Before 1985, there was a media concept that attempted to balance the news that was aired to the general public. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it was initiated in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission during the earlier days of television newscasting.
The Fairness Doctrine was created with broadcast licensing, and the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, in mind. In its original design, it could not apply to cable news, satellite service providers or the internet. But what if it could? T. Schneider/Shutterstock.com
There was a concern in 1949 – when there were only three major broadcast networks, NBC, ABC and CBS – that a tendency to bias might occur in their news presentations. The FCC created a doctrine that required any news program that had a license to broadcast to the public to present both sides of any and all controversial issues important to that general audience and its agenda.
In 1969, the Fairness Doctrine was challenged, and without going into the details (check the Ronald Reagan Library website, which describes the case), it went to the Supreme Court who upheld it in a unanimous decision. It was during the Reagan administration in 1987 that the FCC decided to abolish the doctrine because it was feared that it would “hurt the public interest” and potentially violate the First Amendment rights of free speech.
It’s hard to see how First Amendment concerns would apply (and, back then, the Supreme Court agreed), since both sides would have the opportunity to express their views of events in the news, or other issues presented to the public, and in no way a violation of free speech would be evident. When the doctrine was abolished, it, of course, opened the licensed broadcast doors to the news eventually becoming, to many, a hopelessly one-sided and often deeply biased affair.
The Fairness Doctrine was created with broadcast licensing, and the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, in mind. In its original design, it could not apply to cable news, satellite service providers or the internet. But what if it could? What if the current administration, or any administration for that matter, would direct the FCC to revisit its doctrine of 1949 and explore the potential good that could be accomplished with a modern-day reinstatement of the fairness policy? Suddenly everyone who exclusively tunes into Fox News for their information on current issues of importance would see other reputable newscasters offering the “other side of the story.” Of course, the same would apply to MSNBC and all broadcast and cable news networks.
Once viewers got a more balanced view of potentially deeply polarizing issues, they would certainly become better informed in their decision making, and perhaps that polarization may be slightly reduced on both sides. Even if that reduction were small, it would be a step in the right direction, a step toward healing the growing schism between differing biases in the news.
Maybe, as an experiment, let’s bring back the Fairness Doctrine for one year and see if it can make a difference. I have tried to imagine a serious downside to this experiment and continue to come up short. After all, the Supreme Court supported it and that should be remembered. In a court of law, both sides must be heard by the jury. If they only heard the prosecutor’s side, I suspect that all would be found guilty – or found innocent if they only heard the defense’s presentation. Let’s be fair!
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Comments are no longer available on this story