The Future Of Talk Shows: How the FCC Is Redefining News
Amidst the temporary suspension of the Jimmy Kimmel show and heightened pressure on other talk shows, the claim that the equal opportunity policy is rarely enforced by the government has come under scrutiny. As the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) begins to implement this crackdown, following years of governmental threats, it raises questions about where the real issue lies and whether free speech truly exists. It also suggests that the FCC has previously chosen not to enforce this policy for certain news programs, citing exemptions for bona fide news programs like Kimmel’s. This, in turn, prompts a new question: Should the FCC reevaluate whether certain current newscasts still qualify for this exemption, and is the government upholding these decisions consistently?
To answer this question, we must first fully understand that for major media conglomerates to move forward with significant decisions, they must obtain approval from the FCC, an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, and more across the country. Among these conglomerates are Paramount Global, Disney, Warner Brothers Discovery, and NBCUniversal, to name a few. We are currently at a point in time where all of these companies are undergoing structural shifts. For example, Nextdale is attempting to acquire more affiliates, Paramount is facilitating a merger with Skydance, and Disney is looking to sell its digital assets. In order to successfully carry out any of these decisions, FCC approval is required. With that in mind, these companies must make choices that are in the best interest of the business—and, in short, secure the deals necessary for their success—regardless of whether they personally agree with them or not.
Although abolished in 1987, the FCC’s historical Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcasters present controversial issues of public importance and reflect differing viewpoints. The consequence of this abolishment was that openly partisan opinion shows were now permitted to present and express whatever they desired. With this declaration, it became an underlying principle for news anchors to distinguish fact from opinion, thereby separating news programs from opinion shows. A news show’s responsibility is to inform the public by reporting on events and facts objectively, whereas an opinion show typically offers subjective commentary and analysis, encouraging a conversation of differing viewpoints.
In regards to the FCC, their policy allows for the regulation of news specifically on broadcast television, enabling them to take action against broadcasters who deliberately misrepresent or provide false information intended to mislead the public. Since broadcast channels require licensing approval from the federal government, the following information applies only to them, not to cable networks, which remain private through agreements with their cable providers in exchange for advertising revenue. The only exception to this clause is the designated opinion hour slots, typically airing between 6p.m.–11 p.m. each night. However, the overall consensus of these news programs is that they primarily present news content.
Broadcast Linear TV Daytime Talk Shows
The most important distinction to understand is the exception under the FCC’s ability to regulate these news programs: the “bona fide news program.” Under this rule, appearances by candidates or political figures depicted are exempt from the equal opportunity requirement that the FCC enforces on broadcasting. For broadcast programs that fall under the bona fide “news” category—such as Good Morning America, CBS Mornings, and Today on NBC—the recent allegations made toward other bona fide programs raise questions about whether the FCC will begin to reconsider what truly qualifies as a “bona fide” broadcast, and whether these programs still fit that category. If this becomes the case, concerns may arise about past bias in reporting, as well as the potential need for these programs to avoid expressing any opinions at all, introducing a fear that more individuals may be taken off the air if this standard is not strictly followed.
With all this being said, there is a logistical intention behind the FCC’s regulations. In applying these rules, the FCC either wants broadcast shows to avoid discussing politics altogether or to feature a balanced number of candidates or voices representing each political ideology on the program. For example, given that two members of The View, Sunny Hostin and Ana Navarro, have openly expressed support for the Biden administration compared to his predecessor, there is a belief that the program is rarely critical of him due to the group’s political leanings.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr spoke with Scott Jennings about the removal of Jimmy Kimmel and a broadcaster’s obligation to serve the public interest. Carr referenced Kimmel’s declining ratings and remarked that “President Trump has created a permission structure for corporations and for the market itself to start to rationalize.” In light of the recent injection of politics into the late-night talk show environment, Carr emphasized that the FCC is simply providing even-handed treatment to all and adhering to the system established by Congress. He stated that if someone has an issue with “being held accountable,” they are free to “turn [their] license into the FCC.”
In addition to the public recognizing how biases arise within bona fide news programs, the same point can be made as evidence of the FCC’s own biases in its regulations. When programs like The View have featured not necessarily Republican candidates but individuals supportive of Trump, viewers have noted that the FCC raised no concerns. It has only become an issue now that what is considered “anti-Trump” content has been spreading among these talk shows.
Broadcast Linear TV Late Night Talk Shows
Although the FCC’s regulations have their flaws, they are intended to prevent both scenarios, ensuring that all sides of an issue receive equal screen time. For example, Jay Leno released a statement expressing concerns about the future of late-night talk shows following the decision regarding Stephen Colbert and The Late Show. Leno noted that these programs have become “too partisan,” suggesting that late-night television should offer humor that resonates with everyone, regardless of political beliefs.
While recent events have raised concerns about late-night programming and its regulations, the shift from building large audiences through traditional broadcast television to relying on platforms like YouTube had already contributed to a decline in audience engagement and, ultimately, the gradual downfall of late-night television. For instance, the monthly ratings of Late Night with Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert seem less impressive in comparison to the viewership numbers of successful YouTuber series such as The Diary Of A CEO, Hasan Minhaj Doesn't Know, and The Joe Budden Podcast. In many cases, a single YouTube episode, segment, or clip can generate more views than an entire episode of a talk show, highlighting the stark contrast in modern content consumption.
Youtube Video views for series by channel
In addition to these statistics, social media advertising has taken over, making it more likely for celebrities and companies to promote themselves on digital platforms rather than traditional television. Even from a political standpoint, the most recent election demonstrated that young voters are increasingly turning to video podcasts to express their opinions. Much of the current political engagement now comes from social media, which has become the primary space for public influence.
All in all, the FCC’s intention to ensure fairness in broadcasting is both necessary and valid, but it must be applied consistently, regardless of political affiliation. The above information highlights the growing need for the FCC to revisit and clearly define what qualifies as a “bona fide” news program in today’s evolving media landscape. As formats shift, regulatory frameworks must adapt as well. With that being said, while partisan content on talk shows has undoubtedly increased, it is the shift in audience behavior that has arguably played a larger role in the decline of traditional media. This raises a broader question: Can traditional forms of media like television survive in a digital-dominated world?
