Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine
It seems quaint now, but there used to be something called the Fairness Doctrine, which obligated broadcasters to present all sides of issues that were of importance to the public. “Doctrine” is a suspicious-sounding word, but it was a rule that ensured that broadcasters didn’t use the power of the airwaves to limit the viewpoints that listeners and viewers had access to.
The Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949 and was essentially abolished in 1987. Along the way it found critics and supporters on both sides of the political divide. I started my journalism career when the Fairness Doctrine was still in force. There were only 3 major television networks and the Internet was a vague dream. Back then, the concept was that broadcasters shouldn’t be allowed to promote just one side of a story: for example, if there was a local bond issue coming up for a vote, radio stations couldn’t run ads and produce news stories that only reflected the station owner’s preference. As a reporter, I was expected to produce fair and balanced stories. My personal standard for determining whether I had achieved my goal was simple: 1) after viewing the story, would audience members be able to discern my personal position on the issue, and 2) if viewers had access to all of the information I gathered in preparing the story, would they agree that I had presented the issue fairly–providing a balance between conflicting arguments.
In the chaotic, partisan media environment of 2025, this approach seems archaic and naive. But honest, folks, it wasn’t difficult to present a fair and unbiased news story. Some reporters and some TV stations crossed the line, but the mandate to be accurate and impartial was real back then. The “mainstream media” was trusted, whether it was Walter Cronkite or intrepid investigative reporters or just the local news team in your city. The change started in the 1980’s when entertainment creeped into TV news. The result was more sensationalism (“if it bleeds, it leads”) and fluff. A news director at my former station in Oklahoma was contemptuous of the “journalists” who wanted to produce stories on topics of importance to the public. He didn’t think that was necessary, and certainly didn’t think it would sell as well as stories on celebrities or sex crimes or talking fish.
The Fairness Doctrine was done away with during the Reagan administration, but there were efforts to bring it back, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. The regulation only applied to broadcasters, and by the 90’s an entirely new structure would have been necessary in order to regulate cable channels. By the 21st century, the online flood of content and opinion had created the environment we have today: virtually no news provider is considered impartial. People choose their information based on their preferences. It would be impossible to require Joe Rogan or John Oliver or Tucker Carlson to present opposing views on their shows. For one thing, it would be a violation of their First Amendment Rights. But we could use a new version of the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that the major corporations that control our media don’t prevent Americans from getting a full picture of what is going on in their world. Remember: the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those issues. TV and radio stations could choose how to meet those requirements: maybe a public affairs show or an editorial. This approach not only informed citizens, but avoided the polarisation that plagues America today.
What would a new Fairness Doctrine look like the in the Internet Age? These days, anyone can have their own podcast or website or social media platform. It would be unworkable–and unconstitutional–to require each influencer or podcaster to present opposing views or provide time to anyone who challenged their claims. The Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was valid because in 1949 there were a finite number of channels and frequencies for TV and radio stations. That’s not the case today. So the focus must turn to ensuring that accurate information is shared; that outright lies, false reports and intentionally misleading content is identified and prohibited. The Constitution has never protected lies. It protects free speech and opinions, but anyone who knowingly presents falsehoods should be held accountable. It is society’s only form of protection when AI can now be employed to mislead Americans in myriad ways.
It wasn’t that difficult back in the 80’s to tell the truth on a TV newscast. And back then, different views were given space on the same platform. In the 2020’s, when the number of platforms is diverse and many are controlled by powerful people with specific agendas, the requirement for truth, accuracy and fairness has never been more crucial.
It’s only fair.
petermaize 