A recent inquiry by the FCC into ABC’s “The View” has left CBS on edge, especially concerning “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Insiders suggest CBS fears that Colbert might face scrutiny next. The pressure from the government became clear during Colbert’s Monday taping when CBS lawyers contacted the show, which Colbert shared during his broadcast, sparking national attention.
On Tuesday, Colbert expressed surprise that CBS, a major corporation, didn’t defend against what he termed “bullying” from Trump administration appointees using outdated FCC rules to target critics of Trump.
Critics have begun to see CBS as overly cautious, reminiscent of a previous incident with Jimmy Kimmel. Media analyst Eric Deggans remarked that the FCC might not have needed to take direct action; just the mere threat was enough to intimidate networks. FCC chair Brendan Carr has indicated an intention to enforce the “equal time” rule more strictly, a principle that allows political candidates equal airtime on broadcast networks.
This scrutiny stems from Colbert’s interview with Texas Representative James Talarico, who is running in a prominent Senate primary race. The “equal time” rule implies that since Talarico appeared on Colbert, other candidates are also entitled to similar airtime. However, recent history suggests that talk shows have enjoyed exemptions from this rule.
Colbert has pointed out that there has been no legal requirement for him to follow the “equal time” rules in his 21 years on television, making CBS’s decision to intervene surprising. Meanwhile, Talarico’s campaign has capitalized on the uproar, stating they raised a record $2.5 million in one day after the incident caused spikes in interest.
The controversy is gaining traction online, with many people discussing it on social media. Observers note that the attention is beneficial for Talarico, especially as he aims to sway voters in Texas during a crucial voting period.
Historically, regulatory actions like this are not new. The FCC has often intervened in broadcasting, causing ripples across networks depending on the political climate. For instance, past FCC chairmen have faced backlash for perceived bias and threats against liberal-leaning content. In recent years, with rising tensions surrounding media freedom and political expression, this latest development could signal a trend toward more aggressive regulatory oversight.
Carr’s focus on platforms that criticize Trump could also signify an emerging divide in how media is regulated based on political stance. Bob Corn-Revere from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression echoed sentiments on Carr’s handling of these situations, pointing out that his approach seems to create a political imbalance in media coverage.
As this situation unfolds, it will be interesting to see how CBS and other networks balance their content against government scrutiny while also catering to an increasingly engaged viewer audience who are closely following developments on social media.
For further insights on the implications and future of media regulation, check this analysis by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
