FINAL DECISION – FEDS DROP HAMMER ON ‘THE VIEW’
Carr Puts ‘The View’ Under Fresh Scrutiny—But the FCC Fight Is Really About What Counts as Bona Fide News
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has renewed public pressure on ABC’s “The View” as the agency considers whether the daytime program should continue to receive an exemption from federal political equal-opportunity rules.
Carr recently posted a montage of political comments from the show’s co-hosts and pointed directly at ABC’s argument that the program should remain protected as bona fide news.
“Disney is arguing to the FCC that its ABC show The View is a ‘bona fide news program,’” Carr wrote on X.
He said Disney maintains that the show’s editorial decisions are based on “newsworthiness” rather than partisan purposes.
“The FCC will make its decision based on all relevant evidence and precedents,” Carr added.
The montage has attracted attention because “The View” frequently features sharp political commentary, much of it critical of President Donald Trump and Republican politicians.
But political bias by itself is not the legal question the FCC is deciding.
The dispute is narrower.
Federal law generally requires a broadcast station that gives airtime to a legally qualified candidate for public office to provide comparable opportunities to other legally qualified candidates for the same office.
Congress created several exceptions.
One of them covers appearances on a “bona fide news interview” program.
That distinction is important because the equal-opportunities rule—often called the equal-time rule—does not require television hosts to give Republicans and Democrats equal amounts of favorable commentary.
It is triggered by the use of a broadcast station by a legally qualified candidate.
And even then, appearances on qualifying newscasts, bona fide news interviews, bona fide news documentaries and on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events are exempt.
So a host saying “we need to flip the Senate,” or criticizing a Republican candidate, does not automatically create an equal-time violation.
The harder question is whether such statements help show that decisions about candidates appearing on the program are being made for partisan purposes rather than through good-faith editorial judgment.
That is where Carr’s montage becomes relevant to the FCC’s broader theory.
The commission’s January guidance says a bona fide news interview program is generally evaluated using three factors.
It should be regularly scheduled.
The broadcaster or producer should control the program.
And decisions about content, participants and format should be based on newsworthiness rather than an intention to advance or harm a candidate.
The third factor is now at the center of the fight.
ABC argues that the issue should not be open at all.
“The View” already received a favorable FCC ruling more than two decades ago.
In 2002, the commission’s Mass Media Bureau concluded that the program qualified as a bona fide news interview program and therefore fell within the statutory exemption from equal-opportunities requirements.
For years, candidates and political figures appeared on the show under that understanding.
The Trump-era FCC is now reconsidering whether that old determination still controls.
The immediate dispute began after “The View” interviewed James Talarico in February while he was a legally qualified Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Texas.
The FCC began examining whether the appearance triggered equal-opportunity obligations for competing candidates.
ABC responded that the show’s longstanding news-interview exemption meant it did not.
The agency later required ABC to formally seek a new declaratory ruling on the program’s status.
ABC has argued that forcing it to relitigate a question the FCC answered in 2002 is unprecedented and threatens to chill political speech.
The commission sees the old ruling differently.
In guidance issued in January, the FCC’s Media Bureau emphasized that bona fide news determinations are fact-specific and apply to the program as it existed when the decision was made.
The bureau said broadcasters should not assume that every present-day daytime or late-night talk show automatically inherits an exemption merely because similar programs received one in the past.
A program motivated by partisan purposes, the bureau said, would not qualify under longstanding precedent.
That creates the legal opening Carr is now using to revisit “The View.”
ABC’s argument is that the relevant facts have not materially changed.
The network says “The View” remains a regularly scheduled interview program controlled by its producers, who select guests according to editorial judgments about newsworthiness.
It also argues that the FCC’s 2002 ruling has remained undisturbed for roughly 24 years.
In its filings, ABC has pointed to invitations extended to Republican political figures as evidence that the show’s guest decisions are not simply a mechanism for promoting Democratic candidates.
The network has also accused the commission of selectively scrutinizing programming viewed as hostile to the Trump administration.
That criticism raises a separate constitutional issue.
Broadcasters using the public airwaves operate under a regulatory structure that does not apply in the same way to cable channels, podcasts or online platforms.
But they also retain substantial First Amendment protections over editorial judgment.
ABC argues that if the FCC begins deciding whether a program’s political tone is sufficiently neutral to qualify as news, the government risks moving from enforcing a candidate-access statute into judging political viewpoints.
The network says that could discourage broadcasters from interviewing candidates at all.
Carr rejects the idea that enforcing Section 315 turns the FCC into a political speech regulator.
“I don’t view the FCC as the speech police,” he said in a recent interview with POLITICO.
His argument is that Congress—not the FCC chairman—created the equal-opportunities requirement and the news exemptions.
From that perspective, the agency’s job is to determine whether a broadcaster is actually operating within the exemption it claims.
Carr has also argued that the FCC became too reluctant over the past several decades to enforce portions of the public-interest framework Congress imposed on broadcasters.
That is the strongest version of the commission’s case.
A bona fide news exemption cannot mean that any entertainment or opinion program may simply label itself “news” and then give candidates strategically valuable airtime without consequence.
Congress included the words “bona fide” for a reason.
FCC precedent has long looked at whether editorial decisions are genuinely based on newsworthiness rather than an intention to help or hurt a particular candidacy.
If evidence shows that candidate appearances are selected principally for partisan advantage, the exemption becomes harder to defend.
But the strongest version of ABC’s response is also narrower than simply saying the government has no authority over broadcasters.
The FCC itself granted “The View” an exemption in 2002.
The program has continued for decades under that regulatory understanding.
And the equal-opportunities statute has historically been interpreted in a way that permits a wide range of interview formats—including programs that mix entertainment, opinion and news—to qualify when editorial control remains with the producer and guest selection reflects reasonable journalistic judgment.
A change in political tone does not automatically erase that precedent.
That is why Carr’s montage does not settle the case.
Clips of hosts urging voters toward one political outcome may support an argument that the show has a strong ideological point of view.
They may also become evidence the FCC considers when evaluating whether partisan purpose influences programming decisions.
But the legal test is not whether the hosts express political opinions.
The key issue is whether decisions about candidate appearances and the structure of the interviews are based on legitimate news judgment or designed to advance or harm particular candidacies.
The difference can be easy to miss.
A television program can be highly partisan and still cover a candidate because that candidate is newsworthy.
A program can also appear neutral while quietly selecting candidates for strategic political reasons.
That is why the FCC’s traditional test focuses on the producer’s control and editorial judgment rather than requiring ideological balance in every discussion.
The current proceeding will test how aggressively the commission is willing to infer partisan purpose from the overall character of a show.
ABC has also argued that selective enforcement matters.
In its July filing, the network complained that the FCC was focusing on daytime and late-night television programs perceived as unfriendly to the administration while leaving talk radio largely untouched.
The company called that approach uneven.
FCC critics, including Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, have gone further and accused the Trump administration of using regulatory pressure to intimidate broadcasters whose programming is critical of the president.
Carr and the FCC have rejected that characterization and say the proceedings concern compliance with laws applicable to broadcast licensees.
The broader political context makes the dispute difficult to separate from those accusations.
Trump has repeatedly attacked major broadcast networks and has called for regulatory action against outlets and personalities he views as unfair.
Carr has simultaneously increased scrutiny of broadcast-license obligations and political-programming rules.
ABC is also facing separate FCC review involving its owned television stations.
Those parallel disputes do not prove that the “The View” proceeding is politically motivated.
But they explain why ABC and press-freedom advocates are treating the case as more than a technical disagreement over Section 315.
There is also a practical consequence if the FCC rules against ABC.
Losing the bona fide news interview exemption would not mean “The View” could no longer discuss politics.
It would not require every host to praise both parties equally.
And it would not automatically force the show to invite a Republican every time a Democrat is criticized.
Instead, candidate appearances that qualify as a “use” of a broadcast station could create equal-opportunity rights for legally qualified opponents seeking comparable time and placement.
That could make booking candidates more complicated, particularly in crowded primary or general-election contests.
That possibility is why the case could extend well beyond one daytime show.
Modern television regularly blurs the old boundaries between news, entertainment, commentary and political interviews.
Late-night programs interview candidates.
Daytime talk shows discuss campaigns.
Entertainment programs host politicians as newsmakers.
If the FCC adopts a stricter interpretation of what counts as bona fide news, broadcasters across the industry may have to reconsider how they handle candidate appearances during election periods.
The commission has not announced a final decision.
As of August 14, the proceeding remains active, and recent reporting continues to describe the FCC as investigating whether “The View” should remain exempt from equal-opportunity requirements.
That means predictions about the outcome should still be treated as predictions.
Carr’s public comments make clear that he is skeptical of ABC’s position.
They are not themselves a final FCC ruling.
So the latest social-media post settles one issue: Carr wants the political tone of “The View” to be part of the evidentiary record as the FCC evaluates ABC’s claim.
What it does not settle is whether partisan commentary legally disqualifies the show from the bona fide news interview exemption.
The answer depends on a more specific question—whether the program’s decisions about candidates are based on reasonable, good-faith judgments of newsworthiness or on an intention to advance or damage particular candidacies.
For ABC, the 2002 ruling is evidence that the question was answered long ago.
For Carr’s FCC, the fact-specific nature of that ruling means it can be asked again.
May you like
And for broadcasters across the country, the eventual answer could matter far beyond “The View.”
