A Million People (and Counting) Watched the Interview the FCC Didn't Want You to See
Stephen Colbert Just Made the FCC Famous
“And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”
That’s Stephen Colbert opening Monday’s Late Show—explaining why Texas Senate candidate James Talarico wouldn’t be appearing as a guest despite being scheduled.
The short version: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sent a letter in January suggesting he might drop the long-standing talk show exemption to the equal time rule. That is the FCC regulation requiring broadcast stations to give all candidates equivalent airtime. This exemption has been in place for decades. It’s how candidates who aren’t already famous get in front of voters. Carr claims it’s because some of them are “motivated by partisan purposes”.
Note the language. He was thinking about it. No rule changed.
None of that stopped CBS. Colbert was told by network lawyers that he couldn’t have Talarico on. Then told he couldn’t even mention not having him on.
“I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on.”
Colbert mentioned it anyway—and then explained what he intended to do about it.
“I am going to interview James Talarico tonight. But it’s not going to be on The Late Show. It’s going to be on The Late Show’s YouTube page. The network says I can’t give you a URL or QR code but I promise you if you go to our YouTube page, you’ll find it.”
Here’s the asymmetry the administration hasn’t accounted for. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio. It does not regulate YouTube. It does not regulate streaming. It does not regulate podcasts. So Colbert’s interview with Talarico—or any candidate—could reach far more viewers on YouTube than it ever would on CBS at 11:35 p.m. on a Monday.
The FCC can regulate a broadcast signal. It cannot regulate a URL.
Twelve hours after Colbert posted the interview to YouTube, it has over 1.3 million views. For context, The Late Show averages around 2.5 million viewers per night across its entire broadcast. Let’s see where YouTube is at 24 hours. It will likely lap the broadcast ratings.
But it’s the YouTube comments that tell the real story.
“Not gonna lie I probably woulda skipped this if CBS and FCC hadn’t tried to ban it.”
“Normally I would’ve skipped this interview cuz I don’t live in TX but the FCC has another thing coming if they think they can control what we watch.”
“FCC didn’t want me to watch this, so of course here I am.”
Most of these people had no reason to care about a Texas Senate race. Many of them probably couldn’t have told you what the FCC does before this week. But the attempt to suppress the interview didn’t just fail, it created an audience that wouldn’t have existed otherwise and turned a regulatory agency most Americans never think about into a symbol of censorship.
The administration turned a routine talk show booking into a cause. And Brendan Carr just gave the FCC more name recognition than it’s had in years for exactly the wrong reasons.
This is the pattern playing out across media right now, and it keeps cutting the same way. The administration pressures corporations. The corporations comply. And, increasingly, the compliance creates a backlash that amplifies the very thing they wanted to suppress—on platforms where nobody controls the distribution.
The administration is using the threat of regulatory action—not actual regulatory action—to get corporations to self-censor. And it’s working. Not because the law changed, but because the business incentives changed.
CBS’s parent company, Paramount, is in the middle of trying to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. That deal requires regulatory approval from the very administration now leaning on broadcast networks. So when FCC Chairman Carr even hints at dropping a talk show exemption, Paramount’s lawyers don’t wait for a ruling. They comply preemptively. The chilling effect is the point.
Disney did the same thing when the administration targeted Kimmel but backed down in the face of swift consumer backlash. The corporate logic may be understandable but is ultimately is self-defeating.
So here’s a strategic recommendation. Kimmel, Meyers, and others should promote the YouTube interview in solidarity. Colbert should offer the same format to every candidate—Democrat and Republican—to make the point that this isn’t partisan. It’s about whether a government agency can use the suggestion of a rule change to silence political speech that’s been protected for decades.
And it’s a lesson for every corporate leader watching this play out. The instinct to appease—to comply before you’re even asked to—doesn’t make the problem go away. It may move the problem to a platform you don’t control, with an audience you can’t manage, and a narrative you’ve already lost.
Ask the administration how the pressure campaign is working out. Ask CBS how preemptive compliance worked out. Ask Brendan Carr. Ask James Talarico, who's likely to get more national exposure as a result.
1.3 million people and counting have gone out of their way to watch the interview. Not because they were told to. Because they were told they couldn't.