Media Action Center is a group of of concerned residents throughout the U.S. led by former Emmy-winning broadcaster turned media reformer Sue Wilson. We have successfully influenced policy at the Federal Communications Commission and at local TV and Radio stations throughout the country for more than a decade to ensure We the People are truly served by the publicly owned airwaves. (See the archive of our work under "older posts.") We successfully forced Entercom to give up its $13.5 million license to KDND for killing a woman in a radio water drinking stunt. We have a long-running action to label Alex Jones' radio show as the fiction it is, which has taken Jones' program off dozens of radio stations nationwide. We educated the Supreme Court in FCC v Prometheus Radio on critical information to #SaveLocalNews.

Please see MAC's 2018 Comment to the FCC (below) to learn why these actions are crucial to Democracy. Find full journalistic coverage of the Supreme Court case and our Amicus brief, Sinclair Broadcasting's shell game, Alex Jones, the Strange v Entercom trial and other public interest media issues at SueWilsonReports.com. For background on how we arrived in this era of disinformation and what to do about it, see Wilson's 2009 documentary Broadcast Blues.

MAC Bona Fide News and Equal Opportunity Comment to the FCC

 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ... June 22, 2026
 
In the Matter of Bona Fide News And Equal Opportunities  -  MB Docket No. 26 – 124
 

COMMENTS OF SUE WILSON, MEDIA ACTION CENTER 

RE: FCC’S MEDIA BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION BY DISNEY’S ABC ASKING THE FCC TO DECLARE THAT THE VIEW QUALIFIES AS A BONA FIDE NEWS INTERVIEW PROGRAM AND THUS IS EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTORY EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES REQUIREMENTS


The Federal Communications Commission is seeking comments on the definition of Bona Fide News and the Equal Opportunities Requirements of broadcasters. While this proceeding is specifically targeting ABC and its program The View, decisions made in this matter will by necessity clarify the responsibilities of virtually all broadcasters, but especially those which provide news and information/ opinion based programming on TV and Radio.

This comment is submitted with the request that others who value our publicly owned airwaves will reply with thoughts on bettering our system, not dismantling it or using it as a bludgeon against perceived enemies. Let us take this opportunity to work together to clean up Our Air.

 
June 22, 2026 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?


1.  Yes, “The View” is “Bona Fide News.”  The 2002 FCC declared it so.                 …    3

2.  No, “The View” is not “Bona Fide News.” The early FCC erred in this scheme.  …    4

3.  What matters is Equal Opportunities on Broadcast TV and Radio alike.               …    5



IS THE VIEW BONAFIDE NEWS?

1.  Yes, The View is “Bonafide News.”  The 2002 FCC declared it so.

The 2002 FCC Mass Media Bureau issued a Declaratory Ruling conferring “Bona Fide News” status to The View. There is no reason that ABC would consider its aforegiven status as defunct.  
Let us consider why we are discussing Bonafide News. This is less about “News” than it is about “Equal Opportunities” for candidates on broadcast TV and Radio programs which broadcast over our publicly owned airwaves.

From the Code of Federal Regulations: § 73.1941 Equal opportunities.
“Except as otherwise indicated in §73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any: 

(1) Bona fide newscast; 
(2) Bona fide news interview; 
(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or 
(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.) 
(b) Uses. As used in this section and §73.1942, the term “use” means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred:  Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.
(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.
 

Note that this code mentions “candidate(s)” fifteen times.  This is clearly intended to protect our political process. Note also that the first part applies to paid advertising; a broadcast station cannot sell airtime to one candidate and deny selling a competing candidate airtime.
The FCC then created carve-outs for candidates’ appearances on its stations’ news programming. 

The rest of this provision deals with making certain that candidates for public office are treated equally and fairly on our publicly owned airwaves. The issue of “Bona Fide News” is secondary to the Equal Opportunities afforded to all candidates for public office. This should be a priority not only for the FCC for all radio and TV broadcasters. 

Have we seen violations, possibly purposeful violations, of this rule?  One could easily question the 2024 booking of Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live just days prior to the Presidential election as a violation. But even if so, NBC quickly responded to then Presidential Candidate Donald Trump with an Equal Opportunity. 

That said, as the FCC once conferred “The View” with Bona Fide News status, it should not be punished for a perceived violation of the Equal Time Rules.



2. No, “The View” is not “Bonafide News.”  The early FCC erred in developing this scheme

Here is the problem: what exactly is “Bonafide News”? The term is not well defined in the original Equal Opportunities code.

When I produced a regularly scheduled nightly one hour news program, one of my News Directors explained that if a candidate for President came through town and our news crews went to cover the story, we were “Bonafide News,” and so didn’t have to worry that we had to provide equal time coverage to others. That made sense to me. 

So let’s look at a story which dominated nightly news programs in April 2026. A California gubernatorial candidate garnered more headlines than any of his opponents when allegations of sexual misconduct by Congressman Eric Swalwell dominated ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC news coverage, as well as on radio news (and every print medium.)  Did any of his opponents complain and demand “Equal Opportunities” for such coverage? Of course not. That’s “Bonafide News.” We all know it. 

But the way the current rules are written, the FCC classifies programs as “Bonafide News” on a case by case basis. When the “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” featured then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was running for re-election) as a guest, the FCC agreed with NBC that Schwarzenegger was newsworthy, and so NBC didn’t have to provide an Equal Opportunity for his political opponent Phil Angelides. Well sure, Arnold was the movie star Governor everybody wanted to see. But what does it mean for democracy when selected candidates are featured to boost ratings while other viable candidates are denied? That’s entertainment! But is that really bonafide news? We all know the answer is no. 

But if every time a broadcaster has to run to the FCC get permission to have a candidate on our airwaves, it makes having any interviews virtually impossible. This is exacerbated when any broadcaster may wish to interview a candidate or two or five in an election like California’s recent 50+ candidate “jungle primary” without having to provide airtime for them all. 
   
A conversation needs to occur to discuss modern day options for Equal Opportunities on our air. Perhaps guidelines that any candidate polling at 15% or more would qualify for an opportunity? Perhaps there are better ideas. 

But let’s start working on them now. It is time for the FCC to revisit and rewrite these Equal Opportunity rules to fairly serve broadcasters, political candidates, and the public’s need for diverse and accurate information.


3. What matters is Equal Opportunities on ALL Radio and TV broadcasts

There has been some suggestion by the FCC that radio programs like Mark Levin Show, The Glenn Beck Show, The Guy Benson Show, and others which feature show hosts’ preferred candidates are somehow exempt from Broadcast Equal Opportunities rules.
 
Since 1996, Talk Radio has been dominated by Pro-Republican voices. A petition to deny submitted by Media Action Center in reveals the extent of that in one local market. Other studies have shown this to be the case. The FCC has traditionally ignored such information.
 
It is possible that since Radio broadcasters have gotten away with this for so long, TV broadcasters now feel they should level the playing field.

But this is not a game.  These rules, on the very small slice of media real estate that We the People own, our airwaves, are intended to provide a fair public square where everyone gets their say and all viable candidates can be heard. 

Let us all be careful here to bear in mind the rights of We the People in the sacred space of the broadcast airwaves we all own. 

Let none of us use these rules as a political bludgeon against any political persuasions. 
Let us all work together to improve these rules for the benefit of our Democracy.


Respectfully submitted,



Sue Wilson
Director, Media Action Center