ABC is raising alarms about what it calls a “chilling effect” from the FCC, claiming the agency is trying to squash political content that strays from a liberal narrative. On May 8, 2026, the network filed a petition asserting its morning show, “The View,” deserves to be considered a legitimate news source. In their words, the show is “bona fide,” having operated under a news exemption for over two decades. But many are questioning this assertion.
ABC argues that the FCC’s actions threaten to disrupt established legal practices and restrict protected speech. However, critics have found it difficult to take that claim seriously. One insider remarked, “Ron Burgundy has a stronger claim of being ‘bona fide news’ than Whoopi Goldberg.” This comment references the fictional anchor from the film “Anchorman,” highlighting the absurdity seen in ABC’s defense of “The View” as a serious news outlet.
The FCC, under Chairman Brendan Carr, is pushing for broadcast networks to conform to laws mandating equal airtime for political candidates. This directive extends beyond daytime programming and into late-night shows, impacting networks like ABC and their flagship programs. Critics, including Daniel Suhr of the Center for American Rights, argue that networks like ABC use this exemption unfairly. Suhr states, “They don’t fit within the statutory exemption. My view is, they never have.” He points out the disproportionate ratio of Democrat to Republican guests—30 to 1—on shows like “The View,” illustrating the one-sided nature of its content.
Suhr emphasized that the peculiar guest list serves to label the show more as a “partisan circus” than a news program. This sentiment is echoed by others, including Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, who recognized the problem of granting news exemptions to programming that veers into entertainment. “If what is really an entertainment show can provide opportunities to candidates for public office…then the law has no meaning,” Sohn explained. Her concerns reflect a broader unease about how rules are applied across the media landscape.
Sohn poses thought-provoking questions about equity in media exposure, suggesting that instead of simply granting exemptions, shows should allow space for opposing views. “Would the public be better or worse off if James Talarico had appeared on Colbert… and CBS had to give his opposing candidates time to do the same?” she queried. This idea of fairness is central to the ongoing debate about our media landscape.
Suhr maintains that the public requires a healthy two-party system and access to diverse perspectives. He argues that the FCC is standing up for essential First Amendment values. “The public’s interest is a healthy two-party system,” he said, underscoring the importance of seeing facts and hearing varied viewpoints. This insistence on balance echoes a nationwide sentiment—a call for transparency and integrity in our media.
The clash between ABC and the FCC highlights a significant cultural moment. How politicians and viewers engage with the media shapes the political landscape. With the spotlight on networks like ABC, the question remains whether they can adapt or if they will remain entrenched in a narrative that many perceive as lacking balance.
"*" indicates required fields
