Jimmy Kimmel and the FCC: No time for equal time

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “equal time” rule aims to foster competing voices and ensure opportunities for debate. It was created in an era of scarce media options, when radio was the dominant means of electronic communication and television was in its infancy. But however laudable its goals, the rule shows how regulation can become obsolete and used for purposes its drafters never intended.

The equal time rule is found in Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 and in companion FCC regulations. It provides that if a radio or television broadcast licensee permits a legally qualified candidate for public office to use the station, the licensee must afford “equal opportunities” to all other candidates for that same office. Although the statute uses the phrase “equal opportunities,” it is commonly known as the “equal time” rule. The law contains exemptions that include “bona fide newscasts” and “bona fide news interviews.”

But as the FCC’s own Fact Sheet acknowledges, these rules “do not apply to cable channels or web-based video or audio such as streamed video content, podcasts, or social media.” They do not apply to newspapers either. In a world of abundant platforms and countless channels, the equal time rule only applies to a narrow media segment – a regulatory distinction untethered from today’s media landscape.

Last week, Jimmy Kimmel interviewed Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. Instead of interviewing Talarico on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, which airs on ABC’s broadcast network affiliates, Kimmel conducted the interview on YouTube.

Why interview a candidate in a high-profile Senate race on YouTube rather than on ABC’s broadcast affiliates? Kimmel cited “unusual circumstances” and said that the FCC had threatened his show, network, ABC, its affiliates, and local stations because of guests they don’t like.

Earlier this year, FCC Chair Brendan Carr “reminded” television networks that their daytime and late-night talk shows are subject to the equal time rule. The FCC’s Media Bureau followed up with guidance warning broadcast stations that “airing covered programming motivated by partisan purposes” must comply with the equal time rule. It also informs programmers that they cannot rely on the “bona fide news interview” exemption recognized by the Media Bureau in a 2006 decision involving then-California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, an exception Kimmel and others had relied on.

Carr then launched an investigation of ABC’s The View to determine whether it violated the equal time rule over another interview with Talarico. The FCC is also conducting an early license renewal proceeding on Disney-owned ABC stations (purportedly for unlawful discrimination), a highly unusual move that follows President Trump’s demand that ABC and NBC affiliates lose their broadcast licenses for unfavorable coverage of him.

By moving the interview to YouTube, Kimmel and ABC avoided the equal time rule and FCC oversight. The participants, studio, desk, and chairs were the same. Only the media platform was different.

And because the interview didn’t air on broadcast television, Talarico’s opponents have no “equal opportunity” right. The statute’s central promise – guaranteed exposure for competing candidates – was sidestepped for everyone, simply because the interview ran on a different platform.

The administration’s pressure may have kept Talarico off ABC’s broadcast affiliates, but the interview has been seen by more people than Kimmel’s highest-rated broadcast of 2026. In June, boosted by the NBA finals as a lead-in, the audience for Jimmy Kimmel Live! peaked at just over 3 million viewers. His YouTube interview of Talarico has drawn more than 10 million views at this time.

This demonstrates the reality of today’s media marketplace: unregulated platforms often draw more viewers than regulated ones and a rule devised for a bygone media landscape can no longer be coherently applied.

The equal time rule is a relic that was intended to foster debate, not hand government officials a tool to suppress voices they don’t like. Its time has run out. Congress should repeal it.