC is continuing its streak of naked partisanship by wielding the agency's power in new and laughable ways," Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. "Candidate interviews have long been exempt from 'equal time' rules for good reason. It would be wrong if a Democratic administration demanded conservative talk radio hosts give equal airtime when they interview candidates, and it's wrong for the Trump administration to demand the same of late night talk show hosts." In fact, as Colbert noted during his broadcast, Carr said last month that he would not be targeting conservative talk radio with his new directive.
"By putting pressure on late night talk shows critical of the Trump administration while openly admitting that conservative talk radio is immune from the FCC's ire," Corn-Revere added, "[Carr is] making himself the poster boy for big government putting its thumb on the scale of political debate."
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
Regulations become non-partisan.
Leviathan knows no party.
It’s funny when the rules you advocate for turn out to bite you in the ass later.
What has the Supreme Court said?
More importantly what did an inferior court judge say?
Whats hilarious is they aired the interview online and got 2M views. This rule is solely about OTA broadcasts and has been enforced for a century.
It is a stupid thing to cry about these days.
Especially over Steven "Clownshow" Colbert. 8 Republican candidates, at least one of them has to be willing to come on to be a punching bag or make screwball, culturally condescending jokes just for the exposure. FFS, one or two of them are probably between opposition plants and genuine spoilers anyway.
Colbert is doing the usual bidding of the Dems who do not want Crockett but want Opie to be their TX Senate candidate. The entire bullshit was to get attention.
And, wow, Reason fell for it as hard as could be. Hours after it was debunked.
The lesser Koch and his Koch-suckers are just the drizzling shits.
"[Talarico] 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," Colbert told his audience, who booed in reply.
CBS said it did not keep Colbert from airing the Talarico interview, but it "provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule…and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled."
So, in short, Colbert was lying and what they are really saying is that they won't air any interviews with Republicans even if they have to cut off interviewing Democrats along with it.
I might not love the equal time rule, but it does show that these jerkoff's in particular have a tenuous relationship with the truth so maybe interviews with politicians shouldn't be their thing since, one hopes, those are intended to inform people and obviously by their own admission that isn't something they want to do.
You nailed it. Their objective is to deny Republicans any exposure. That way they can make up whatever they want about non-leftist positions without ever being contradicted.
If a program wants to cosplay as 'serious journalists' while also claiming to be just a simple comedy show, they might want to consider that the 'journalism' angle is actually improved by interviewing all of the candidates while comedy is harmed by having any interviews.
Basically, they need to pick a lane. They can either be progressive propagandists without interviews giving them an air of legitimacy, or they can be a news show and do serious interviews with all the candidates.
Frankly, if that's the end result of equal time rules maybe they aren't so bad. Joe Rogan, for his many faults, has people on his show from all parts of the political spectrum. If it somehow works for him, it's unclear why it wouldn't work for Colbert.
Rogan was also a comedian, but somehow manages to be a more serious journalist than Colbert. That's one fucking low bar, people, and I don't even really care for Rogan all that much.
while comedy is harmed by having any interviews
Disagree. The issue isn't the comedy, it's control. You can have comedians do interviews and still be funny. Even multiple comedians and group discussions. What you can't do is portray your host as having *The* correct take and blast that out by having one or more people on the show who might make him or someone "on his side" look like an idiot.
Comedy interviews are a problem because serious people aren't going to subject themselves to that nor are they forums to seriously discuss issues. They are explicitly entertainment products, and while they might accidentally inform people there is at least some question as to how well it can accomplish that goal.
The reason someone might sit down with a comedian for an interview are, I think, two-fold.
A) Nobody knows who they are and they are desperate for coverage.
B) Everyone knows who they are, and they are trying to reform their image.
If someone goes into those interviews thinking they are there to sway opinion on a serious topic, they are probably wrong and the host got lucky to have an earnest person to shred.
They declare themselves news for liability protection proposes. So they want the benefit but not the cost.
Nope. It was solely about being required to interview the other dem candidates for the primary. The regulstion is vote specific.
Crocket cried the loudest about it.
Crocket is actually nuts, so that checks out.
Colbert is blaming Trump for being forced to interview more democrats. Have I got that right?
That's my understanding. This guy is running in a Democratic primary and has two opponents. This doesn't apply to Republicans running in a different primary. The author is either ignorant or lying.
From what I understand this was not about inviting a Republican but that he would have had to have Jasmine Crockett on as well...this is what I read. My theory is CBS is trying to push him to either resign or do and or say something that would give them a reason to fire him now as every month he is on the air they are losing millions.
I am betting ABC is pissed that they had to side with the woke crowd and keep Kimmel going . If Trump had stayed out of it they would have fired him by now. Not for what he said about Charlie Kirk, that would have just been the excuse but because he is costing them millions.
Seriously who is even watching these shows anymore? Most of the people who still watch over the air TV are from my fathers generation and they are either glued to Fox or MSNow.
If CBS does not care that he lies to them, why should we? Make a move to label Colbert as a campaign contribution to numerous Dem candidates and be done with it.
Nice Streisand effect, no one would have seen this interview if it had just aired normally. Trump own goal going hard against broadcast networks, that are becoming obsolete on their own allowing Colbert to play the victim - the only victim are the few dimwits that watch him.
Except that the candidate who would’ve gotten equal time here is a Democrat, Jasmine Crockett. It’s really funny when they do it to their own, then lie about why they did it.
CBS should fire him. His viewership is markedly lower and he is now just a headache, as everybody saw him being.
Got to wonder why Colbert is so opposed to interviewing a black woman though.
He’s gone in three months. It really might have been cheaper to shitcan him back in August and air MASH reruns.
The equal time rule stems from the over-the-air broadcasters not paying to use the spectrum. Before the equal time rule should be eliminated, they need to auction off the TV spectrum and allow any company to bid on it - even if they don't want to broadcast television. Few people watch over-the-air TV anyway, so let's auction the spectrum so that it can be used for what the people want - faster phone internet, safer streets, etc.
Stephen Colbert Says CBS Killed an Interview Because of FCC Equal-Time Rule
Darn, I was really looking forward to the special feature where they were going to find a Minnesota church full of Democrats to harangue about all the Somali welfare fraud.
Did Colbert refuse to air an interview with Talarico's opponents in the election? Did they even make a request? You can't have a violation of the equal time rule if the other person does not ask to be interviewed.
This is pure government censorship.
Jasmine Crockett was screaming about it, yes. This is all you democrats.
So the point of this story is Colbert is not intellectually able to interview a conservative?
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
If you want to broadcast over the "public" airwaves, you have to follow certain rules.
Colbert has interviewed conservatives. Interviewing MAGAs is hard because they lie so much.
None of which applies here as the other person who would have to be interviewed is Jasmine Crockett, a black, woman, Democrat!
Why do you hate black women, Molly, you racist, sexist, KKK-wannabe?
Chinese projection.
Why are you trying to censor Jasmine Crockett, Tony? She’s a powerful black woman. You’re keeping her down in favor of a white man.
Racist!
"That, ultimately, is the takeaway from this bit of jawboning"
They said the secret word! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
The Fairness Doctrine was a boon.
The Equal TIme rule is not.
Just so we are clear, the equal time rule would require an interview for Jasmine Crockett, a fellow Democrat and a black woman too boot. Thus, this has nothing to do with the Republicans or conservatives and was just a way for Colbert to disingenuously attract attention to his preferred candidate.
In other words, Colbert doesn't want to interview a black woman, which thus makes him a racist, so he lied and claimed censorship. What an asshole.
No. She did not ask to be interviewed by Colbert. MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet.
If Colbert wanted the interview of Talarico to air the onus would be on him to reach out to the other candidates and invite them for equal time. That's essentially what the CBS lawyers explained. Colbert wasn't willing to do that. Why exactly? He doesn't want to give equal time or decided it was too much of a headache. Also, he (probably CBS not willing to back him up) was unwilling to spend his own money to take a shot at litigating the rule through the court system after defying the rule.
LANCASTER! You have one job. ONE JOB. To report accurately and you can't even do that.
No one stopped Colbert from airing the interview. Colbert chose to do it online in order to not have to interview the other candidates. That's it. He wants to pretend to be a news show and then use that position to stump for a specific candidate.
CBS did not kill the interview - as evidence by Colbert, you know, *doing the interview* and then posting it online.
"CBS did not kill the interview - as evidence by Colbert, you know, *doing the interview* and then posting it online."
Since he did it in the CBS studio with their equipment and staff, and they let him air it on official youtube, you could argue they just put up the lamest "oh no, stop, dont do that...." fight but essentially facilitated the entire thing, but have the legal grounds to save face and not get sued.
Sounds to me like CBS legal told him that it was going to threaten their license if he campaigned for whoever that is. They were apparently smarter than Lancaster in recognizing that this "interview" is an in-kind donation and campaigning from a partisan.
They said "it would be a violation, unless you offer equal time to Crockett and the other guy" and then he just didnt want to do that part.
So basically, he didn't want to follow the rules as they have been written for decades, and he manufactured a victim narrative about it.
Back in the day the equal time rule provided exposure to Libertarians and other malcontents who somehow managed to get on the ballot while nobody was paying attention. That's what led to the spoiler votes that changed the world. According to Hank.
This was a political stunt, essentially a hoax.
Colbert wanted the victimization narrative, Talrico was happy to, uh, actually be seen for the first time by basically everyone. It was wins all around for them, in the leftist bubble.
The long and short of it, is the establishment picked their candidate. They know Crockett's new found rachet hoe behavior gets "yasss queens" from the faithful, but she is general ballot poison all day. Talrico is the new beto (and remember, Beto did come close), their best hope at flipping a seat. This stunt was them making their pick.
Chain of events is now known:
- Event planned
- Colbert/writers go to CBS with "plan" (the actual plan was the hoax)
- Network said "well, just so you know you COULD be under fire from FCC for equal time rule"
- Colbert did not offer Crockett equal time, but it also sounds like she stated she didnt have time to do his show anyways.
- Colbert goes on air with the victim/censorship narrative, does the fighting the power schtick, airs interview on youtube.
Colbert set up the rake, put a camera on the rake to live stream, and stepped on the rake, but its a rake made of NERF foam. And now he's wheeling into court in a wheelchair with a foam neck brace.
The entire thing was to create a manufactured Streissand effect and victim/censorship narrative. And for their part it worked. Reddit and socials chalk full of repeat NPC stories of "THE GOP AND TRUMP DONT WANT THIS TALRICO INTERVIEW SEEN BY ANYONE!!! CENSORSHIP!!"
This was Jussie Colbert, but it actually did produce its intended effect. Talrico just got more press and donations than he could have ever hoped for.
This was an MSM anointing.