Checkpoint: A Fairness Doctrine For The 21st-Century II
Vertigo3d
The abolishment of the FCC Fairness Doctrine has been cited as a fundamental impetus toward the partisan political divide which pervades the American populace. The doctrine “required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance and to do so in a fair manner” by ensuring the honest and reasonable representation and discussion of controversial matters and the differing perspectives which they concerned. The prior issue of Checkpoint discussed a theoretical means of bringing the Fairness Doctrine into the modern day by revising the original doctrine to protect the First Amendment freedoms of the press while simultaneously serving the interests of the people. The media landscape of today is vastly greater, however, and revision is required - the original doctrine served to protect the discourse over broadcast airwaves, but today, a revised Fairness Doctrine must also consider the expanse of the internet media market.
Print Transition Online
Most internet-based punditry is born specifically of the modern age, excluding large broadcast interests which have incorporated online publication. The New York Times and New York Post are examples of sources that began as print publications but now include online format subscriptions. The Times claims their mission is “simple: We seek the truth and help people understand the world.” The Post, founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801, is owned today by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which claims its mission is “driven by passion, guided by principles and acting with purpose, we are dedicated to delivering value to our customers and our shareholders.” Where the former pledges itself to journalistic ethical standards, the latter instead commits itself to emotional influence and profitability. Both, however, claim to disseminate “news” and the goings-on of the day. When readers consume news they do so with the reasonable expectation of ethical standards and objectively disseminated information.
Online News Sources
The broadcast media expanse has evolved far beyond the nominal radio airwaves of which it was composed when the Fairness Doctrine was implemented in 1949. Technological advancement has paved the way for wholly online publications and news platforms. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, funded the creation of The Intercept after reporters Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras from The Guardian broke the Edward Snowden leak of the NSA Prism surveillance program. The freedom to editorialize that comes with internet-based independence is reflected in their ethics. The Intercept claims, “we strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting… to be fair in our coverage.” The original Fairness Doctrine required that subjects of discussion be granted by the source an opportunity to respond to the discussion; The Intercept seems to embrace this concept in “allowing people and institutions a reasonable window to respond to reporters’ inquiries before publishing a story that contains significant revelations about them.”
The Intercept, however, does not go so far as to platform opposing opinions simply to validate their existence; “It does not mean mandating ‘balance’ when one perspective on a subject- such as the science of climate change, or the justification for a war crime- is clearly without merit.” Vox, in comparison, claims simply to “explain the news.” Vox claims that its “journalists candidly shepherd audiences through politics and policy, business and pop culture, food, science, and everything else that matters.” An explanation of the news implies a subjective analysis rather than objective dissemination, and Vox clearly states its objective of “shepherding” readers and guiding their opinions. The bounds of exactly how far the truth can be editorialized before it is no longer true is unclear, but a modern version of the Fairness Doctrine would require that sources clearly distinguish the facts from subjective opinions regarding those facts.
Internet Punditry
Internet-based political personalities are unencumbered by decades of broadcast journalistic tradition framing the capacities of their commentary. The acquisition of an adequate platform allows the pundit to deliver their opinion at will, and many totally forego claims of journalistic objectivity. Many instead build their platform on the perceived merits of their opinions. Crooked Media and its flagship podcast Pod Save America became famous during the Trump era as a left-leaning antagonist to the conservative cohort. The hosts, formerly staffers for the Obama administration, thoroughly denounced Trump policy and even participated in political action during the 2020 Biden campaign. Ben Shapiro, in contrast, is a conservative political pundit and host of The Ben Shapiro Show- regularly rated by Apple above the twentieth most popular podcasts. His website, The Daily Wire, produces his podcast as well as The Michael Knowles Show, and their Morning Wire is rated higher than both.
Shapiro became famous for his catchphrase, “Facts don’t care about your feelings,” in 2015 after repeatedly misgendering Caitlyn Jenner. Shapiro has “fundamentally” disagreed with the premise “that men can be women, and women can be men.” This notion, however, is a prime example of how blatant commentary can masquerade as objectivity, which carries tangible effects. Five Thirty Eight found “that Republicans who got their news from OANN or Newsmax were generally more extreme in their beliefs around QAnon and in their refusal to get vaccinated than those who got their news from FOX News.” The extremity of the source correlates with the extremity of the viewer; it is for this reason that viewers consuming news content can not be faced with the requirement of parsing fact from opinion. When partisan sources like Crooked Media or Ben Shapiro proliferate commentary and ideology, their subscribers listen- a modern adoption of the Fairness Doctrine would mediate the resolute adherence to such sources and ensure that media properly label the content of their programming.
Debate Culture
A recent phenomenon in online media is the growing demand for long-form content. This content stands in direct contrast to the wave of video snippets and soundbites that characterized the last decade of internet content. Expansion of the podcast market is one manifestation of that demand, but online debates have grown as a format themselves. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declined an offer of ten thousand dollars from Ben Shapiro in exchange for a live debate. In addition, Marxist economics professor Richard Wolff debated the fundamentals of socialism with leftist Twitch streamer Steven Bonell, who draws over a half-million followers under the pseudonym Destiny. The intention of a debate, however, is ultimately to defeat the opponent with a pointed delivery of facts rather than to understand the merits of the opposing viewpoints. Neither side claims objectivity, thus a modern Fairness Doctrine would simply require that either side not be misrepresented by the other.
Satirical Commentary
Jon Stewart redefined political satire for the modern media market and made The Daily Show a household name. Now helmed by Trevor Noah, The Daily Show is an example of media that would be free under a modern Fairness Doctrine to editorialize on the news as they see fit; however, the inclusion of subjectivity on the part of The Daily Show would not grant Trevor Noah free license to misrepresent subjects of discussion. Similar perhaps to The Intercept’s granting response time before publication, a modern Fairness Doctrine would require that jokes and commentary must not misrepresent the opinions of others; the facts upon which jokes are based must be held to the standard of journalistic objectivity. This distinction is necessary in order to prevent disputes based on perceived violations of First Amendment freedoms. Viewers of The Daily Show and readers of The Onion, for example, know that the source’s primary intention is to make them laugh rather than to educate.
For example, The Onion released a recent piece titled “Frightened Olympic Divers Still Unable To Desynchronize Movements Days After Event.” in which the source claimed, “frightened Olympic divers Wang Zongyuan and Xie Siyi remained unable to desynchronize their movements Friday, a full two days after winning gold in the 3-meter springboard event.” Wang Zongyuan and Xie Siyi did indeed win gold in the 3-meter springboard event, however, the satire arrives here, as they were indeed able to desynchronize their movements without issue. If The Onion claimed that Wang Zongyuan and Xie Siyi had lost the gold medal to silver-medalist American divers Michael Hixon and Andrew Capobianco, the joke would be sullied by inaccuracy. The Onion makes its satire clear, yet they utilize objective fact to validate their jokes. FOX News and CNN, in contrast, both claim journalistic objectivity but utilize manipulated facts to validate a subjective partisan agenda.
Conclusion
The repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine set the stage for the partisan machine that has become synonymous with media today. Nonetheless, the original doctrine is outdated, and modern revision is needed in order to smooth the array of misinformation that arose from its repeal. Media has not evolved to become a partisan monopoly of a singular ideology over others, but a partisan monopoly of ideology over fact. Revision of the original doctrine is required in order to protect the First Amendment rights of the press, but the social contract is built upon trust. If the people cannot trust information regarding their own government, they cannot express truly informed consent or dissent. When extreme viewpoints engender extremely misinformed viewers, we must ensure that media sources accurately attend to their roles. A Fairness Doctrine for the twenty-first century would stymie subjectivity and opinion parading as objective fact, which serves only to sow further partisan division; the sources which operate as such are tantamount to propaganda and subversive to American progress.