….and you all know it as well as I do.
Proving that the Washington Post wasn’t recently gutted by its Gazillionaire owner Jeff Bezos to make it more fair and objective but just to try to save money while keeping it dishonest and partisan, the paper’s Editorial Board published a disingenuous, politically motivated and deliberately misleading editorial [gift link!]explaining that the Trump Administration’ resuscitation of the long dormant—but still on the books—FCC “Equal Time” rule is simply a pretense for using the regulation for political censorship. You see, as the Post editors “explain,” the rule is no longer needed! here is how they frame the current controversy:
“Passed by Congress as a part of the 1934 Communications Act, the equal-time rule says that if a broadcast station features a candidate for public office, it “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The FCC is charged with enforcing it. On Monday, Colbert said that CBS prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D). He claimed the network’s lawyers were worried about clashing with the FCC.
“CBS told a different story. It said Colbert wasn’t prohibited from airing the interview, but rather warned that it might “trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.” Talarico, a state representative, and Crockett are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas Senate race. The network claimed it presented Colbert with “options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”
“On Tuesday night, Colbert rebuked the network again, but the finger-pointing misses the point of how a zombie regulation created this mess in the first place.
“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.
“Since the advent of cable news and the internet, the possibilities for transmitting information and entertainment have exploded. Colbert’s Talarico interview, for example, was posted on YouTube, where it already has more than 6 million views — far more than it probably would have received if not for this controversy. Politicians can compete for attention without government help….”
The Post’s subterfuge would be a legitimate argument except for the democracy-rotting condition that the paper is ignoring because it is part of it. That condition is the near total ideological monopoly of the entertainment industry, giving the Left—again, the Post and its pals—access to the controls of the powerful propaganda and indoctrination weapon television still is.
Ethics Alarms 
Late-night TV is just trying to appeal to its late-night liberal audience. Most conservatives aren’t watching TV after about 10 PM, because they need to get up in the morning and go to work, or (on Sundays) to church. No late-night comedian is worth losing sleep over, even if they’re making fun of people you don’t like. If the conservatives aren’t in bed during the late-night slot, it’s because they’re working the eves or night shifts, keeping the world running while the funny men are mocking them on TV.
Interesting theory: late night television is an echo chamber. Maybe the daytime “news” shows are as well. Morning Joe. Who watches that other than the true believers? Who’s going to have their mind changed listening to Joe or Mika? And likely same for Fox. Maybe it’s best to just ignore Colbert and Kimmel. They’re not drumming up any new votes for their side, just stroking their existing voters.
I wondered when the old, outdated rule argument would surface.
Consider this:
“The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.”
First of all, in its “explanation” of the equal time rule, the Post deliberately muddles the intent of Congress in passing it. Congress wisely (omg, did I actually write that??) thought that it would be in the public interest to prevent networks from supporting only one side of the public debate on the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. That spectrum, last time I checked, is still publicly owned, CBS is still a lessee and the subject broadcast was supposed to air on broadcast television.
For a Leftist outlet like the Post, fairness is supposed to be perhaps the most cherished touchstone of any debate, yet because reminding it’s audience of the two fundamental motivations for the FCC rule — fairness and the public interest — would undermine its argument, the post just glosses over them altogether and argues by implication that freedom of entertainment choice is the most important thing.
Again, it is with sadness that I observe many people, perhaps even a majority, are so unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking that they will accept this editorial as holy writ. But make no mistake — this was a malicious, deliberately partisan and utterly facile argument, and the Post knows it. Verdict: Deliberately and intentionally unethical.
Thanks Glenn. Comment of the Day. I should have let you write the post.
Thanks, Jack. Appreciated, as always.
The same argument could be made that the government should not be enforcing these ancient monopoly rules. If all the pharmaceutical companies in the country merge, why should the government care? They can be more efficient by not duplicating research efforts and by efficiency of scale. These people who are upset that the benevolent pharmaceutical monopoly won’t provide affordable, effective cures, but instead are only marketing expensive treatments that require other drugs to treat the side effects are just whiners. So what if all the food is terrible and marketed by one large agri-monopoly. If you want something different, just try to start your own business without access to stores, transportation, fertilizer, boxes, packaging, packing plants, or anything else that are tied up with exclusive monopoly contracts. It is like the internet. If you don’t like the internet monopoly dictated by the government, just create your own internet to compete. Forget the fact that the internet was built with a lot of taxpayer dollars, eminent domain, and government easements. You do it by yourself. Now, the government will stop you with regulations and lawsuits. Why isn’t that fair? We need to make sure the elites of society make sure the commoners don’t get any crazy ideas from ‘those people’. If you don’t think so, you must be a member of the alt-right, or the extreme right, or be a Christian Nationalist, or whatever new ‘scary’ word the journalism community is going to invent and pretend is an accepted term for a objectively ‘bad’ group.