By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stephen Colbert revealed on Monday’s “Late Show” that CBS refused to air an interview with Texas Senate candidate Rep. James Talarico, citing concerns from network lawyers about the Federal Communications Commission. The unaired segment, subsequently released on YouTube, featured Talarico discussing his belief that Donald Trump fears a Texas upset and is using the FCC to suppress dissenting voices, labeling it a dangerous form of “cancel culture” that undermines First Amendment rights. This decision occurs amidst increased FCC scrutiny of broadcasters and suggestions from the Trump administration that licenses could be revoked, particularly when political candidates are featured on shows.
Read the original article here
It appears that the decision by CBS not to air an interview with Representative James Talarico on “The Late Show” stemmed from an alleged fear of repercussions from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Stephen Colbert himself reportedly stated that network lawyers directly informed them that Talarico could not be featured on the broadcast. Furthermore, he indicated he was told, in less certain terms, that he couldn’t even discuss the fact that the interview was being pulled, suggesting a deliberate effort to keep the matter under wraps.
This move has been interpreted by many as a blatant exercise of power and suppression, rather than a mere adherence to FCC regulations. The notion that the FCC, particularly under the influence of individuals associated with Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation, would be involved in such a scenario raises significant concerns about the politicization of regulatory bodies. The suggestion that the “equal time” law would be selectively applied, not affecting conservative outlets like FOX while potentially stifling Democratic voices, fuels the idea that this wasn’t simply about fear but rather a coordinated effort to collaborate with the FCC.
The underlying reason for this suppression, according to some analyses, is rooted in electoral politics. Reports suggest that internal polling indicates Representative Talarico might be a stronger candidate in a general election than his Democratic counterpart, Jasmine Crockett, particularly in a key Texas race. The implication is that Republicans, through actions taken by their allies and potentially facilitated by regulatory bodies, are attempting to preemptively neutralize a candidate they perceive as a significant threat. This strategic move to silence a potentially powerful voice is seen by many as a direct affront to democratic principles.
The argument about the “equal-time rule” as the justification for excluding Talarico from the broadcast has been met with skepticism. Critics point out that talk shows and radio programs have historically been exempted from such strict interpretations, and that the rule generally requires an *offer* of equal time, not necessarily the inclusion of every candidate. The idea is that if the show were to invite Talarico, and then offer an opposing candidate the same opportunity, the obligation would be met. Therefore, the claim of an insurmountable FCC hurdle rings hollow to many observers.
This situation is being compared to instances where governments have sought to control information and suppress dissenting voices. The comparison to fictional scenarios of censorship, where the shutdown of media outlets is portrayed as an extreme measure, highlights the gravity with which this perceived suppression is viewed. The fact that such actions are occurring in the context of a democratic society, rather than a totalitarian regime, is particularly jarring for many.
The perceived “collaboration” with the FCC is also seen as a tactic often employed by administrations seeking to advance their agendas without overtly breaking the law. The idea is to create an environment where compliance is secured in advance, out of an understanding of the potential consequences of defiance. This “strong-arm tactic,” as it’s been described, is viewed as a method to circumvent legal challenges while still achieving the desired outcome of suppressing opposition.
Moreover, the current political climate, with accusations of hypocrisy regarding “cancel culture” being leveled at those who now appear to be engaging in censorship, is a recurring theme. The argument is that the same individuals and groups who decry cancel culture are now actively participating in it, using their perceived victimhood as a shield. This is seen as a cynical manipulation of public discourse to achieve partisan goals.
The influence of certain individuals within the FCC is also being scrutinized. The involvement of figures associated with conservative policy initiatives raises questions about their motives and whether their actions are truly aimed at upholding broadcast standards or serving a political agenda. The notion that the FCC is being used as a “weapon of disinformation and suppression” is a strong accusation, but one that reflects the deep distrust some have in the institution’s impartiality.
Ultimately, the decision to exclude Representative Talarico from “The Late Show” is being framed as more than just a network’s policy decision; it’s seen as a symptom of a broader trend of political suppression and a potential indicator of how opponents of certain candidates will be treated in the lead-up to elections. The lack of transparency and the alleged attempts to prevent discussion of the exclusion only serve to heighten these concerns, making the situation a focal point for discussions about free speech, media fairness, and the integrity of the democratic process.