“The View,” the FCC, and the Real Question Behind Equal Time

Opinion — T Z Sawyer

The public comments in the FCC docket concerning ABC’s The View appear to lean strongly against treating the program as a “news program” for equal-time purposes, at least among commenters who filed more detailed submissions rather than short express comments.

That distinction matters.

In my working review of the docket, filers who submitted supporting comments or more substantive arguments generally opposed ABC’s position. Most did not view The View as a bona fide news interview program. A smaller number supported ABC’s position.

More recently, however, the docket appears to have seen an influx of short express comments supporting ABC or objecting to FCC involvement. Many of those comments frame the issue as “free speech” or “hands off the FCC.” But that misses the point. This docket is not about whether The View may speak. It is about whether candidate appearances on the program should trigger equal-opportunity rights for opposing candidates.

The more precise phrase is not “equal time.” It is “equal opportunities.”

What ABC Is Asking For

ABC and KTRK-TV, Houston, Texas, have asked the FCC to declare that The View qualifies as a “bona fide news interview program” under Section 315 of the Communications Act.

If the FCC agrees, appearances by legally qualified political candidates on The View generally would not count as a candidate “use” of a broadcast station. That means opposing candidates would not be entitled to seek comparable access based solely on that appearance.

The practical effect is significant. If Candidate A appears on a non-exempt broadcast program, Candidate B may be entitled to a comparable opportunity. But if Candidate A appears during a bona fide news interview, the equal-opportunity obligation is not triggered.

ABC’s argument appears to rest on several points:

• The View is regularly scheduled.

• The program is under network editorial control.

• The show interviews public officials, candidates, and other newsworthy guests.

• Prior FCC treatment has supported treating the program as bona fide news for Section 315 purposes.

• Applying equal-opportunity obligations to this type of programming raises First Amendment concerns.

Those are legitimate legal arguments. But they are not the same as saying the public must accept The View as “news” in the ordinary viewer sense.

Why Many Commenters Disagree

Many commenters are reacting to the nature of the program itself.

The View is a daytime panel show built around discussion, opinion, personality, audience engagement, and cultural debate. It is not a traditional newscast. It is not formatted like World News Tonight, Face the Nation, or a local public-affairs interview segment. It includes commentary, humor, audience reaction, subjective judgments, and openly expressed viewpoints by its hosts.

That is why the public skepticism is understandable.

To many viewers, The View is not “news” in the everyday sense. It is a political and cultural talk show that discusses news. That distinction sits at the center of the dispute.

The FCC, however, does not decide this question by asking whether the program feels like news to the average viewer. The Commission must apply the statute, its rules, and its precedents. The test is functional and legal, not simply reputational or cosmetic.

Still, public skepticism has force. If a program is dominated by opinion and ideological framing, commenters can fairly ask whether candidate appearances are selected and presented because they are newsworthy, or because they provide favorable exposure to one candidate, party, or viewpoint.

That is the regulatory pressure point.

Equal Time Is Really Equal Opportunities

The phrase “equal time” is commonly used, but the legal concept is “equal opportunities.”

Under Section 315, if a broadcast station permits a legally qualified candidate for public office to use the station, the station must afford equal opportunities to other legally qualified candidates for the same office.

That does not mean every candidate receives identical minutes on the same show at the same hour. In plain English, the rule means that if Candidate A receives a non-exempt appearance on a broadcast station, Candidate B may have a right to a comparable opportunity.

There are important limits.

First, the rule applies to legally qualified candidates. It is not triggered by general political discussion, ordinary commentary, criticism of public officials, or discussion of public issues.

Second, the rule is tied to candidate appearances by voice or picture. Talking about a candidate is not the same as airing that candidate.

Third, the rule applies to broadcast stations. Cable channels, streaming platforms, podcasts, websites, and social media are not treated the same way under this particular FCC broadcast rule.

Fourth, the right is not automatic in practice. An opposing candidate generally must make a timely request, usually within one week of the triggering use.

Finally, broadcasters are not generally required to open their stations to every candidate in the first instance, except for separate reasonable-access obligations that apply to federal candidates. But once a covered station gives one candidate a non-exempt use, it cannot discriminate against other legally qualified candidates for the same office.

The News Exemptions

Congress created specific exemptions so ordinary news coverage would not become impossible. Without exemptions, every candidate interview on a newscast could create equal-opportunity demands from every opponent.

The principal Section 315 exemptions are:

• bona fide newscasts;

• bona fide news interviews;

• bona fide news documentaries, if the candidate appearance is incidental; and

• on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, including political conventions and related activities.

The relevant category for The View is the second one: bona fide news interview.

If the FCC finds that The View fits within that exemption, candidate appearances on the program would not be treated as candidate “uses” for equal-opportunity purposes.

What Makes a News Interview “Bona Fide”?

The FCC’s traditional analysis focuses on whether the program is genuinely operating as news and not as a device to advance or damage a candidacy.

The key questions are generally these:

1. Is the program regularly scheduled?

2. Is the program controlled by the broadcaster or an independent producer, rather than by a candidate or campaign?

3. Are guest, format, and content decisions based on newsworthiness?

4. Is the program structured so that it is not designed to serve the political advantage of a particular candidate?

The last point is critical.

A program does not lose the exemption merely because hosts ask tough questions, express viewpoints, or conduct lively interviews. Journalism is not required to be bland. But if a program is being used to help one candidate or hurt another, the exemption becomes much harder to justify.

That is why The View is a hard case.

Why The View Is a Gray Area

The View is not a campaign ad. It is not an infomercial. It is not candidate-controlled programming. It is a regularly scheduled national television program with network editorial oversight. Those facts support ABC.

But it is also not a traditional news interview program in the common-sense meaning of the phrase. It is a daytime talk show built around a panel of hosts who discuss current events, politics, culture, and public figures from openly expressed personal viewpoints. Those facts support the opposing commenters.

The result is a genuine classification problem.

ABC wants the FCC to look at structure: regular scheduling, editorial control, public-affairs discussion, and newsworthy guests.

Opponents want the FCC to look at substance: opinion-heavy format, political framing, entertainment value, and the possibility that candidate appearances function as favorable exposure rather than neutral news coverage.

Both sides are really arguing over the same question:

When does a talk show that discusses news become a news interview program for purposes of federal broadcast law?

Public Opinion Is Not the Legal Standard

Public comments matter because they show how viewers understand the program and how they perceive the fairness issue. If many commenters believe The View is not news, that perception is relevant to the broader public-interest debate.

But the FCC is not conducting a public vote.

A docket can be 3-to-1, 5-to-1, or 10-to-1 in one direction and still not dictate the legal outcome. The Commission must apply the statute, its rules, and its precedents. Public comments can highlight facts, inconsistencies, and real-world concerns, but the legal classification ultimately belongs to the FCC.

That said, public comments can influence how the FCC frames the problem. If commenters persuasively show that the program is not operating as a neutral news interview platform, or that candidate appearances are selected or presented for candidate advantage, that could matter.

The Corporate Label Should Not Decide the Case

One of the stronger arguments against ABC’s position is that corporate placement inside a news division should not end the inquiry.

If ABC News produces or supervises The View, that may help ABC. It suggests editorial control and a connection to a news organization. But the FCC should not stop there.

The relevant question is not whether the parent company calls the program news. The question is whether the program actually functions as a bona fide news interview program under Section 315.

A network should not be able to convert entertainment or advocacy into exempt news merely by placing it under a news division. At the same time, a show should not be disqualified merely because it uses a conversational format, has multiple hosts, or includes opinion.

The FCC should examine the actual program.

What Happens If the FCC Sides With ABC?

If the FCC declares that The View is a bona fide news interview program, candidate interviews on the show would generally remain outside the equal-opportunity requirement.

ABC stations and affiliates would have stronger protection when airing candidate appearances on the program. That result would preserve broad editorial flexibility for ABC. It would also reinforce the idea that the news-interview exemption can extend beyond traditional Sunday public-affairs programs and hard-news formats.

But it would likely frustrate commenters who believe the program gives candidates favorable exposure while avoiding equal-opportunity obligations.

What Happens If the FCC Rejects ABC’s Position?

If the FCC finds that The View does not qualify as a bona fide news interview program, candidate appearances could become riskier for ABC broadcast stations.

A legally qualified opposing candidate could argue that a candidate’s appearance on The View was a “use” of the station. If timely requested, the station could be required to provide comparable time and placement.

That would not ban The View from interviewing candidates. It would not prevent political discussion. It would not require the hosts to be neutral.

But it could make candidate appearances legally more complicated during campaign periods. Stations would have to consider whether airing the program creates equal-opportunity exposure, political-file obligations, or other compliance issues.

Why This Matters Beyond The View

This docket is bigger than one daytime program.

The modern media environment has blurred the old categories. News programs include opinion. Talk shows cover politics. Entertainment programs interview candidates. Candidates appear on podcasts, streaming shows, social media, late-night comedy, sports programs, and lifestyle programs.

But Section 315 still applies to broadcast stations using public spectrum. The FCC must apply old statutory language to modern programming formats.

That is why the View proceeding matters. It may signal how the FCC will treat candidate appearances on hybrid programs that mix news, opinion, entertainment, and personality-driven discussion.

The basic regulatory question is simple to state but hard to apply:

When a candidate appears on a talk show, is that journalism, entertainment, campaign exposure, or some mixture of all three?

For Section 315 purposes, the answer matters.

Bottom Line

The FCC docket is not about whether people like or dislike The View. It is not about whether ABC may place the program inside its news division. And it should not be reduced to a partisan fight.

The real question is whether The View qualifies as a bona fide news interview program under federal broadcast law.

Public opinion appears skeptical. Many commenters do not see the program as news. They see it as opinion-driven daytime talk. That view is understandable.

ABC, however, is making a legal argument based on FCC precedent, editorial control, regular scheduling, and the history of treating some interview programs as exempt news programming.

The FCC should not decide the issue based on branding alone. Nor should it decide the issue based on audience irritation alone.

It should apply a practical test:

Does the program’s candidate coverage operate as genuine news interviewing, or does it function as candidate-favorable exposure dressed in news clothing?

That is the heart of the matter.

And for broadcasters, the lesson is clear: when a program includes legally qualified candidates, the label on the show is less important than the legal function of the appearance.

— TZS