News vs. Noise
The Consequences of Repealing the Fairness Doctrine
In an age of unprecedented access to information, why does truth feel so elusive? Why do corruption, autocracy, and wealth inequality continue to rise while public discourse grows increasingly fractured? The answer lies in the collapse of media objectivity, the weaponization of rhetoric, and the rise of media that prioritizes engagement over truth.
The Erosion of Objective Media
Growing up, many of us remember a time when news was expected to adhere to principles of fairness, neutrality, and due diligence. Today, what passes for "news" is often entertainment—celebrity gossip, partisan punditry, and algorithmically amplified outrage. The pursuit of truth has been replaced by the pursuit of clicks, with dire consequences.
Between 1949 to 1987, the US Federal Communications Commission enforced the 'Fairness Doctrine', mandating that broadcasters provide balanced coverage of controversial public issues and represent different perspectives fairly.
The Doctrine was repealed in 1987, in a landmark decision by then President Ronald Reagan. This decision has led to the erosion of objectivity and professionalism in US media and paved the way for today’s polarized environment, decline in journalistic objectivity, and spread of misinformation.
Prior to its repeal, the doctrine ensured that broadcasters present controversial topics if they were in the public interest, and that the coverage of these news items include different viewpoints.
The Doctrine had two key requirements:
1. Broadcasting stations had a responsibility to report on matters of public concern, even if controversial.
2. A balanced representation needed to be presented, including both sides of the argument, even if their treatment wasn’t perfectly even-handed.
The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine has led to a media landscape dominated by partisan outlets which thrive on outrage and increasingly drown out rational discourse.
Pre-1987, broadcasters were incentivized to maintain balance; post-repeal, many shifted toward opinion-driven formats, prioritizing engagement over objectivity. The doctrine originated with the 1941 'Mayflower Decision', which initially prohibited broadcasters from including editorials in their broadcasts. This was later reversed by the FCC in 1949, which permitted editorializing but required balanced coverage of contentious topics.
The rise of 24-hour news cycles, cable networks, radio and the advent of social medai further entrenched ideological silos. Without fairness obligations, outlets and platforms could amplify conspiracy theories, hyper-partisan narratives, and unverified claims without providing opposing perspectives. The personal attack rule (a corollary of the doctrine, repealed in 2000) had previously required stations to allow rebuttals when individuals were maligned—its removal enabled smear campaigns and unchecked defamation.
Failed Attempts at Revival
Democrats, including Rep. Anna Eshoo and Sen. Tom Harkin, have pushed to reinstate the doctrine, citing media bias and misinformation. While opponents argue that government-mandated balance could infringe on free speech, and that modern media (including digital platforms) makes the doctrine obsolete.
Should the Fairness Doctrine Return?
The Fairness Doctrine could help to combat misinformation, notably by mandating balanced coverage to reduce the spread of one-sided propaganda. It could also encourage civic discourse and restore trust in so called ‘mainstream’ media by ensuring opposing views are presented . The doctrine could also help to prevent the monopolisation of narratives. Without similar regulation ensuring fairness and objectivity in news reporting, privately owned media conglomerates can dominate public opinion with unchallenged biases.
Since the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal, American media has been reshaped; partisan voices now dominate, while objective reporting has suffered. The proposed measure has been dubbed the ‘Censorship Doctrine’ by critics, and it appears likely that opponents of the measure will use this same label to further their opposition.
Although reinstating the original form may prove unfeasible given the complexities of the current media environment— encompassing social networks, podcasts, streaming services, and various other mediums—which would undoubtedly complicate both the legislation and enforcement processes, the fundamental principles of balance, accountability, and truth continue to hold critical importance.