At a time when the Federal Communications Commission faces genuinely difficult questions about broadband expansion, spectrum allocation, and the future of communications infrastructure, Washington instead found itself consumed by a late-night comedy segment that never even aired.

Killer maker: Review of ‘How to Make a Killing’

Robert Duvall, 1931–2026

The spark was simple enough. Late Show host Stephen Colbert revealed that CBS would not broadcast an interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic candidate in a closely contested U.S. Senate primary. Network lawyers reportedly worried that airing the segment could trigger the FCC’s “equal time” requirement, which would require the station to offer comparable airtime to Talarico’s primary opponents. Rather than navigate that minefield, CBS declined to run it on broadcast television and released the interview online instead.

What might once have been a minor regulatory footnote quickly became a political spectacle. And that spectacle says more about the FCC’s uneasy place in the modern media ecosystem than about any single candidate or talk show.

The reaction followed a familiar script. Democrats framed the decision as proof of creeping censorship under a Republican-led FCC. Anna Gomez, the commission’s lone Democrat, accused the network of “corporate capitulation” in the face of a broader campaign to chill speech. The implication was clear: An agency charged with regulating communications was now indirectly shaping political discourse.

Republicans countered just as forcefully. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr argued that equal time rules exist to prevent broadcasters from tilting elections toward favored candidates. The statute, he noted, was designed to prevent “media elites” from serving as partisan gatekeepers. To Carr and his allies, the Colbert controversy was a manufactured crisis and a convenient narrative for a campaign eager to turn regulatory caution into political capital.

Each side saw what it expected to see. Either the FCC had revived the spirit of heavy-handed speech control, or liberal media figures were staging a melodrama to gin up outrage. But focusing only on that exchange obscures something more revealing: how a rule designed for a 1930s media landscape collides awkwardly with one for 2026.

The equal time provision did not emerge from nowhere. It traces back to the Radio Act of 1927, which was later incorporated into the Communications Act of 1934 and signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. It seems odd to be fighting legislative battles from nearly a century ago, but at the time, it might have been necessary. The logic behind it was what courts later called the “scarcity rationale.” The broadcast spectrum was limited. Only so many frequencies could exist. Because the airwaves were public property licensed to private stations, the government imposed conditions to ensure no single political voice........

© Washington Examiner