By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This interview, posted by Talarico on X with the caption, “This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see,” has garnered significant online attention, accumulating millions of views across various platforms. Stephen Colbert defied network directives by airing clips and urging viewers to watch the full interview online, where it has since achieved substantial viewership. Colbert also publicly criticized the FCC’s equal-time rule for political candidates, a directive he then leveraged by releasing the Talarico interview on digital platforms, a move that has amplified its reach and generated considerable publicity for both Talarico and Colbert.
Read the original article here
It’s truly fascinating how attempts to suppress information, especially in the modern digital age, can so dramatically backfire, and the recent FCC’s involvement with Stephen Colbert’s interview serves as a prime example. It’s almost as if the very act of trying to silence something, or someone, only amplifies their voice. This whole situation with the FCC, seemingly aiming to curtail Stephen Colbert’s interview with Texas state Representative James Talarico, has inadvertently propelled that very interview into the spotlight, making it one of Colbert’s most viewed segments. It’s a textbook illustration of the Streisand Effect in action, where the effort to hide or remove information results in its widespread dissemination.
The logic behind the FCC’s alleged stance, as articulated by Brendan Carr, suggests that if late-night hosts want to continue their programming without adhering to certain regulations, they should simply move to cable, podcasts, or streaming services. This perspective, while seemingly straightforward, completely misses the point of how information travels today. By creating a controversy around the interview, the FCC, ironically, pushed people towards precisely those platforms they deemed less regulated, like YouTube. Many viewers, myself included, likely wouldn’t have known about the interview at all if not for the online chatter about the FCC’s supposed interference.
The outcome has been nothing short of spectacular for Representative Talarico. The interview, now readily available on YouTube, has garnered millions of views, largely because the FCC has, in a way, advertised it. It’s a peculiar turn of events when a government agency, tasked with regulating communications, ends up inadvertently boosting the viewership of a political interview by trying to prevent its broad dissemination on broadcast television. The sheer irony of this situation is palpable; the more the FCC attempts to exert control, the more attention the content receives.
The FCC’s invocation of the “equal time” rule, a regulation first established in 1934, is particularly noteworthy. While its original intent was to ensure fairness in political broadcasting by preventing favoritism, it has been exempted for talk shows like Colbert’s for decades. Brendan Carr’s argument that this exemption no longer applies due to his personal belief that late-night shows are “motivated by partisan purposes” raises serious questions about selective enforcement and bias. This selective application, especially when juxtaposed with the continued exemption of right-wing talk radio, paints a picture of an agency seemingly more interested in political alignment than in consistent regulatory oversight.
The context of the FCC’s actions under the Trump administration is crucial here. The perception is that the FCC, under Trump’s appointees like Brendan Carr, has become less an independent regulatory body and more an instrument for carrying out the administration’s agenda. The narrative suggests that loyalists are placed in positions of power to exert pressure on media outlets that are critical of the president or his policies, or that dare to make jokes at his expense. This alleged pattern of using regulatory bodies to target perceived critics speaks to broader concerns about authoritarian tendencies and the weaponization of government agencies against dissenting voices.
Brendan Carr’s background further fuels these concerns. His association with Project 2025 and his previous roles within the FCC, including his work with Ajit Pai, who advocated for the repeal of net neutrality, suggests a consistent approach to regulatory policy that prioritizes certain political interests. His past accusations against social media platforms for alleged bias against Trump’s campaigns, and his pronouncements regarding political opponents, all contribute to an impression of a politically motivated agenda within the FCC, rather than an impartial approach to media regulation.
The notion that the Trump administration, as outlined in Project 2025, aimed to establish a “unitary executive” with unchecked authority is a recurring theme in this discussion. The strategy, as described, involves consolidating power, circumventing checks and balances, and utilizing executive authority to enact policies that have been challenged as unconstitutional. This overarching ambition, combined with the alleged stacking of agencies with loyalists and the suppression of independent oversight, creates a climate where actions like those against Colbert’s interview are viewed not as isolated incidents, but as part of a larger pattern of attempting to tighten government control over the media.
The backlash against the FCC’s actions has been significant, with many recognizing the inherent irony of their attempts to suppress the interview. The conversation highlights how deeply frustrating it is for people to feel they are being lied to or gaslit by their government. The overwhelming sentiment is that rather than engaging with the issues raised, or tolerating criticism, there’s an impulse to silence and control, which ultimately proves counterproductive. The fact that the interview is now widely available and being rewatched, and that viewers are being inspired to support Representative Talarico, demonstrates the complete failure of the FCC’s objective.
Furthermore, the discussion touches upon the role of CBS in this situation. While the FCC’s actions are prominent, the decision by CBS not to air the interview on its network is also a significant factor. The question arises as to whether CBS made this decision independently to avoid regulatory scrutiny, or if there was direct pressure from the FCC that wasn’t necessarily a formal order, but rather an implicit threat. Understanding the full scope of decision-making, beyond just the FCC’s involvement, is important in grasping the dynamics at play.
The migration of shows like Colbert’s to online platforms is presented as a natural consequence of these regulatory battles and the desire to maintain creative freedom. Many viewers express a preference for these online spaces, where content can be more freely produced and accessed, away from the constraints of traditional broadcast regulations and the perceived pressures of corporate interests aligned with authoritarian tendencies. The idea of Colbert and Kimmel launching their own streaming platform is even floated as a desirable alternative for viewers seeking unadulterated entertainment.
Ultimately, this entire episode serves as a powerful reminder that in an era of instant information and ubiquitous social media, attempts to censor or suppress content often have the opposite effect. The FCC’s actions, intended to quiet Stephen Colbert’s interview, have instead amplified it, making it a talking point and driving more people to watch it. The “incompetence” of those orchestrating these attempts at suppression is, paradoxically, what may be saving us from more effective forms of control. It’s a testament to how the desire for free expression, and the public’s curiosity, can powerfully undermine even seemingly authoritative attempts to stifle them.