Checkpoint: A Fairness Doctrine For The 21st-Century
Tashi-Delek
The remarkably thorough partisan divide we see today is due in no small part to the masses of misinformation that exist today throughout the media industry. The public discourse has been muddied by insulated ideological factions and various media platforms marketing toward the confirmation biases of its viewers and directly profiting off the further insulation that follows. The Fairness Doctrine implemented by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 was an initial endeavor at preventing an ideological monopoly over what was then a limited amount of frequencies available to the public. The doctrine “required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance and to do so in a fair manner” by ensuring that controversial matters and the differing perspectives concerning them were represented and discussed honestly and reasonably. Abolished in 1987, Ronald Reagan and the FCC argued that market forces would complete the necessary job of the doctrine, but the modern media landscape parades the inaccuracies of that assumption.
Modern Media Market
As with the partisan divide, the media market of today is staggeringly more vast than when the Fairness Doctrine was implemented. However, the current disunion is not due to limited airwaves; over one thousand television channels exist today, and news media have largely shifted online. FOX News and CNN were rated among the leading US cable channels in December 2020, yet they promote antithetical subjective ideologies which affect the framing of objective facts. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine permitted rampant editorialization through the proliferation of inflammatory opinions in pursuit of ratings over honest journalism. Revising the Fairness Doctrine and re-passing a version of the legislation fit for the modern media era would promote the advancement of a more informed citizenry and aid in mending the drastic ideological gap facing American society.
Certain news organizations choose to publish their own codes of ethics, thus requiring them to uphold standards of journalistic integrity and allowing the public to rest assured in the merit of the information. The code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists principally requires that journalists “Seek Truth and Report It.” The ethical codes for the International Federation of Journalists and the Radio Television Digital News Association both also require a journalistic devotion to truth and integrity. A 1949 FCC Editorializing Report stated, “It is the right of the public to be informed, rather than any right on the part of the Government, any broadcast licensee or any individual member of the public to broadcast his own particular views on any matter.” We see today, however, that this ethical standard has been abandoned in favor of opinion and editorialization.
Unethical Journalism
The modern media landscape is an onslaught of partisan bias and perspective. Pew Research reported that over ninety percent of adults have heard of Fox News, though only about four in ten adults trust the source, and nearly the same amount report they distrust the source. Similarly, about thirty-two percent distrusted CNN as a source of information. A discourse so muddied and partisan that one must select news sources based on ideological lean and the fact-to-opinion ratio is the exact type of discourse that demanded the inception of the Fairness Doctrine. The media landscape of today likely would not result in a singular monopoly of ideas due to the sheer variance in mediums and access to them, however, news media today effectively constitutes a monopoly of opinion over fact.
Fox News famously apologized after conservative commentator Michael Knowles referred to 18-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg as a “mentally ill Swedish child,” and Laura Ingraham separately claimed Thunberg was influencing Americans to “cede control of our economy, our way of life, our way of transport, how many children you want to have…” In addition, FOX News host Tucker Carlson, April’s most-watched cable host, has perpetuated the white supremacist “Replacement Theory” and has referred to the Iraqi people as “semiliterate primitive monkeys.” On the other side of the partisan spectrum, CNN regularly frames stories from a staunchly liberal perspective; a recent headline reads, “Trump and the GOP spin fantasies to hide his crimes against the Constitution.” Further, host Chris Cuomo has been shown adjusting graphs to misrepresent perception of violent crime as true spikes in crime.
The Reasonable Viewer
The FCC clearly stated that the right of the people to be informed supersedes one’s right to broadcast their opinion, and the dissemination of news is predicated on information being factual. When sued for defamation, it was argued regarding Tucker Carlson’s broadcast that the “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that Carlson is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’” The judge agreed that “given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” However, the burden should not be placed upon the viewer to be reasonably skeptical of news hosts when the fundamental purpose of journalism is to deal in truth. To reiterate, nearly two-thirds of Republicans and right-leaning independents trust FOX News more than any other source, and their top host can literally not be trusted to disseminate an honest account of the news.
Accurate Labeling
The Federal Trade Commission's Fair Packaging and Labeling Act “enacted in 1967, directs the FTC and the FDA to issue regulations requiring that all ‘consumer commodities’ be labeled” with “a statement identifying the commodity.” Reagan’s deregulation of the FCC implies that airwaves and their contents indeed constitute consumer commodities. Commentary and punditry which is broadcast under the guise of news directly violates the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and directly contributes to an increasingly misinformed public viewer base. Therefore, Carlson’s position as the top host of FOX’s news branch after a court invalidated his credibility stands as an example of unethical partisan bias in the media. A modern reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine would ideally require the accurate labelling of media such that viewers seeking truthful information are not instead met with an array of discordant subjectivity.
It is safe to say that not all types of media contribute equally to the political-ideological tumult. The means of application for a revised Fairness Doctrine would ideally vary based on the type of media in question. Though often labeled as such, punditry and commentary are not equivalent to objective news just as satire and political comedy are not equivalent to true partisan analysis. The Onion is an example of satirical political coverage, with headlines including, “Bat-Wielding Jim Jordan Bursts Through Capitol Window…” and “NASA Returns To Home Planet After Completing Mission On Earth.” Where The Onion differs from FOX News is that FOX advertises itself as a reputable source of truthful and informative news. Specified application of a modern Fairness Doctrine based on accurately classified and labeled media would be an ethical necessity and aid in circumventing First Amendment disputes and promoting an informed citizenry.
Organizations labeling themselves as true news publications should be held to true journalistic standards and the original Fairness Doctrine wording requiring the fair and honest coverage of publicly important issues. The requirement to broadcast contrasting subjective perspectives would be rendered moot, as the objective reporting of factual knowledge- even allegations- fundamentally excludes opinion. Commentary, however, is inherently distinct from news; it is the subjective analysis of objective fact. Pundits such as Michael Knowles, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, and Chris Cuomo have an ethical obligation to differentiate their content from objective sources- either by channel, segment, show, or any other clearly distinguishable means. Sources of subjective commentary should also be held to the standards of the original Fairness Doctrine regarding the facts upon which their opinions lay their foundation.
The First Amendment
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) saw the Supreme Court uphold the constitutionality of the original Fairness Doctrine. The court stated when the FCC considered repealing that “the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course.” The Supreme Court has never ruled the Fairness Doctrine infringes upon broadcasters’ free speech, and thus, First Amendment arguments are undermined. Under a modern Fairness Doctrine, commentators and pundits would ideally not be compelled to promote both sides of a debate unless one feels that they have been misrepresented. This aligns with the court’s decision in Red Lion and would remain a key ethical necessity to protect the fair dissemination of opposing subjective perspectives while not infringing upon the First Amendment and not involving objective news sources.
Where the twentieth-century media market consisted of a limited selection of airwaves, the modern media landscape is an uncultivated expanse of objectivity and subjectivity. The partisan political divide between the American population is only worsened by the unchecked media machine dispersing our information. As it exists now, the media is not fulfilling its responsibility of promoting an informed populace. The RTDNA Code of Ethics states that “facts should get in the way of a good story. Journalism requires more than merely reporting remarks, claims or comments. Journalism verifies, provides relevant context, tells the rest of the story and acknowledges the absence of important additional information.” Free market forces have been shown to be insufficient at checking the profit interests of industry. We must legislate a revised Fairness Doctrine to consolidate our media landscape and ensure that the people have the opportunity to express truly informed consent.