What the SNL ‘Equal Time’ Drama Was Really About

As a seasoned cinephile with decades of experience under my belt, I can’t help but feel a pang of nostalgia for the days when the equal-time rule was a beacon of fairness on the public airwaves. Back then, before the dawn of social media and streaming platforms, television was the undisputed king of entertainment, and the equal-time rule was a vital safeguard to ensure a level playing field for political candidates.

If Kamala Harris had won the 2024 presidential election, it would have been a notable event in history. However, the recent controversy over her appearance on “SNL” before the election now seems like a foreshadowing of potential issues during the second Trump administration. Last weekend, Brendan Carr, a FCC commissioner appointed by Donald Trump and co-author of Project 2025, attempted to stir up anger about NBC allowing Harris to appear on “SNL” just three days before the election. He falsely claimed that the network was giving her an unfair advantage over Trump, alleging a violation of FCC regulations against favoritism towards candidates. This claim was baseless, but Carr didn’t seem to care.

In simpler terms, if a broadcast station airs political campaign content during an election period, they must inform all other candidates about the opportunity to request equal airtime. This is known as the equal-time rule. The broadcaster isn’t responsible for finding or notifying the candidates; it’s up to the campaigns to stay informed about public announcements and take action within seven days if they believe they qualify for additional airtime. This rule doesn’t apply to news coverage, cable networks, social media platforms, or streaming services like Netflix and YouTube, as the FCC doesn’t regulate these mediums in the same way as over-the-air TV stations. Essentially, this rule pertains only to entertainment programming on over-the-air television channels.

Essentially, the Equal Time Rule isn’t designed to prevent politicians from appearing on shows like Saturday Night Live or Dancing with the Stars. Instead, it ensures that if a broadcaster decides to feature a politician, they must also provide similar opportunities to their opponents. In this instance, after Kamala Harris appeared on SNL, NBC granted the Trump campaign free airtime on Sunday Night Football and NASCAR, allowing them to reach a significantly larger live audience than Harris did. The message broadcasted was controlled by the Trump campaign, not the writers of SNL. In terms of exposure to NBC viewers, it appears that Trump may have benefited more from this arrangement, as SNL reaches only a fraction of the live audience compared to an NFL game. While no rules were violated and no laws were broken, this is typically where the matter would end.

Certainly, given Carr’s history of favoring Trump, it’s no surprise that he chose to criticize NBC regardless. Even before Harris made an appearance on SNL, Carr took to Twitter, branding her rumored appearance as a “maneuver to dodge the FCC’s Equal Time rule.” He accused this of being biased and partisan conduct, suggesting it could be a case of NBC stations using public airwaves to sway votes for one candidate before an election. However, Carr was aware that his claims weren’t accurate, as there was indeed a precedent for what happened over the weekend. Specifically, in 2008, Senator John McCain, who was running against Barack Obama, made not just one but two appearances on SNL, both in the cold open and “Weekend Update.” Remarkably, there was hardly any backlash. In fact, Obama praised McCain for his humor during his closing rallies, and it appears that he didn’t even request equal time.

Despite NBC-affiliated stations, which are regulated by the FCC, having complied with their equal-time obligations towards Trump within 24 hours, on Monday morning, Carr was live on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo, suggesting the revocation of NBC’s licenses. “One potential solution if we find it egregious,” Carr stated, though it’s unclear if he was aware that NBC had already complied with the equal-time rule at the time of his comments. However, as a member of the FCC, Carr should have been knowledgeable about this. Instead, he seemed more focused on stirring up controversy against NBC and the Harris campaign, and proving his loyalty to Donald Trump. It’s likely that he will be handsomely rewarded in the new Trump administration.

Ignoring Carr’s behavior, this situation brings up an interesting point: is the equal-time rule still relevant today? As Nilay Patel from The Verge pointed out recently, the current FCC regulations were established during an era when broadcast TV was predominant and network shows consistently reached 20-30% of viewers every evening. However, that’s no longer the case, with social media networks, Netflix, and YouTube also reaching large audiences.

As a movie and television aficionado, I can’t help but dream about a world where the equal-time rule could be reconsidered with some rationality. Frankly, it seems outdated that FCC regulations continue to demand network censorship of four-letter words, which are commonplace across almost every other media platform.

The only reason I pause before advocating for repealing these rules is that with bad actors like Musk using their platforms to distort and twist the public conversation to their preferred narratives, there is some utility in keeping in place regulations on at least one form of major media. After all, while Rupert Murdoch has always been careful to not let his Fox broadcast network look anything like Fox News, who knows how that might change were Fox-owned stations and affiliates suddenly able to operate without any oversight. What’s more, as outdated as the equal-time rule might be, it generally hasn’t hurt broadcasters, financially or otherwise. And with Trump soon to be back in charge, maybe we actually need all the guardrails we have, however outdated they might seem.

2024-11-08 00:54

What the SNL ‘Equal Time’ Drama Was Really About

Read More

Minority Mindset