to sum up what I read this morning, it's Trumps FCC applying pressure to CBS for the equal time rule to apply to talk shows
even though there is an existing legal exemption. So CBS lawyers directed the Late show not to interview him. CBS's owner Paramount, has become something of an arsekisser to trump both in order to get their merger with skydance approved, and david ellison their CEO (oracle's larry ellison's kid) becoming a trump ally like his daddy and the other tech bros. So CBS caved rather than fight a direction they had strong legal grounds to reject. The late show putting it on youtube was their way of getting around CBS's restriction
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 18 Feb 2026, 1:47,
Reply)
That rule
Allowed equal representation of his opposition: Look her up.
I believe the equal representation rule has been around for a while, isn't proactively inforced, and people have to apply for it even when they don't do a slide around,
His opposition was a democrat, a black woman.
White bloke platforms white bloke, deplatforms a black woman to get around broadcasters rules. His show gets about 1 million, his online got about 5 million. His show would have required equal representation for his opposition, a black woman,
She's not happy about it according to her posts.
(
An Egg ,D, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 0:44,
Reply)
Expecting
Someone to hit out at me because it iced a black woman.
(
An Egg ,D, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 2:30,
Reply)
I did look it up, you're misinformed
Section 315 1) - 4) (1959) establish a bonafide news exemption. that is for a show to be subject to the equal time requirement, it must be a bonafide news show (or news event). So since 1959 until Trump, chat shows, comedy shows, daytime entertainment shows etc. have been considered exempt. You could read the law and it's history here, though you wont scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=ublr.
Their reasoning to reclassify this particular comedy late night show from Trump's FCC is that it is "partisan". Though this is undoubtably true, this doesn't make the "late show" a bonafide news show. It'd be like calling Spitting Image a news show because they had a Thatcher puppet. The late show is not really any different in format to any other late night comedy show since carson. A comedy monologue, a song, some interviews with whoever they book. It's preposterous to call it a news show. And as others have pointed out, there's plenty of partisan interview shows on tv and radio that aren't even comedy entertainment, like newt gingriches that arent subject to equal time despite being partisan
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 12:00,
Reply)
CBS Statement
"The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented
options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options."
There was no pressure. They did it by choice instead of making a few tweaks to segment timing.
(
Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 11:40,
Reply)
the producers of the Late Show are in dispute with CBS (paramount), a trump ally
CBS have already taken the decision to cancel the Late show despite it being the highest rated show in the late night slot with an increasing audience, something that Trump has been directly calling for.
So characterising a direction from CBS to the Late Show to be the first entertainment show since 1959 to not be protected by the bonafide news exemption, change their format so they have to start interviewing all political candidates for a comedy show now and into the future or else don't do the interview, as either "no pressure" or "their own choice", might be underselling it somewhat.
One could even say that this reinterpretation of the FCC law could be part of an authoritarian pattern to silence any critical voices, like his kowtowing of universities, using the approval of media mergers (to his allies) to dictate favourable programming, shutting down the release of dept of statitistics data, etc.
From what I see in many of his supporters and the bullshit they get convinced by, it's already pretty effective.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 12:28,
Reply)
So they did it to deny Crockett a platform
As had they aired it, their lawyers advised them that they might have to provide a platform for a black woman running against a white man. It's a primary, they're both democrats.
(
An Egg ,D, Thu 19 Feb 2026, 23:28,
Reply)
I know how much defending civil rights means to you, egg
but they did try the whole "supporting the black woman candidate" before and how did that work out?
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Feb 2026, 1:58,
Reply)
Come on. They clearly snubbed her because she's black and they're horrible racists.
It's the only rational conclusion.
(, Fri 20 Feb 2026, 10:40, Reply)
that's not the only rational conclusion
it might be their audience that are horrible racists and they're just protecting them from having to listen to a black woman talk
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Feb 2026, 11:03,
Reply)