The Fairness Doctrine — why was it abolished, and why we need it again…

I’m going to briefly tell you here about the Fairness Doctrine — how and why it was created, how it served the American public well over some 38 years, and who and why it was abolished. And how that abolishment has led to the deeply polarized political situation we have today.

From Wikipedia: The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.

Briefly, back in the late 1930’s someone filed a lawsuit against a radio station, charging that it was only communicating and pushing viewpoints reflecting one political side including attacks against politicians whom the station owner didnt agree with — without allowing other commentary to rebut or communicate their viewpoints. The person who filed the lawsuit formed their own broadcast company — Mayflower Broadcasting, and tried to purchase the license of the offending station from the FCC.

The purchase failed, but the court issued a ruling now refered to as The Mayflower Decision that declared any broadcast media must remain neutral and not editorially support any particular political position or candidate.

Come 1949, the Mayflower Decision was formalized into the Fairness Doctrine, which explicitly stated that any tv or radio station could not support any political position or candidate, but it added the provision that for every editorial position on any issue it did air, it would give equal time to those representing opposing viewpoints.

In 1967, provisions of the Fairness Doctrine were co-opted and incorporated into FCC regulations.

Much interesting stuff happened around the doctrine between 1967 and 1987, but you can investigate those yourself.

In 1985 though, during the Reagan Administration, the commissioner of the FCC (a Reagan appointee) wrote a report implying that the Doctrine imposed restrictions on 1st Amendment free speech, thereby hurting the public interest. Continued wrangling happened, and in 1987 by a 4–0 vote within the leadership of the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed/abolished.

Why is this a big deal? If you prefer to read a far more informed and complete accounting of why, read this.

Why I think it needs to be rewritten and reinstated — here it is:

Since the late 1980s, immediately following the repeal of the doctrine’s particulars from FCC regulations, up sprung some very partisan networks owned by individuals and corporations with very partisan personal viewpoints.

FoxNews owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns The Daily Mail and other very right wing publications, began broadcast as a cable network. Just as with his newspapers, Fox began a right leaning reporting that at first spent energies simply providing that viewpoint but over the years has become ever more adept at being a promotional tool for the Republican Party.

It was known this would happen as in the reports from the FCC in 1985 it mentioned explicitly that it was to give the airwaves the same degree of editorial freedom that the press had to that point.

The press had been and mostly continues to be left and progressive in political leanings. So it was to essentially sold as to “balance the playing field”.

Which provided FoxNews with its first slogan — “Fair and Balanced”

Having a powerful news media arm for an entertainment mogul broadcasting very conservative versions of the news, and being supportive and supported by the religious right, it spurred some other media channels to adopt a left leaning perspective to capture the audience left hanging.

For anyone who has been paying attention, sometime in the 1990’s it became a thing for the cable news networks to hang the graphic up “Breaking News” for the most minimal activity that occurred with one of either their most favored political people or their most hated. It influenced Capital Hill greatly, as the more outlandish and loud the politician was, the more coverage they received.

The longer this had gone on, the more extreme and polarized the coverage became. Give the people the outrage they want and you keep their eyes glued to the screen longer. The longer they watch, the more advertising money the network makes.

Its too easy and it has been covered too much already how the networks have influenced elections, with the most notable being the most outlandish individual getting the benefit of a sequence of publicity both bad and good, and beating the odds to win the White House.

Today you have a political engine relying on their most favored status on their politically aligned media, and winning. The result is that politics and the running of the country is more concerned with ratings and money than it is with actually doing whats best for the country.

The recognition of this by the adversaries of the USA is stunning — external manipulation of sentiments through the new unregulated social media platform, plus the advent of AI and Deep Fakes, with various ways to ensure people only see the information that conforms to their “confirmation bias” ensures the rift between the right and the left will continue to grow.

Why we need a new improved form of The Fairness Doctrine?

It seems pretty obvious that we need to return to a true balanced and neutral channel for news and events, equal time allocations to diverging policies and viewpoints, and even a feeling of responsibility from all media — social, streaming, cable, broadcast and print.

For every inflammatory point or lie being communicated there needs to be fact checking by an independent non-affiliated party whose task is to ensure that the wrongs are righted.

Interviews with key leaders and politicians needs to be conducted equally — conditions for interviews need to either be favorable or unfavorable for both sides, no softballs for one party while dishing hardballs for the other.

I would even go so far as to mandate that live and advertising time be provided and paid for in equal manner by the Federal Election Commission — the competition for money from big pocket donors is damaging our country in so many ways, removing one aspect of why politicians say they need money would reduce the implied grift those donations come with.

For each editorial or political view that is broadcast, equal time needs to be provided to the opposite view or political party to ensure that the implications of media as propaganda channels be reduced or eliminated.

Any viewpoint of any corporation or owner needs to be tagged as an editorial opinion — not explicitly supported by the media outlet as an entity.

For more regarding Fairness in Media — https://dividedwefall.org/fcc-fairness-doctrine

This would be the first step towards election reforms — Congress needs to restore their image as representing the people of the nation, and so should be advocating for revoking Citizens United and treating any corporate entity the same as a voting individual.

This is as I said — the first step towards restoring some sense of sanity to the political system of government. Many will be really pissed off about some of my views, but I believe the only way out of the mess that has been created is to roll back the things that put us here in the first place.

If you’re interested in more ideas that I have that would put us back on the road to greatness — leave comments. In the future I plan on detailing and showing using numbers how certain “socialist” ideas would not just benefit some people, but it would also save you money as an individual taxpayer and provide benefit to corporations as well. Among other ideas that have been learned from history and from other sources.