ABC’s The View has stopped booking candidates in competitive midterm races since a Federal Communications Commission inquiry put the daytime show under regulatory glare, according to a Semafor analysis cited by Techdirt.
Semafor reported that the program has not featured any political candidate running in a contested midterm race since FCC Chair Brendan Carr opened an inquiry earlier this year. The practical effect is familiar: a broadcaster gets a legally dubious threat from Washington, lawyers start billing hours, and a studio decides fewer politicians on the couch means fewer headaches.
The dispute began after The View hosted James Talarico, a Texas Democrat seeking office, according to Techdirt. Carr argued that ABC may have violated the FCC’s equal-time rule, which requires broadcast stations in certain circumstances to give legally qualified rival candidates comparable access if one candidate is given airtime.
ABC has previously said The View is a “bona fide news program” and therefore not covered by that rule, Semafor reported. That distinction matters because the equal-time requirement has exceptions for news interviews, news coverage and similar programming. Techdirt also reported that The View has been treated as exempt from the rule since 2002.
Carr’s inquiry came with a threat that ABC’s broadcast licenses could be at risk, according to Techdirt. The site characterized the investigation as a pressure campaign aimed at a show whose hosts frequently criticize President Donald Trump and Republicans. Techdirt also alleged that Carr has not applied the same theory to right-wing radio programming and said ABC had previously produced evidence that the FCC’s account of the Talarico controversy was manufactured.
ABC did not give Semafor a new explanation for how the show is responding to the FCC inquiry. Semafor also reported that The View rejected requests to host New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and two democratic socialist congressional candidates he supported, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez.
Why the rule fight matters
The equal-time rule is not a general fairness mandate. It does not require a talk show to balance every political segment with an opposing view. It applies to use of broadcast facilities by legally qualified candidates, with carveouts for bona fide news formats. That is the legal machinery Carr invoked, and ABC’s defense is that the machinery does not fit the show.
The broader pattern, according to Techdirt, is regulatory pressure producing chilled coverage before any court tests the claim. Techdirt pointed to Carr’s previous threat against San Francisco-area AM station KCBS after it reported on local ICE activity. The site said the station later demoted an anchor and reduced the edge in its political coverage.
Techdirt also said Carr tried and failed to target Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night host joked about Charlie Kirk, described by Techdirt as a right-wing propagandist and racist. That episode, like the ABC inquiry, has not produced a confirmed legal finding that the broadcaster violated FCC rules.
For viewers, the immediate result is less exposure to candidates on a high-profile daytime show. For broadcasters, the message is uglier: even a weak regulatory theory can change editorial behavior if the expected cost of fighting it is high enough.
This story draws on original reporting from Techdirt.
