Why were we so divided in the last election? Why were we so polarized? Our divisions seem deeper and harder than ever. How did our political ideas become ideologies set in concrete?
We are supposed to make political decisions based on reason, logic and information. And most of what we know comes through the media: print, television, radio, online and cable. For almost 30 years, the Federal Communications Commission required Fairness in that reporting.
Today, we have no Fairness Doctrine.
It has been suggested that we are so polarized because the Fairness Doctrine of l949 was killed in l988.
In a democracy where the voters choose lawmakers, it seems the public is losing the information war. It used to be that the national broadcasters, in return for using the scarce public airways, were required to offer programming for the public interest. And when there were conflicts, to make sure to let people know there was more than one opinion.
This was the Fairness Doctrine.
It operated for less than 39 years.
In the mid-20th century, there was limited bandwith to be distributed to broadcasting companies. And so the FCC was empowered to license broadcasters and to lay down some basic ground rules. Among them was the Fairness Doctrine, started in l949. At the time, there were three major networks ABC, CBS and NBC. In return for their broadcasting license (given by the FCC), they were required to air information of interest to the general public and they were required to inform the public of contrasting views. The rules were laid down in a loose fashion, with no requirement for giving equal time to conflicting views (equal time was only required for candidates competing in elections.)
There was concern that the three major networks leaned toward the liberal point of view and it was only “fair” that they inform their viewing public of more conservative viewpoints. Ironically, the conservative side came to see the “Fairness Doctrine” as a threat.
In the meantime, technology advanced. The FCC’s purview eventually came to include cable, the internet, wire, satellite and wifi. And by the l970’s, the conservative programmers had developed “talk radio”, with the great success of Rush Limbaugh style smash mouth conservative radio.
In l970, the FCC stopped using the Fairness Doctrine and in 1988 deleted it. By 2000 social media had also become a platform for various political viewpoints. And talk radio continued without any concern for fairness in public information.
By the l980’s, Congress began to see the value of reinstating a Fairness Doctrine. But any attempt to revive it was killed by both Presidents Reagan and H. W. Bush. They feared that a liberal point of view would overpower the conservative movement.
Today, the views broadcast on radio and online via social media are also not balanced. There can be “fake news,” “alternate facts” or misinformation deliberately spread.
And there’s no discussion of “fairness” for the internet. Published newspapers were never included in the fairness doctrine because there have always been a plethora of newspapers for the public to chose from.
So in short, the Fairness Doctrine and its demise has a bit to do with why we are so divided. We have always, it seems, been divided first between Torys and Patriots, then between Federalists and Jeffersonians (Republicans), Whigs and Democrats, Republicans and Democrats and, as we moved into the 21st Century, dividing into conservatives and progressives. And now we have Trumpians and Liberals going at it.
What continues to divide us? Varying philosophies, values and ideologies.
But let’s be honest, there is also fake news, alternative facts and deliberate misinformation. There is nothing that requires broadcast news, news and social media on the internet, or radio to provide balanced coverage of current issues and events. In a democracy where the voters are the final check on the government, there is a problem with getting unbiased news. There is no requirement to help the public determine what is true and what is false. What can win the information war is the loudest voice or the best funded voice.
We really do need a new Fairness Doctrine.