Stephen Colbert Roasted CBS Over James Talarico. Here’s Why It Matters.

The FCC didn’t need a ban. It changed the risk, and the fight is now playing out on air.

Stephen Colbert roasted his own network last night.

This isn’t about late-night television. It’s about how power moves when no one thinks it has to shout.

For the second night in a row, Colbert used The Late Show to publicly rebuke CBS over its handling of his interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. On air, he suggested executives were caving to pressure by trying to apply the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) equal-time rule to his show, something that, for decades, hasn’t applied to bona fide news interviews on late-night television.

CBS pushed back.

In a statement, the network said The Late Show "was not prohibited" from airing the interview. Instead, it said the show was provided legal guidance that broadcasting the segment "could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates," and that it was given options for fulfilling those obligations.

The show chose another route. Colbert aired the interview on YouTube instead. That difference, prohibition versus risk calculation, is the real story. Because this isn’t happening in isolation.

What Changed

In January, the FCC’s Media Bureau, under Chairman Brendan Carr, issued guidance stating that late-night and daytime talk shows are no longer presumed to qualify for the "bona fide news interview" exemption under Section 315 of the Communications Act.

For decades, interview segments on shows like The Tonight Show, The View, and The Late Show were treated as qualifying under that exemption.

The FCC is now saying: don’t assume that.

The guidance makes clear:

• Programs motivated by "partisan purposes" do not qualify.

• The agency has not been presented with evidence that current late-night or daytime talk shows qualify.

• Broadcasters seeking certainty should file for a declaratory ruling.

• Equal opportunity compliance must be strictly observed.

This shifts the burden to broadcasters. And it raises exposure.

Enforcement Has Begun

Earlier this month, the FCC opened an investigation into whether ABC’s The View violated equal time rules after hosting James Talarico—the same Democratic Senate candidate at the center of Stephen Colbert’s dispute with CBS.

The pattern speaks for itself…

The FCC chair had previously singled out daytime and late-night programs as potential concerns. Furthermore, the Trump White House has repeatedly expressed its disdain for The View.

President Trump has repeatedly urged the agency to act against broadcasters he believes provide one-sided coverage. This is no longer theoretical pressure. When regulators reinterpret exemptions and begin investigations, legal departments respond quickly. Colbert says his network reacted to that environment. CBS says it offered compliance options. Both statements can be true.

The point is this: The risk calculation changed, and behavior changed with it.

Timing Matters

This is unfolding as early voting kicks off in Texas’s Democratic Senate primary—the very race James Talarico is running in. On the Republican side, the primary has grown increasingly contentious, with reporting highlighting strategic anxieties and competitive fractures within the party. When regulatory reinterpretation intersects with an active election, even legal caution carries political weight. The timing isn’t incidental. It’s part of the context.

Last year, CBS canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, despite it being the top-rated late-night program for nearly a decade. The network cited financial reasons. But shortly before that cancellation, CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, had settled a lawsuit filed by Trump against 60 Minutes for $16 million, even though reports indicated internal lawyers viewed the case as meritless. At the time, Paramount was also seeking FCC approval for a merger with Skydance. The FCC is led by Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr.

Colbert has not alleged a quid pro quo in regarding the cancellation of his show. He has said it is "reasonable" to view these events in context. Given the president’s public hostility toward him, it is understandable why viewers scrutinized the timing.

Now that same regulator has narrowed the equal time exemption and launched investigations into talk shows. And broadcasters are recalibrating. You don’t need secret coordination to understand incentives. Regulatory leverage works because institutions anticipate consequences.

I’ve seen that dynamic from the inside. You don’t always need the order. Sometimes the suggestion is enough.

Most coverage right now is focused on the feud—who said what, who denied what, who roasted whom. That’s surface. The deeper story isn’t the argument between Stephen Colbert and CBS. It’s what happens when regulatory reinterpretation, active investigations, corporate merger exposure, and election timing converge.

Institutions don’t need direct orders to adjust. They respond to incentives. And when the incentive structure changes, behavior changes. That’s the shift worth paying attention to.

"Do Not Obey in Advance"

You’re hearing a phrase more and more lately: "do not obey in advance."

Historian Timothy Snyder warns against what he calls “obeying in advance”—the instinct institutions sometimes have to anticipate punishment and adjust themselves before they are formally compelled. No formal ban. No direct order. Just enough pressure that compliance feels safer than resistance.

The FCC did not revoke licenses. It did not shut down a show. It reinterpreted an exemption, signaled enforcement, and opened investigations. That was enough to alter behavior. That’s exactly how leverage works.

Which raises the harder question:

Will institutions continue to obey in advance? Or will they insist on clear law, consistent enforcement, and equal standards? Because once obedience becomes automatic, enforcement barely has to act.

And here’s the other half of the story:

Stephen Colbert didn’t cancel the interview with James Talarico. He moved it. When CBS wouldn’t air it on broadcast television, he aired it on YouTube. That is what refusal looks like.

This is still America. The First Amendment still stands. And no regulator, no matter how aggressive, gets to decide what citizens are allowed to hear without challenge. Around the world, governments that consolidate power often begin by narrowing media exemptions, opening investigations, or using regulatory authority to signal scrutiny ahead of elections.

So here’s the reminder: If rules change, debate them openly. If investigations begin, contest them publicly. Don’t step back just because someone suggests you should.

I can’t tell you how many people have advised me to be careful. To stop speaking out. To avoid making myself a target.

I’ve heard it for years.

Silence would be easier. It’s not why I’m here. Defiance is harder. But freedom has never survived on autopilot.

If we are serious about protecting this country, we don’t flinch at warnings.

We meet them. And we do not obey in advance.

-Olivia

If this kind of clear-eyed analysis matters to you—if you want someone willing to say it plainly and keep saying it—consider becoming a paid subscriber. Independent voices only stay independent if readers choose to back them.