The FCC's Equal-Time Rule Should Be Abolished Due to Outdated Relevance and Partisan Misuse
Source: Joe Lancaster. "Stephen Colbert says CBS killed an interview because of FCC equal-time rule." February 18, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
The author argues that the FCC's equal-time rule, which requires TV networks to give equal airtime to political candidates, should be eliminated. The rule made sense when there were only a few TV channels, but now people get news from countless online sources that aren't regulated, making the rule both pointless and unfairly applied.
Conclusion
The FCC's equal-time rule should be abolished because it is outdated, unnecessary, and being misused for partisan purposes
Premises
- The equal-time rule originated when broadcast spectrum was limited, but now most Americans get information online through streaming, YouTube, and social media platforms beyond FCC jurisdiction
- FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's new interpretation targeting 'partisan' content while exempting conservative talk radio demonstrates selective enforcement for political purposes
- The rule creates practical absurdities, such as treating candidates differently based on arbitrary qualification timing rather than actual candidacy status
- Modern media consumption patterns show the rule's ineffectiveness - Colbert's YouTube interview got more views than his broadcast show
- The rule now constitutes unnecessary government mandates on broadcast content when consumers have unlimited access to diverse information sources
Assumptions
- Government regulation of broadcast content should be minimized when technological justifications no longer exist
- Equal access to information is better achieved through market forces and technological diversity than regulatory mandates
- Partisan enforcement of media regulations is inherently problematic and undermines regulatory legitimacy
- The original scarcity rationale for broadcast regulation no longer applies in the digital age