This article explains how FCC political broadcasting law applies to candidate appearances on late-night television programs.
The recent controversy surrounding the FCC’s refusal to allow James Talerico to appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has reignited familiar questions about FCC regulation, media bias, and whether late-night television should be treated differently when candidates step behind the desk.
From a regulatory standpoint, however, the issue is far less novel than the commentary suggests.
For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (Federal Communications Commission) has treated candidate interviews on late-night programs — including those hosted by Stephen
Colbert on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert — as falling squarely within the “bona fide news interview” exemption to the political equal opportunities rule.
Section 315 of the Communications Act requires broadcast stations to offer equal opportunities to legally qualified candidates when one candidate is allowed to “use” the station. That rule, however, comes with critical exemptions — most notably for bona fide news interviews.
The FCC has long taken a hands-off approach in determining what qualifies as “news.” The Commission does not ask whether a program is comedic, satirical, or entertainment-driven. Instead, it looks at three core factors:
If those criteria are met, the exemption applies – full stop.
Late-night shows have satisfied this standard for decades.
The FCC has repeatedly refused to become an editor, critic, or political referee. Whether it was The Tonight Show in the 1970s, Arsenio in the 1990s, or satirical programs in the 2000s, the Commission has consistently emphasized that format does not defeat editorial legitimacy.
The burden to challenge a bona fide news interview is high. A complainant must show bad faith — essentially that the broadcaster is staging campaign appearances rather than exercising editorial judgment. Historically, that argument rarely succeeds.
In practice, this means that a candidate can appear on a late-night show without triggering equal-time obligations for every opposing candidate — even if the interview is friendly, funny, or politically pointed.
If the law is settled, why does this issue resurface every election cycle?
Because the media landscape has changed — but the rules haven’t.
Late-night shows now reach millions of voters, sometimes drawing larger audiences than traditional Sunday political programs. Candidates know this. Campaigns plan for it. Viewers treat these appearances as substantive moments, not throwaway entertainment.
At the same time, broadcast stations remain regulated, while cable networks, streaming platforms, podcasts, and social media remain untouched by equal-time obligations. That imbalance makes the rules feel increasingly arbitrary, even though they are legally consistent.
This is not a warning shot from the FCC. It’s a reminder.
Broadcasters should continue to:
When those guardrails are in place, the bona fide news interview exemption remains remarkably durable.
The Colbert conversation isn’t really about late-night television.
It’s about whether political broadcasting rules designed for a 1930s media ecosystem still make sense in a world where candidates can livestream directly to voters, appear on podcasts with no oversight, and reach audiences far beyond the reach of any local broadcast station.
The FCC has chosen stability over reinvention — and from a First Amendment perspective, that choice is understandable. But the growing disconnect between regulatory theory and media reality is becoming harder to ignore.
Late-night interviews aren’t breaking the rules. They’re exposing how old the rules are.
Do late-night interviews trigger FCC equal time?
No. When the appearance qualifies as a bona fide news interview, equal opportunity obligations do not apply.
Can a station refuse opposing candidates after one appears?
Yes, if the exemption criteria are satisfied and the appearance is editorially controlled.
Does friendliness or humor defeat the exemption?
No. The FCC evaluates control and newsworthiness, not tone.
Carrie Ward is an FCC regulatory attorney who advises broadcasters, media companies, and corporate clients on communications law compliance, licensing, and enforcement risk. She frequently serves as outside general counsel, helping organizations navigate Federal Communications Commission requirements with practical, business-focused guidance.
Before entering private practice, Carrie worked inside the industry in the legal departments of ABC, Inc. and Entercom Communications Corp. That in-house experience allows her to approach regulatory issues from an operational perspective, aligning legal strategy with real-world broadcast and corporate decision-making.
Over the course of her career, Carrie has successfully prosecuted thousands of FCC filings, including license renewals, transfers and assignments, ownership reports, and routine engineering applications. She maintains a 100 percent success record defending FCC enforcement complaints. She is also active in regulatory policy and authored the Petition for Rulemaking that modernized the Commission’s contest rule.
Carrie writes and speaks regularly on political broadcasting, equal opportunities requirements, and evolving media regulation, helping broadcasters and media companies understand how FCC rules apply in real-world situations and make defensible compliance decisions.
