On Feb. 17, Stephen Colbert was intending to conduct an interview on “The Late Show” with James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for one of Texas’ Senate seats. Before the show aired however, Colbert received word from CBS that the interview could not go on. Ostensibly, CBS’ refusal to air the interview was due to new guidelines from the Federal Communications Commission about the “equal time” rule, which requires networks to give candidates running for political office an equal amount of time on the airwaves. This incident sets a dangerous precedent for how media companies may interact with the Trump administration, continuing a damaging trend of self-censorship. The Editorial Board believes that this self-censorship under government pressure is detrimental to press freedom and editorial independence.
To examine CBS’ decision, we must first dig into the legal underpinnings of “equal time.” The rule was established in the Radio Act of 1927, when radio was the dominant medium of airwaves. The equal time rule means that if a political candidate received airtime on a network, other candidates could legally ask for a similar amount of time on that network. The rule was supposed to ensure that all candidates were given a fair shake in the new media environment. But there were problems with the rigidity of the law, and in 1959, Congress carved out several exceptions from the rule. These exceptions included documentaries, breaking news coverage and bona fide news interviews. For decades, talk show programs such as “The Late Show” were considered part of this bona fide category by the FCC.
Trump’s FCC, led by Chairman Brendan Carr, has recently upended these guidelines. On Jan. 21, the FCC released a public notice that the agency “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 bona fide status. It’s important to note that this notice, which runs contrary to longstanding precedent, did not fully state that programs like “The Late Show” would lose their exception. Instead, it left media companies to fill in the gaps.
When CBS banned Colbert from having Talarico on his show, even preventing the candidate’s picture from being shown onscreen, it set an example that corporations would gladly take over where the FCC left off. Rather than risk incurring the wrath of Carr’s agency, CBS’ lawyers chose to avoid the issue altogether and censor one of their own programs.
Self-censorship has the potential for great harm to the media landscape. One facet of this harm is an increasing inability to hold the government accountable. CBS is no stranger to this. In December of 2025, the network abruptly pulled a “60 Minutes” segment detailing abuse allegations at CECOT, an El Salvadoran prison that Trump sent migrants to. Sharyn Alfonsi, correspondent for the story, blasted the decision as a “political” calculation. Even though it aired a month later, initially pulling the story meant that CBS stopped itself from being a watchdog. If other media outlets follow suit, it is likely that less abuse in government will be exposed.
Another issue lies in the federal government’s newfound sense of power over the media. Carr did not have to enforce his new guidelines or make a ruling on whether CBS violated the equal time rule, because CBS did the hard work for him. Given the network’s self-censorship, the FCC knows they might only have to make a threat rather than act on it. The implication of government pressure is what led to CBS’ decision-making. Now that its new guidance and political pressure have been legitimized, the FCC has continued its censorship crusade, opening a probe into ABC’s daytime talk show “The View” for interviewing Talarico on Feb. 2.
The Editorial Board believes that the decision to self-censor, as CBS did, only leads to more dangerous outcomes for press freedom. Caving to the FCC invites further attempts by the federal government to encroach on the independence of news outlets. Instead, members of the media should stand up for themselves and defy potential censorship.