4 ms·

Use publicly owned airwaves, expect to have to abide by the campaign finance rules. Can't just donate excellent coverage to just one candidate.

kgwxd 8mo ago
Doesn't apply to late night shows.
- nomel 8mo ago
  Reference? This says it now does (and parent is right): https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-shows-may-not-be-exempt-from-equal-time-rule/ https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-sho... To me, this seems reasonable, since I could imagine all the networks skirting the intent in any way possible.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    This notice was published as a flagrant act of unlawful retaliation against late night shows for criticizing the sitting President. I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action, even if the Trump regime might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement. As the only non-regime FCC commissioner remaining has pointed out, the FCC specifically did not engage in the actual rulemaking procedure that's normally required to change these rules, because if they had their retaliatory motivation would have been a huge obstacle.
    - nomel 8mo ago
      > I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action Legitimate or not, the policy is what's there now, until challenged. You agree with that: > might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement And, clearly, so do their lawyers.
      - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
        The problem is that the policy will not be challenged if people accept it as legitimate. Talk shows aren't common enough or important enough that a challenge is guaranteed to come. And so the ratchet of authoritarian takeover advances a little bit further, as Donald Trump works towards his quite explicit goal of making it illegal for the media to say bad things about him.
- apparent 8mo ago
  Doesn't apply to news shows. The key question is whether late night shows are news shows.
dabinat 8mo ago
It just says they have to give equal time, not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. But the other candidates have to make a request to be included and no-one made any requests. Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.
- nomel 8mo ago
  > not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. No, they weren't prevented from coming on, as the article poorly points out. It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This makes complete sense, if you've watched an intentionally biased show like Colbert. edit: downvotes, please explain. This is the stated reason from TFA!: > "CC Chairman Brendan Carr recently issued a warning to late-night and daytime talk shows that they may no longer qualify for the bona fide news exemption to the equal-time rule, and subsequently opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after an interview with Talarico." > Colbert played audio of a recent Carr interview in which the FCC chairman said, “If [Jimmy] Kimmel and Colbert want to continue to do their programming, they don’t want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or a podcast or a streaming service and that’s fine.” > Colbert said he “decided to take Brendan Carr’s advice” and interviewed Talarico for a segment posted on his show’s YouTube channel. Help me understand if I'm missing something here. And the show is, clearly, intentionally biased. It targets a left wing audience, with its jokes specifically written around that (always has, that's fine), and nearly exclusively, has left wing political guests.
  - JohnTHaller 8mo ago
    CBS is now run by a right-wing billionaire. The equal time rule is being used as cover to kill an interview that the Republican administration doesn't like. Same way CBS keeps killing 60 Minutes reporting that does the same.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
    > It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This seems very dubious given the recent ownership change of CBS and the lack of reason behind the decision. The point the parent comment brings up is that "equal airtime" requires that someone actually request to go on the show and be refused. There is no legitimate cover for CBS' decision as this did not occur. It seems incredibly likely to be one made in fear of political liability rather than legal.
BirAdam 8mo ago
I think you were downvoted for tone, but I think your general point is valid. I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.
outside1234 8mo ago
This is obviously true. The real challenge here is that this rule is only going to applied to one party.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
  Well, see, the problem is that the race is currently at the primary election stage. So both candidates are Democrats. So, if you give coverage to one candidate, that is favoring that candidate over the other. That doesn't seem fair. But if you give both candidates air time, then you're giving air time to two Democratic candidates and zero Republican candidates. That can also be viewed as unfair (never mind that the Republican candidate is not in an election until November). The only other option is to give neither candidate air time. That results in a less-informed electorate, and that's not a good outcome either. All in all, the "give both candidates air time, even if they're both from the same party, as they will be in a primary" seems like the best answer, especially if it's applied to primary candidates from both parties. But it's not quite as straightforward a question as it appears at first glance.
  - pseudalopex 8mo ago
    Carr said they would not enforce the rule against right wing radio.
jabroni_salad 8mo ago
Alright, then apply the rule to talk radio as well.
nicole_express 8mo ago
They just now changed how they enforce the rules. Of course they have a legal pretense for their action; everyone has a legal pretense. These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.

kgwxd 8mo ago

Doesn't apply to late night shows.

nomel 8mo ago
Reference? This says it now does (and parent is right): https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-shows-may-not-be-exempt-from-equal-time-rule/ https://www.mediainstitute.org/2026/01/22/fcc-late-night-sho... To me, this seems reasonable, since I could imagine all the networks skirting the intent in any way possible.
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  This notice was published as a flagrant act of unlawful retaliation against late night shows for criticizing the sitting President. I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action, even if the Trump regime might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement. As the only non-regime FCC commissioner remaining has pointed out, the FCC specifically did not engage in the actual rulemaking procedure that's normally required to change these rules, because if they had their retaliatory motivation would have been a huge obstacle.
  - nomel 8mo ago
    > I think it's misleading to present it as a legitimate action Legitimate or not, the policy is what's there now, until challenged. You agree with that: > might attempt to enforce it and courts might uphold that enforcement And, clearly, so do their lawyers.
    - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
      The problem is that the policy will not be challenged if people accept it as legitimate. Talk shows aren't common enough or important enough that a challenge is guaranteed to come. And so the ratchet of authoritarian takeover advances a little bit further, as Donald Trump works towards his quite explicit goal of making it illegal for the media to say bad things about him.
apparent 8mo ago
Doesn't apply to news shows. The key question is whether late night shows are news shows.

dabinat 8mo ago

It just says they have to give equal time, not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. But the other candidates have to make a request to be included and no-one made any requests. Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.

nomel 8mo ago
> not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. No, they weren't prevented from coming on, as the article poorly points out. It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This makes complete sense, if you've watched an intentionally biased show like Colbert. edit: downvotes, please explain. This is the stated reason from TFA!: > "CC Chairman Brendan Carr recently issued a warning to late-night and daytime talk shows that they may no longer qualify for the bona fide news exemption to the equal-time rule, and subsequently opened an investigation into ABC’s The View after an interview with Talarico." > Colbert played audio of a recent Carr interview in which the FCC chairman said, “If [Jimmy] Kimmel and Colbert want to continue to do their programming, they don’t want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or a podcast or a streaming service and that’s fine.” > Colbert said he “decided to take Brendan Carr’s advice” and interviewed Talarico for a segment posted on his show’s YouTube channel. Help me understand if I'm missing something here. And the show is, clearly, intentionally biased. It targets a left wing audience, with its jokes specifically written around that (always has, that's fine), and nearly exclusively, has left wing political guests.
- JohnTHaller 8mo ago
  CBS is now run by a right-wing billionaire. The equal time rule is being used as cover to kill an interview that the Republican administration doesn't like. Same way CBS keeps killing 60 Minutes reporting that does the same.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
  > It appears that CBS sees equal airtime as a very serious threat to their programming. This seems very dubious given the recent ownership change of CBS and the lack of reason behind the decision. The point the parent comment brings up is that "equal airtime" requires that someone actually request to go on the show and be refused. There is no legitimate cover for CBS' decision as this did not occur. It seems incredibly likely to be one made in fear of political liability rather than legal.

BirAdam 8mo ago

I think you were downvoted for tone, but I think your general point is valid. I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.

outside1234 8mo ago

This is obviously true. The real challenge here is that this rule is only going to applied to one party.

AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
Well, see, the problem is that the race is currently at the primary election stage. So both candidates are Democrats. So, if you give coverage to one candidate, that is favoring that candidate over the other. That doesn't seem fair. But if you give both candidates air time, then you're giving air time to two Democratic candidates and zero Republican candidates. That can also be viewed as unfair (never mind that the Republican candidate is not in an election until November). The only other option is to give neither candidate air time. That results in a less-informed electorate, and that's not a good outcome either. All in all, the "give both candidates air time, even if they're both from the same party, as they will be in a primary" seems like the best answer, especially if it's applied to primary candidates from both parties. But it's not quite as straightforward a question as it appears at first glance.
- pseudalopex 8mo ago
  Carr said they would not enforce the rule against right wing radio.

jabroni_salad 8mo ago

Alright, then apply the rule to talk radio as well.

nicole_express 8mo ago

They just now changed how they enforce the rules. Of course they have a legal pretense for their action; everyone has a legal pretense. These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.