Who Gets to Decide If and Why a Guest is Newsworthy?
By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer
A political candidate sits down for a broadcast interview. The host asks questions. The conversation reaches into policy, personality, controversy, and campaign issues… just another day in the world of talk radio.
To the FCC, depending on the program and the circumstances, it may raise a different question: did the station give one legally qualified candidate a broadcast “use” of its facilities that now triggers equal opportunities for opponents? That question sits at the center of ABC’s dispute with the FCC over “The View,” and it deserves the attention of every broadcaster who books public officials, candidates, advocates, and political personalities.
This is not an article about whether anyone likes “The View.” That is the wrong question. The better question is whether the government should decide, after the fact, that a long-running interview program no longer qualifies as a bona fide news interview program because regulators dislike, distrust, or second-guess its guest selection.
The Equal Opportunities Rule, often called “equal time,” is not the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is gone. However, equal opportunity requirements remain part of broadcast law. In general terms, when a broadcast station permits a legally qualified candidate to “use” its facilities, opposing legally qualified candidates for the same office may be entitled to comparable opportunity, unless an exemption applies.
One such exemption covers bona fide news interviews.
That exemption matters because it allows broadcasters to cover politics without turning every meaningful candidate interview into a scheduling trap. The law recognizes that a news judgment is different from a campaign favor. A host may interview a candidate because that candidate is newsworthy, controversial, powerful, interesting, or central to a public issue, not because the station has endorsed the campaign.
ABC’s argument is that “The View“ already cleared that hurdle more than two decades ago, when the FCC treated it as a bona fide news interview program. ABC now says the Commission has forced the issue back onto the table and is effectively asking whether the government should dictate which candidates the program may feature. That is why ABC’s filing points beyond daytime television and directly toward talk radio.
Talk radio should not dismiss that warning. The format routinely features candidates and officeholders without immediately inviting every opponent. Sometimes the reason is obvious: one guest is in the news and the others are not. Sometimes the reason is practical: a candidate accepts and the opponent declines. Sometimes the reason is editorial: the host believes one interview will better serve the audience.
Those are normal programming judgments. But if regulators start looking behind those judgments for partisan motive, the risk changes. The question becomes less “Was this guest newsworthy?” and more “Can you prove to the government that your reason was acceptable?” That is a dangerous shift for any medium built around editorial discretion.
This does not mean broadcasters should panic or stop booking candidates. It does mean stations, networks and programs should tighten their habits. Know when a guest is a legally qualified candidate. Understand when an appearance may count as a use. Keep clean records. Preserve the editorial reason for the booking. Make sure producers and hosts know the difference between a campaign appearance, a news interview, and paid political time.
The larger warning is simple: broadcast talk is regulated speech in a way podcasts, YouTube shows, and most streaming programs are not. That distinction already matters for indecency, sponsorship identification, public files, political files, and license obligations. Now it may matter again in the heart of the format itself: who gets invited to talk.
The government should not sit in the producer’s chair. But broadcasters should not pretend the chair is invisible. The best protection is not silence. It is disciplined editorial judgment, documented in real time, applied consistently, and defended as what it is: the broadcaster’s constitutional role in deciding what is newsworthy for its audience.
Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.
If your station is outside the top 50 markets, you already know the pressure points. A mature workforce stretched thin. Fewer applicants for on air and production roles – specifically the younger creators who don’t see radio as their first creative outlet. And a competitive landscape where streaming, satellite, and podcasts divert attention with the gravitational pull of a black hole.
No two summers have been alike since the pandemic upended listeners’ lives and retailers’ businesses. So, we’ve seen this movie before. To sound relevant and relatable and helpful, connect the dots:
Throughout the TALKERS 2026 conference, there was a recurring theme that bears repeating:
The stations I work with make big money with live endorsement spots delivered by familiar local on-air personalities. Remember them? With most AM/FM broadcast hours now robotic or non-local, your relationship with the listener is precious and can be leveraged… carefully.
“Baseball is back!” was welcome in April (especially after a rough winter in many places). But it sounds embarrassingly old by now.
…I’m sharing promo copy now airing on my client stations, which addresses listeners’ – and advertisers’ — 2026 apprehensions:
The iconic TALKERS conference is coming up this Friday (6/5) and, again, I am looking forward to it. As a practicing therapist and prolific talk show guest for over two decades, I find this unique gathering to be a productive educational and social ritual. It provides an opportunity to make new friends, strengthen existing relationships, and learn new things about the ever-evolving talk media industry. We have similar issues in the mental health field marked by encroaching corporatism in a business once fueled by “mom & pop” operators and independent practitioners.
If you are doing talk radio, much of your programming is syndicated. If you do music radio, your most formidable competitors are robotic streams that live in the cloud. Either way, YOU, being local, can make friends — and money — if you plan now to exploit these occasions.
Billionaires make predominantly good investments, which is why they are billionaires.
Adam Smith‘s “invisible hand” is a metaphor he used to describe how individuals pursuing their own self-interest in competitive markets can unintentionally produce socially beneficial outcomes – such as efficient allocation of resources and increased wealth. Smith uses the phrase in The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759 and more famously in The Wealth of Nations in1776.
Radio has always been about connection, the feeling of belonging to something larger than yourself, of being drawn into a story told by a voice you trust. Perhaps, that’s why you tune in as well. There is little that is more rewarding for us than finding a way to connect you to what you want to hear, whether that’s your favorite jazz station, a particular show, or your former alma mater’s student-run station. It’s why we do what we do, and why we show up for the people who keep those stories alive.
Although I don’t have a machine to play it, I have saved the cart. December 9, 1980, the sad morning-after John Lennon died, Charles Osgood, doleful: “I read the news today. Oh boy.” That morning’s CBS World News Roundup – and on-hour newscasts throughout that day – delivered more moments that would keep you sitting in a parked car at your destination. As they would 3 months later when President Reagan was shot. Then soon again when Pope John Paul II was severely wounded in St. Peter’s Square. And five years yonder, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded just 73 seconds into its flight.
For years, Harrison Legal Group has informed media creators about the legal risks of using copyrighted clips, songs, images, and broadcasts without permission. The issue became central enough to inspire my book, Playing the Clip: The Definitive Digital Media Creator’s Guide to Fair Use (TALKERS Books, 2026). The premise was straightforward: modern media runs on borrowed material, but borrowing comes with legal exposure.
These are scary times. People on all sides of the mic are on the front lines. Not just “them,” otherwise referred to as the audience. We try to fool ourselves into thinking that society and civilization are relatively “safe.” However, simply being alive and stepping outside in the morning, turning on the computer, or checking the annoyingly smart phone, puts us smack dab in the middle of a war. Literally and figuratively. But like so much else in this modern era, this war lacks foundation.
Jay Clark was the first program director of WABC as a talk station. He set the tone and path for modern talk radio. This week I had Jay on as a special guest on the Red Apple Audio Networks all night show, “The Other Side of Midnight.” We celebrated the anniversary, May 10, (1982) of WABC’s switch from music to talk on the giant signal at 770 AM.
format in America. KGO was the killer biller in San Francisco. The execs who ran them were mighty proud: Ben Hoberman, Ed McLaughlin, Al Racco, Chuck Debere. Yes, they ran those stations, but they also invented the caller-driven talk format. There were other winning talk stations, but they were guest centric rather than listener centric (i.e. WOR, WGN). At the time, there were 43 stations listed as “talk” stations. 43. Not many models.
Jason Reddick’s The Complete Guide to AI Side Hustles is aimed at beginners trying to build passive income. But read it through a broadcaster’s lens and it suggests a blueprint for how radio talent and podcasters can leverage AI to expand their influence, diversify revenue, and stay indispensable in a media economy that rewards relevance and speed.
May the Fourth be with you today, as DJs and talk hosts are bumping with Star Wars music. And with Mother’s Day looming, 
To quote a radio friend, “Some talk show hosts think the news of the day only exists to serve up interesting fodder for their shows.” Many media practitioners, whose jobs encompass letting their audiences know about the pain and suffering of “others,” feel personally exempt from experiencing a connection to the talking points of poverty, ignorance, violence, and injustice that they eagerly collect (and even welcome) as fresh “content” for their platforms. It’s all just “material” to them.
Stations I work with are confronting a generational revenue issue: Local direct retail business owners who are Baby Boomers are retiring. And their heirs are moving the radio dollars that built their parents’ businesses to search engine optimization and elsewhere-digital. The narrative we present them: “Radio is ‘a reach engine’” for the digital content people their age personally favor. In this mode, the station feels less like “your father’s Oldsmobile;” and more present tense. Many of these next-generation businesspeople are avid podcast listeners, and that presents an opportunity.
TALKERS magazine associate publisher) Matthew B. Harrison, a work designed for today’s news/talk media environment where audio, video, screenshots, and quotes are not just supporting elements – but serve as the actual content itself. This technique has become particularly prevalent on YouTube and even cable news/talk TV but increasingly appears in audio form as what used to be called “actualities” – sound from another source.
book explains the legal concept of fair use not as a permission structure, but as a legal defense raised after copying has already occurred – an uncomfortable but essential distinction that underpins the entire analysis.
My notes from a real useful session with Amazon’s Andy Slater, Audacy’s Michael Biemolt, and YouTube’s Neha Taleja, moderated by WTOP’S John Wardock.
with the station across town anymore. It’s competing with 50,000 news brands, nearly half a million podcasts, and an infinite scroll of feeds that never sleep.
As a newly minted program director (remember them?), I found the 1980 “NAB Radio Programming Conference” downright enchanting. New-tech cart machines (remember them?) would FIND the splice! And after the cart played, a flashing light saved careless DJs from accidentally playing it again.
In a 
Time Spent Listening to podcasts has now surpassed TSL with spoken word radio. And both are fraught.
The rise of independent, talk show-style political commentary on YouTube has created a new class of media actors who do not see themselves as broadcasters, journalists, or publishers. They see themselves as creators. That distinction is real in terms of identity, tone, and platform. It is not real where it matters most: liability.
Assessing the hourly threat to the very existence of the medium of radio is a popular hobby among conventioneers. The audience levels for radio are astonishingly constant since 1970, but according to “radio people,” they are living at the edge of a volcano. Spotify radio, SiriusXM radio, Pandora radio, TuneIn radio, Internet radio, there are all kinds of radio! General Motors wants to throw AM/FM radio out of the car as in “do you really need radio in the car?” Radio’s response to the in-car-removal threat is by promising non-stop typhoons and hurricanes.
In “
In 1952, the success formula for today’s radio was discovered and put into practice by two hungry entrepreneurs: Todd Storz and Gordon McLendon. Both men owned dying radio stations in medium and major markets. The industry was suffering from a lack of purpose or solutions due to the advent of television which drove the migration of hit network radio shows to television. Lucille Ball, Bob Hope, and Gertrude Berg were on radio first.