Communicate display host Stephen Colbert made headlines on Feb. 17, 2026, when he wrapped a community commentary in a dog-waste bag and tossed it within the trash.
He did it are living, whilst on air.
The transfer got here after CBS attorneys reportedly informed him he may now not broadcast a scheduled interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico on his display, Overdue Evening with Stephen Colbert. In line with Colbert, the community warned him that broadcasting the interview may cause the Federal Communications Fee’s equivalent time rule, which calls for broadcasters to permit political applicants equivalent get right of entry to to the country’s airwaves.
CBS mentioned it gave Colbert “legal guidance” that airing the section may carry equivalent time issues and urged different choices.
Colbert countered that during many years of late-night tv, he may now not discover a unmarried instance of the rule of thumb being enforced in opposition to a chat display interview. He in the end posted his Talarico interview on YouTube as a substitute, the place broadcasting laws don’t practice.
As a media pupil, I imagine Colbert is correct in regards to the legislation. Congress has intentionally secure editorial discretion to stop equivalent time laws from chilling political speech. And the FCC has prolonged this privilege to presentations like his.
To know why, you need to return to 1959 and to a forgotten combat over the function of broadcasting in a democratic society.
Amending ‘equal time’
After first showing within the Radio Act of 1927, the equivalent time provision used to be codified in Phase 315 of the Communications Act of 1934.
That legislation created the FCC and nonetheless governs using the country’s airwaves these days. It calls for broadcast licensees to supply “equal opportunities” to legally certified applicants in a given election if they enable one candidate to “use” their amenities. The requirement used to be meant to stop broadcasters from favoring one candidate over any other and to foster tough political debate that might serve the general public passion.
However the statute didn’t obviously outline what counted as a “use.”
Sen. Charles Percy, R-In poor health., left, talks with Lar Daly, who protests the loss of equivalent time on tv.
AP Picture/Paul Cannon
NBC president Robert Sarnoff issued a thinly veiled danger in a message that used to be now not misplaced on politicians who could be suffering from the trade: “Unless the gag is lifted during the current session of the Congress, a major curtailment of television and radio political coverage in 1960 is inevitable.”
In signing the 1959 law, President Dwight D. Eisenhower highlighted the “continuing obligation of broadcasters to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on important public issues.”
Eisenhower concluded through interesting to the great intentions of the country’s broadcasters: “There is no doubt in my mind that the American radio and television stations can be relied upon to carry out fairly and honestly the provisions of this Act without abuse or partiality to any individual, group, or party.”
The controversy display exemption
Over the many years, the FCC has interpreted the 1959 exemptions widely.
It’s essential to remember the fact that equivalent time nonetheless applies in different contexts. If a candidate purchases or receives airtime for an commercial, warring parties are entitled to similar get right of entry to.
Equivalent time additionally applies to non-exempt leisure programming, reminiscent of Saturday Evening Reside. Donald Trump’s web hosting gig on SNL in November 2015 caused an equivalent time request from 4 opposing number one applicants. And NBC obliged through offering a similar quantity of airtime for his or her marketing campaign messages.
Federal Communications Fee chairman Brendan Carr testifies earlier than Congress in Washington on Jan. 14, 2026.
AP Picture/Jose Luis Magana
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr lately signaled he used to be making an allowance for getting rid of the talk-show exemption, arguing that some techniques are “motivated by partisan purposes.”
As of now, no criminal trade has happened. And it kind of feels to me that CBS has acted out of warning, responding to political and regulatory drive quite than to a real rule trade. That makes this episode ordinary: The equivalent time rule used to be in all probability carried out not directly, via company self-censorship, now not via direct FCC enforcement.
Why this second issues
Both means, the Colbert incident highlights the rising restrictions on editorial independence all through the second one Trump management – both imposed through executive danger or company worry.
Whether or not via direct regulatory intervention or oblique company affect, this incident and others love it display an higher willingness to intrude with the editorial independence of media manufacturers.
The dispute is a part of what some critics view as an ongoing effort through the Trump management to silence grievance. Trump isn’t any fan of Colbert and has centered comedians earlier than.
CBS already introduced in 2025 that Colbert’s display might be canceled in Might 2026, main many to signify CBS used to be seeking to appease Trump and his FCC, specifically forward of a then-pending merger that required FCC approval.
The 1959 modification that created the equivalent time exemption aimed to maintain editorial independence and offer protection to loose expression through restricting equivalent time claims and making sure colourful political discourse. The verdict mirrored a judgment that pro editorial discretion, now not necessary equivalence, highest served voters.
If the FCC alters the exemption, it might constitute a big shift in U.S. media coverage and would nearly for sure face criminal demanding situations. The federal government has crucial function to play in selling loose expression and protective loose speech, however this can be a excellent time to be cautious of efforts to change laws to regulate content material.
