Bring back the Fairness Doctrine

We get bombarded daily by biased news reporting. True or False? Unless you have been living in a cave somewhere, with no contact to the outside world for the past 25 years, you know the answer to the question is unequivocally, TRUE.

This missive is entitled, Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and since many of the readers here are younger than 30, here is a brief history. Quoting from the Museum of Broadcast Communications, “The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees”, and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. ¹”

“The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy. ¹”

“By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. ¹”

The Congress voted to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law; however, it was vetoed by President Regan. The second attempt ran out of support with a threatened veto by President Bush the First. Today, we find, “there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. ¹”

Currently, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced to support legislation that would reverse the 1987 FCC ruling.

 

Why do we need a Fairness Doctrine? 1. to level the playing field in public discourse. 2. to provide a medium for alternative points of view. 3. to stop the use of airwaves and cable casting as a means to dispense only one side of an issue and more importantly, 4. end the flagrant use of misinformation to support ill-conceived public policy.

Steve Randall, a co-host of CounterSpin says, “For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

“What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.²”

We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrines, to insure that the citizens of this country hear, not only fair and balanced reporting, and all sides of the issues. Additionally, it will end fear mongering by the media and politicians, who are attempting to placate their corporate sponsors or appear to be doing something useful for society. Without the Fairness Doctrine, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and all other news and information outlets cannot, nor will not be held responsible to provide accuracy and non-biased facts. Until then, the citizens can expect more of the same; propaganda, and misinformation, in place of facts and truth.

¹ http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

^{2 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm}