Fair-Not Doctrine

FAIR-NOT DOCTRINE

Jourdyn Hunsaker

When I was a staff writer for The Wingspan, the high school newspaper in Nixa, Missouri, there was a reason that I was the science/technology writer. I was good at informing the readers about new developments in the science and technology area in an interesting manner without presenting my own bias towards different articles. However, I cannot say the same about news or feature articles that I wrote on more controversial subjects, such as political issues. I found so much trouble in keeping my mouth shut about my own ideas on things, so it took a lot of editing and rewriting to get my articles to honor our mission statement of presenting non-bias news in our paper. Twenty years ago, newscasts were presented by a similar set of rules-rules that required a certain amount of airtime dedicated to the coverage of controversial issues that mattered to the public and all the contrasting and varying views of those issues. That is because until its revocation in 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was in act. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy introduced in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission that required news stations to follow the above rules in a "honest, equitable, balanced" way (Rendall). This sounds like an elegant way to present news, but in the late eighties, the commission was repealing parts of the policy because it violated free speech and the First Amendment. Since then, there have been many attempt to get the policy reinstated, and it is still a continuing debate today. Media bias is a reality of society, and that fact should be embraced, instead of fostering violations of First Amendment rights and putting a damper on public debate by supporting policies like the Fairness Doctrine.

Media bias is a reality of life that must be accepted. Different ways the media present these biases includes omission, selection of sources, story selection, placement, labeling and spin (Baker). For instance, one side of a controversial subject may be aired on a newscast, but the other side of that story may be omitted, or the other side of that story may be placed at a bad place during the broadcast, like the end where it will most likely be missed. There are many different reasons as to why the media are biased. It is also impossible to report everything, so selectivity in what is reported is inevitable; also, deadlines can be a factor in to what information is reported. Government propaganda is another reason there is some bias in the media. An example of this was news coverage after the September 11 attacks. The same views of what was going on was reported because the major news companies were afraid to question the government during war time (Greenwald). There is also bias due to owners and corporations who want to get their point across. Media bias is not necessarily a bad thing, though. Media biases show different sides of stories, which can help viewers identify with opposing views, and it enriches public debate. Media bias help foster discussion and debates over current events.
Many people have a problem with these biases of the media. Since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, many people who believe that broadcasters abuse the airwaves have fought to have the policy reinstated; although, each time it has been vetoed. Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine believe that it will guarantee more opinions will be aired (Rendall). People who are pro-reinstatement, in addition to having a problem with television newscasts, have a problem with talk radio because it is overwhelmingly conservative, with little to no mention of liberal views. It has also been argued that since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, issues are covered less than they were in the past. An example of this was the news coverage of the primary elections earlier this year-there was obviously a lot more coverage of the Democratic

primary race than the Republican. The biggest argument, however, is that over-the-air broadcasting is the most powerful thing that affects and influences public opinion, and all the sides to every issue must be presented so that viewers can be informed when they make up their minds on different issues. It is the newscasters' public duty to inform the public, not "inflame" them with biased opinion (Rendall).
The reality is that the Fairness Doctrine does not ensure that appropriate coverage will be presented so that viewers may be properly informed; in fact, it actually is a damper on public debate. It limits the variety, vitality and verve of public debate. The Fairness Doctrine is the federal government's way of policing the airwaves. In the past, this policy was a convenient way for politicians, interest groups and the government to silence their critics. Revoking this policy is one the more beneficial things done for society and for the fight for free speech. Most of the controversial speech that is heard over the airwaves now would not have been heard if the Fairness Doctrine had still be in act. This is strongly due to the fact that newscasters would be too worried about investigations and following the rules of the Federal Communications Commission in order to avoid an investigation (Thierer). The result would be self-censorship from the broadcasters, and there is no way that that would benefit the viewers. On top of that, freedom of expression is one of the single most important aspects of our free society, and the Fairness Doctrine strongly violates that First Amendment right. The monotony of newscasts is also a danger of the policy. Because broadcasters would have to present information in a certain way, without any opinions or ideas to go along with it, news stories from the different broadcasters would all be too similar, which not only would be dull, would also hurt the competition between the different broadcasters.



Most recently, the hottest topic of discussion regarding the Fairness Doctrine is the discussion of President-elect Obama's views on it. A lot of people, mostly conservatives, are worried that with him in office, the way for the reinstatement of the policy is paved. Others, mostly liberals, hope that reinstatement is something he will get done while in office. Although his campaign website mentions nothing about his view on the Fairness Doctrine, interviews with President-elect Obama state that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine (Walker), and he claims that instead he supports media-ownership caps, public broadcasting, and network neutrality (Eggerton). Leaders of his party, on the other hand, strongly support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. With Obama as president, and Democrats with full control of Congress, the chances of reinstatement are heightened. Even though he is against the policy, there is still a chance that First Amendment rights will be violated in the near future.
After being on the newspaper staff a little longer, I began to write editorials and opinion columns, the only place in the paper where it was acceptable for me to share my views on different current events. They accomplished what opinion articles are supposed to: they got heated discussion going in the newsroom and outside the newsroom among the readers. The truth and reality is simple: opinion has its place in the newsroom. Supporting the Fairness Doctrine does nothing but try to cover up that truth. It may seem like a good idea, because it requires "both sides" of the story to be covered, but really all it does is censor free speech. Newscasts under the current condition of no Fairness Doctrine are accomplishing what they should. They are presenting stories with opinions on those stories that get discussion and debates going. They are showing controversial stories and controversial ideas. Supporting policies that censor newscasts and violate First Amendment rights is unnecessary.