Stephen Colbert Says CBS Killed an Interview Because of FCC Equal-Time Rule

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.”