What to know about the ‘equal time’ rule Stephen Colbert says led CBS to pull his Talarico interview

Stephen Colbert’s recent clash with network executives over an interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico has ignited a broader discussion about media regulation and political coverage in America. The controversy emerged after CBS lawyers prevented the interview from airing on broadcast television, citing potential violations of the FCC’s equal time provisions.

“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,” Colbert explained during Monday’s episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Instead, the nearly 15-minute interview was published on the show’s YouTube channel.

CBS clarified their position in a Tuesday statement, explaining that legal guidance indicated the broadcast “could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates” competing in the March 3 Democratic primary. Rather than providing equal airtime to other candidates, the network opted to share the interview through digital channels while promoting it on-air.

Talarico, known for his criticism of former President Donald Trump, characterized the situation dramatically on social media, calling it “the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see.”

The controversy stems from the Communications Act of 1934, which established the equal time rule requiring broadcast stations to provide comparable airtime to all candidates in a political race if they feature one candidate. While there are traditionally exemptions for news programs, interviews, and documentaries, the Trump administration’s FCC has recently signaled a more restrictive approach to these exceptions.

In January, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr issued new guidance specifically targeting late-night and daytime talk shows, questioning whether such programs should continue to qualify for exemptions. The notice suggested that these shows might be “motivated by partisan purposes” and stated that “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.”

This regulatory shift represents a significant departure from previous interpretations of the rule, which typically granted more latitude to talk shows under the “bona fide” interview program exemption. Under the new guidance, television networks would need to apply for exemptions for individual programs – creating a more complex compliance landscape for broadcasters.

The equal time provision applies exclusively to broadcast television and radio, which explains why Colbert’s team could share the interview online without regulatory concerns. Cable networks, streaming services, and social media platforms remain unaffected by these requirements.

Carr, appointed by Trump to lead the FCC last year, has frequently criticized network talk shows, particularly targeting ABC’s “The View,” whose hosts have often been critical of Trump. Last year, he suggested that examining the program’s exemption status might be “worthwhile.”

The current controversy should not be confused with the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which was a separate FCC rule established in 1949. That policy required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues but was repealed in 1987 during the Reagan administration. Unlike the equal time provision, the Fairness Doctrine focused on topics rather than candidates and was never codified into law.

This latest incident highlights the evolving regulatory environment for political coverage in broadcast media and raises questions about the balance between ensuring fair political representation and maintaining editorial independence. As the 2024 election cycle accelerates, broadcasters may face increasing scrutiny and legal challenges when featuring political candidates in non-traditional formats.

The FCC has not yet responded to requests for comment on the Colbert-Talarico interview situation, leaving questions about how aggressively the agency plans to enforce its new interpretation of the equal time provisions.