CBS Blocks Broadcasting a Stephen Colbert Interview of Texas Primary Candidate James Talarico

wing2000 · Wednesday at 6:22 AM

Steven Colbert conducted an interview of Texas primary candidate James Talarico this past Monday on the Late Show....except, the interview was not broadcasted. Colbert went on air and stated:

“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. “Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on.

“And because my network clearly does not want us to talk about this,” Colbert said, “let’s talk about this.”

The interview instead was posted to YouTube (as of this posting, it has 5.1 million views).

FCC Attempt to Kill Stephen Colbert Interview Completely Backfires

Stephen Colbert’s interview with Texas state Representative James Talarico is one of his most viewed ever.

newrepublic.com

Back ground:
"Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Brendan Carr opened an investigation of the morning talk show The View after Talarico appeared on the show earlier this month. Lawyer Adam Bonin explained that Carr changed the FCC’s enforcement of the Equal Time Rule (which is not the Fairness Doctrine). It says that when broadcast networks (not cable) give air time to someone running for office, they have to give the same time to any other candidate for that office. The obvious exception is when a candidate does something newsworthy outside the race, in which case a network can interview that person without interviewing everyone else.

For 20 years, that rule has not applied to talk shows, but Carr announced last month that if a non-news talk show seems to be “motivated by partisan purposes,” then it will not be exempt. For Colbert’s show, it would have meant that after interviewing Talarico, the network would have had to give equal time to all other Democrats and Republicans running for the Senate seat. CBS could have challenged the rule but chose not to."

February 17, 2026

Trump’s White House website welcomes visitors with a pop-up that reads: “WELCOME TO THE GOLDEN AGE!” But on this heavy news day a year into Trump’s second term, it is increasingly clear that as his regime focuses on committing the United States to white Christian nationalism, the country is...

open.substack.com

Larniavc · Wednesday at 6:55 AM

Somehow the much vaunted freedom of speech America proclaims so much about is very much being curtailed. Muchly.

wing2000 · Wednesday at 7:00 AM

FCC Commissioner weighs in:

“This is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech,” said Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat. “The FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression.”

Gomez added, “CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.”
...
“It is no secret that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, has regulatory matters before the government, but corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content.”

“The FCC is powerless to impose restrictions on protected speech, and any attempt to intimidate broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and public trust,” she added in her statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5741862-brendan-carr-fcc-censorship-colbert-talarico-interview/

Larniavc · Wednesday at 7:07 AM

wing2000 said:
“It is no secret that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, has regulatory matters before the government, but corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content.”

This is what happens when you put a (failed) businessman and reality TV personality in charge of a country.

wing2000 · Wednesday at 7:18 AM

More background on the FCC's recent rule change pertaining to "talk shows" (January this year):

The “equal time” rule is set out in Section 315 of the Communications Act, though it provides exemptions for “bona fide” news programs or interviews. In 2006, the FCC determined that the “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” qualified for the exemption, distinguishing it from an entertainment program and setting a precedent followed by other talk shows in the ensuing decades.

But in Wednesday’s notice, the agency said TV networks could not rely on that decision as a blanket ruling and would have to apply for exemptions for individual programs.

“Importantly, 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,” it said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/22/late-night-equal-time-fcc/

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T08:17:27-0600

Larniavc said:
Somehow the much vaunted freedom of speech America proclaims so much about is very much being curtailed. Muchly.

wing2000 said:
It says that when broadcast networks (not cable) give air time to someone running for office, they have to give the same time to any other candidate for that office. The obvious exception is when a candidate does something newsworthy outside the race, in which case a network can interview that person without interviewing everyone else.

It actually has less to do with freedom of speech, and more to do with trying to keep a level playing field for candidates who are running for office.

So it's actually not as unreasonable as it sounds on the surface. I'm not denying that the decision itself in this instance was heavily partisan-influenced, but just as a general principle (if applied even-handedly), it's not that crazy.

I'll see if I can dig up the exact interview where he discussed because he worded it more eloquently than I can -- it was from several years ago and was before Trump, but George Will (who I would think most people would agree is a more reasonable middle-of-the-road Conservative-turned-independent with a history in journalism spanning decades) summed up the situation

(Paraphrasing)
In a political environment where exposure is extremely expensive, and that exposure is campaign currency and one of the biggest drivers in determining who wins and who loses, a popular show giving one candidate a free massive platform to connect with voters for 30 minutes, while their opponent is forced to come up with exorbitant sums for a mere 30 seconds on a commercial that most people are going to skip through, is tantamount to the show picking winners and losers.

Like I noted, he worded it better (as would be expected for a decades-long journalism veteran & Pulitzer Prize winner), but that's the general idea.

By a talk show/late night show with millions of viewers having one candidate on (because the host, producer and writing staff are in alignment and plan on showcasing that candidate's platform in a creative and favorable light), not doing that for their opponents is basically using their institutional levers to give one candidate a free, glowing, 30 minute campaign ad.

essentialsaltes · 2026-02-19T08:50:00-0600

FCC chair says agency is looking into 'enforcement action' against “The View” over James Talarico appearance

Talarico, a Democratic candidate running to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate, appeared on the show earlier this month.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who will face Talarico in the Democratic primary, has also been a guest.

The View declined to comment; however, a network source pointed out that the talk show, which premiered in 1997, routinely hosts political leaders and candidates from across the political spectrum to discuss current events, including politics, and their differing viewpoints. The format is consistent with how the show has operated for years and what audiences expect and tune in for, the source said.

Late-night host Stephen Colbert also mentioned Talarico on Tuesday when he criticized The Late Show's network, CBS, for allegedly prohibiting him from airing the interview in order to avoid triggering the equal time rule.

Colbert explained that talk shows have traditionally been exempt from the rule.

"We looked, and we can't find one example of this rule being enforced for any talk show interview, not only for my entire late-night career, but for anyone's late-night career going back to the 1960s," Colbert told his audience. "But on Jan. 21, we heard from FCC chairman Brendan Carr [who] issued a letter saying he was thinking about getting rid of that talk show exception. He'd not gotten rid of it yet, but CBS generously did it for him."

I guess now he has.

wing2000 · 2026-02-19T11:52:00-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
By a talk show/late night show with millions of viewers having one candidate on (because the host, producer and writing staff are in alignment and plan on showcasing that candidate's platform in a creative and favorable light), not doing that for their opponents is basically using their institutional levers to give one candidate a free, glowing, 30 minute campaign ad.

....it would be quite entertaining to see Colbert interview the GOP primary candidates - Cornyn and Paxton, assuming they accept an invite.

Say it aint so · 2026-02-19T13:00:17-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
It actually has less to do with freedom of speech, and more to do with trying to keep a level playing field for candidates who are running for office.

So it's actually not as unreasonable as it sounds on the surface. I'm not denying that the decision itself in this instance was heavily partisan-influenced, but just as a general principle (if applied even-handedly), it's not that crazy.

I'll see if I can dig up the exact interview where he discussed because he worded it more eloquently than I can -- it was from several years ago and was before Trump, but George Will (who I would think most people would agree is a more reasonable middle-of-the-road Conservative-turned-independent with a history in journalism spanning decades) summed up the situation

(Paraphrasing)
In a political environment where exposure is extremely expensive, and that exposure is campaign currency and one of the biggest drivers in determining who wins and who loses, a popular show giving one candidate a free massive platform to connect with voters for 30 minutes, while their opponent is forced to come up with exorbitant sums for a mere 30 seconds on a commercial that most people are going to skip through, is tantamount to the show picking winners and losers.

Like I noted, he worded it better (as would be expected for a decades-long journalism veteran & Pulitzer Prize winner), but that's the general idea.

By a talk show/late night show with millions of viewers having one candidate on (because the host, producer and writing staff are in alignment and plan on showcasing that candidate's platform in a creative and favorable light), not doing that for their opponents is basically using their institutional levers to give one candidate a free, glowing, 30 minute campaign ad.

That went out the window with the Fairness doctrine a long time ago.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T14:18:16-0600

wing2000 said:
....it would be quite entertaining to see Colbert interview the GOP primary candidates - Cornyn and Paxton, assuming they accept an invite.

Say it aint so said:
That went out the window with the Fairness doctrine a long time ago.

That kind of ties in with what I mentioned in another recent thread about the fairness doctrine.

While the original fairness doctrine was more pertaining to viewpoints and not candidates, I'm not sure it would work as well in today's environment because I have serious doubts that it would be done in good faith.

@wing2000 , for your example, the fact that it would be "entertaining" (as in funny to see Colbert make them look silly by doing a loaded comedy shtick) to see him interview the GOP, but it would most certainly be a flattering endeavor when he interviews democrats he agrees with, would undermine the whole point of an "equal time" in the context of any sort of fairness provisions.

@Say it aint so , to what you were mentioning, how the fairness doctrine (with regards to viewpoints) would work out in the modern theater, I suspect, would be outlets cherry picking the absolute best debaters from their own team, and putting them up against the lowest common denominator from the other team and saying "See, it's fair, we gave equal time to both teams"

If being adhered to in good faith, both of those provisions would be great see making a comeback

But if the partisan outlets are just going to do the routine of:
Fox News - "Up next, we have Ben Shapiro facing off against a 19 year old Gender Studies major to discuss fairness in sports"
MSNBC - "Stay tuned, coming up we have panel discussion to discuss marginal tax rates and international trade featuring former Sec. Robert Reich going up against a doomsday prepper who eats MREs in his bunker"

...then they may just exacerbate the issues.

Say it aint so · 2026-02-19T14:23:10-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That kind of ties in with what I mentioned in another recent thread about the fairness doctrine.

While the original fairness doctrine was more pertaining to viewpoints and not candidates, I'm not sure it would work as well in today's environment because I have serious doubts that it would be done in good faith.

@wing2000 , for your example, the fact that it would be "entertaining" (as in funny to see Colbert make them look silly by doing a loaded comedy shtick) to see him interview the GOP, but it would most certainly be a flattering endeavor when he interviews democrats he agrees with, would undermine the whole point of an "equal time" in the context of any sort of fairness provisions.

@Say it aint so , to what you were mentioning, how the fairness doctrine (with regards to viewpoints) would work out in the modern theater, I suspect, would be outlets cherry picking the absolute best debaters from their own team, and putting them up against the lowest common denominator from the other team and saying "See, it's fair, we gave equal time to both teams"

If being adhered to in good faith, both of those provisions would be great see making a comeback

But if the partisan outlets are just going to do the routine of:
Fox News - "Up next, we have Ben Shapiro facing off against a 19 year old Gender Studies major to discuss fairness in sports"
MSNBC - "Stay tuned, coming up we have panel discussion to discuss marginal tax rates and international trade featuring former Sec. Robert Reich going up against a doomsday prepper who eats MREs in his bunker"

...then they may just exacerbate the issues.

Once the fairness doctrine went away, there is no "equal time". What you mention just doesn't happen. Conservative media come Television and radio controls those markets. There is no equal time for debate. What this Colbert thing really is, is the same with Trump's DOJ, selected prosecution.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · 2026-02-19T14:51:59-0600

This is crazy. Denying people of education of a candidate, be cause he Democrats. America is becoming a sad country, with no education or rights.

wing2000 · 2026-02-19T15:00:36-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
@wing2000 , for your example, the fact that it would be "entertaining" (as in funny to see Colbert make them look silly by doing a loaded comedy shtick) to see him interview the GOP, but it would most certainly be a flattering endeavor when he interviews democrats he agrees with, would undermine the whole point of an "equal time" in the context of any sort of fairness provisio

....which is why including late talk shows in the equal time requirement is silly and not practicle.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T17:03:56-0600

wing2000 said:
....which is why including late talk shows in the equal time requirement is silly and not practicle.

But with regards to candidates who are actively running, even a late night talk show (that's favorable to them) is still like giving them free positive campaigns ads that their opponent doesn't have access to.

I would agree that trying to enforce equal time provisions would be unworkable in the current climate even for just viewpoints.

But buddy-buddy talk show interviews of a flattering nature on popular shows for one particular candidate starts to tread the line of those networks picking winners and losers in elections.

And in some ways, raises many of the same concerns that existed for social media companies acting as a public service/platform, but then prioritizing one viewpoint over another via algorithms. This is just a lower-tech version of the same concept.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T17:08:09-0600

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
This is crazy. Denying people of education of a candidate, be cause he Democrats. America is becoming a sad country, with no education or rights.

It's not denying people of anything...

Unless CBS coercing people into taking down the politician's campaign website or prohibiting them from purchasing their own commercial spots on their local affiliates, then it's not denying them anymore than if Colbert simply said "Nah, I don't want to interview any candidates of any kind, I just want to stick to comedy"

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T17:16:25-0600

Say it aint so said:
Once the fairness doctrine went away, there is no "equal time". What you mention just doesn't happen. Conservative media come Television and radio controls those markets. There is no equal time for debate. What this Colbert thing really is, is the same with Trump's DOJ, selected prosecution.

That's why I noted in my first post:
I'm not denying that the decision itself in this instance was heavily partisan-influenced

I'm under no delusion that the decision neutral in nature, of course Trump doesn't like Colbert -- his recent career has been about trashing republicans.

The overarching question is, with regards to network TV and radio (which falls under the FCC regulatory umbrella), to what degree should we allow those entities to assist one political party's candidates over the other?

Giving one team's candidates free air-time, and making them look as good as possible with pre-rehearsed and post-edited softball questions, while declining to interview the other team's candidates (or if you do, hitting them with loaded "when did you stop beating your wife" questions) is not attempting to just educate voters, but rather to steer political outcomes.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-02-19T17:30:30-0600

On an unrelated note... while I understand that the site needed to go back to ads for some revenue...the placement is rather unfortunate.

As I scroll through the posts (including my own), it's making it look like the ads are part of my post to the casual onlooker (which depending on the ad, could give the wrong impression, as it looks like I put a video link in my post which I did not)

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

CBS Blocks Broadcasting a Stephen Colbert Interview of Texas Primary Candidate James Talarico

E pluribus unum

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

E pluribus unum

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

E pluribus unum

Part of the IT crowd

Fact-Based Lifeform

FCC chair says agency is looking into 'enforcement action' against “The View” over James Talarico appearance​

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

E pluribus unum

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads

FCC chair says agency is looking into 'enforcement action' against “The View” over James Talarico appearance