This piece argues that “The View” behaves more like a partisan soapbox than a newsroom, that the FCC’s recent rethinking of the equal-time exemption sprang from real concerns, and that while bias deserves scrutiny, government regulators should be careful before deciding which shows count as genuine news. It walks through concrete episodes that show the program’s one-sidedness, explains how regulatory uncertainty already skews editorial decisions, and warns that giving officials the power to label outlets sets a dangerous precedent. The tone is Republican: skeptical of both media bias and federal overreach, preferring free speech and a wider marketplace of ideas over government gatekeeping.
This just in from ABC: “The View” is a news program, at least according to a long-standing regulatory understanding that treated certain daytime and late-night shows as exempt from equal-time rules. That interpretation hit a snag when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said networks had pushed the exemption too far, arguing some programs now operate with partisan intent. The change sparked an immediate scramble inside newsrooms and lawyers’ offices, which is exactly what happens when regulators shift the ground rules.
The flashpoint came when a rising Texas Democrat sat for an interview on “The View” and regulators asked whether that appearance should have triggered equal-time obligations. The resulting uncertainty led other hosts to avoid interviews rather than risk a fight with the FCC, and one major late-night personality rerouted an interview to YouTube to escape the agency’s reach. When legal fear drives editorial choices, the public loses, because broadcasters will start self-censoring to dodge regulatory headaches.
Carr is right that the exemption was stretched. “The View” routinely books overwhelmingly one-sided lineups that look more like organized advocacy than balanced reporting. Year after year, the guest lists skew hard to one side, and the show’s format encourages applause, sermonizing, and theatrical outrage instead of skeptical questioning. That pattern matters: if a program behaves like a political vehicle, equal-time rules were meant to ensure fairness.
Still, correcting bias with a regulatory sledgehammer is risky. Assigning the government power to decide which outlets qualify as “real” journalism hands enormous influence to whoever sits in the regulator’s chair. Today’s regulator might be careful, but tomorrow’s could have very different priorities. Ceding that gatekeeping role invites misuse, and Republicans should be especially wary of enabling a tool that could one day be turned against them.
Examples from the show make the debate feel less abstract. Whoopi Goldberg has made inflammatory claims on air without evidence, and co-hosts have dismissed large segments of public opinion as nonexistent. On one episode both Goldberg and Joy Behar said, “nobody wants it.” about voter ID laws, even though public polling repeatedly shows broad support for basic identification at the ballot box. That sort of dismissal of mainstream views reveals a culture that confuses fervent opinion for reporting.
The program also lets guests make sweeping, unproven claims unchecked. Earlier this year, Rep. James Clyburn made an extreme accusation about the modern GOP that went unchallenged on air, and the hosts offered no pushback to demand proof or context. That kind of on-air passivity does not look like journalism; it looks like cheering from the audience in a political rally.
Misinformation on high-profile criminal cases shows another dangerous side. Hosts have repeated false characterizations about suspects and victims, declaring facts that later proved incorrect and leaving corrections underplayed. When a national program amplifies sloppy or false claims, it doesn’t just mislead viewers; it shapes social media narratives and online echo chambers where misinformation spreads quickly.
Many conservatives have watched these trends for years, cataloging moments that feel more like advocacy than reporting. The pattern is obvious: repeated one-sided selections, unchecked assertions, and theatrical outrage packaged as news. Those are valid grounds for criticism and for asking whether broadcasters should be exempt from rules intended to preserve fairness.
At the same time, the remedy matters as much as the diagnosis. Giving regulators license to pick winners and losers among media outlets risks chilling legitimate commentary and satire, and it would be a tool that future administrations could weaponize. The better approach is public pressure, advertiser responses, and transparent standards inside newsrooms, not a top-down governmental stamp that declares who is a journalist and who is not.
Conservatives should lead the argument for more voices and stronger standards without surrendering the principle that government must not decide orthodoxy. Call out bias, demand accountability, and push for clearer industry practices, but resist turning the FCC into an arbiter of truth. More speech, not more regulators, is the safer path for a free society.
https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/2013293422866505786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2013293422866505786%7Ctwgr%5E226b1913bddab5821ab6e07549a4ed553f7acc3a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodintoto.com%2Fthe-view-clyburn-slavery-pam-grier-lynching%2F
