FCC Eyes The View Under the Spotlight After Kimmel Suspension, Is Equal Time Really Safe?

Sage Matthews here, and yes, surprise drop of the century: the FCC chair is openly flirting with the idea that The View might breach the long standing equal time rules in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel Live with its indefinite suspension. It sounds like the kind of bureaucratic curb stomp you expect when the system is already limping from one controversy to the next. Brendan Carr told The Scott Jennings Show that ABC and Disney could be scrutinized to determine whether The View remains a bona fide news program or slips into something else that does not enjoy the same protections. In plain speak, if The View stops being treated as a news program, the program could be knocked off the exempt pedestal and dragged into the same strict political airtime requirements that would apply to a regular talk show if it’s deemed a broker of political persuasion rather than a straight news outlet.

The argument hinges on the FCC’s equal time rule, which requires broadcasters to offer equal opportunities to political candidates, with the exception carved out for bona fide news shows. Carr suggested that while The View may be argued as bona fide news content in theory, the practicality of that classification deserves a closer look. He posited that the commission should seriously consider whether The View, and similar daytime programs, still qualify as bona fide news programs and thus remain exempt from equal time obligations. The implication is that if a show with a liberal tilt is not shielded by that exemption, it could trigger a cascade of regulatory scrutiny for the network. Fox News Digital obtained quotes from ABC and Disney seeking comment, underscoring the public nature of this inquiry and the potential political sting behind it.

Meanwhile, the chatter around The View has been amplified by a separate second headline: the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! for remarks about a political topic that touched on a polémical incident involving a public figure. Kimmel’s suspension—posed as a suspension over remarks about the Charlie Kirk assassination controversy—becomes the kind of incident that feeds Carr’s argument about the line between entertainment and news and who gets to cross it without triggering regulatory consequences. The timing of Carr’s comments, coming on the heels of Kimmel’s suspension, creates a stark, if nervy, link between late night talk, perceived political bias, and the regulatory framework designed to keep broadcasters from tipping the political scales with one-sided airtime.

This whole situation sits at the intersection of public interest obligations, corporate governance, and the high drama of network accountability. Carr’s comments reflect a broader push he has championed since assuming the FCC chair, aimed at reinvigorating the public interest mandate, a phrase that sounds noble until you realize it’s also a tool for weighing the accountability of broadcasters who hold a license granted by the agency. The public interest standard, his rhetoric implies, could be used to push networks toward more balanced, representative coverage or at least to force self examination among the big players. And let’s be honest, in the current climate, “more balanced” feels like a fantasy.

Yet this is not simply a bureaucratic footnote. If the FCC pursues a formal inquiry into The View’s status, it could set a precedent for how talk shows are categorized and regulated in a media environment where the line between entertainment and political discourse is increasingly blurred. The potential consequences range from a reclassification of the show’s content to more intrusive regulatory oversight that could shape the kinds of guests and topics that daytime programs can feature without tripping the equal time wire. The entertainment law angle floated by a practitioner cited by Fox News Digital adds another layer of pressure, with lawyers warning that liberal branding alone may not shield a program from more stringent rules.

In a climate where presidents swing at the media with sharp words and media lawyers sharpen their pencils, the idea that a daytime talk show could become a test case for regulatory thresholds is textbook brinkmanship. The View has faced criticism before from various political corners, including attacks from the Trump administration, which claimed the hosts’ rhetoric could cross lines threatening the integrity of political discourse. Now the question moves from rhetoric to regulation, from publicized tirades to formal oversight, and the possibility that what many thought was safe daylight TV could be reclassified into a domain with strict compliance expectations.

So yes, the government may peek into The View’s status, evaluating whether it remains a bona fide news program or slides into something that looks like a political talk show in disguise. If this path leads somewhere meaningful, expect a cascade of regulatory updates, commentaries, and who knows what comes next for ABC, Disney, and the wider broadcast universe. And as always, we’re left staring at the ceiling, wondering if the next big kaboom is already on the horizon.

What comes next will be defined by hearings, rulings, and the kind of corporate backchannels that fuel late night whispers. The question is not just about The View but about how far we’re willing to go to police the distance between information and opinion in prime time.

Anyway, can we pretend this isn’t a snapshot of the current media era—where a single classification could ripple through networks, shaping what audiences actually get to hear? Stay tuned, because if regulators decide to redraw the lines, the domino effect could touch far more shows than anyone anticipated.

Sources: Celebrity Storm and New York Post

The Scott Jennings Show
Attribution: Creative Commons Licensed (GO)