Anti-Reinstating (Anagha)
The Fairness Doctrine, instated in 1949, aimed to reduce partisanship in Broadcast TV by enforcing that any time a channel spends discussing one political party’s views, it must spend the same amount of time discussing another viewpoint. Given the Doctrine’s repeal in 1987, many Americans are calling to reimplement the legislation in response to increasing political polarization. However, many Americans do not realize the potential harm that the Fairness Doctrine can cause, especially in the modern era. Due to its inapplicability to the digital age, the United States government must not reinstate the fairness doctrine, which often causes misrepresentation of social issues, and instead promote other forms of unbiased self-informing that do not limit free speech.
The primary issue with the Fairness Doctrine in modern times is that giving equal air time to two perspectives can often cause a misrepresentation of the issue at hand, defeating its purpose of promoting bipartisan discourse. By mandating equal airtime for opposing viewpoints, broadcasters are often forced to give undue weight to misconstrued perspectives or oversimplify nuanced debates. For example, in cases like climate change or human rights, where science or ethics overwhelmingly support one side, presenting “opposing views” for the same amount of time could distort public understanding. It implies a false equivalence of these ideas when in reality, the broadcasters are simply forced to present both ideas with the same amount of time and legitimacy when that is not the case. Moreover, some broadcasters will try to work around the Fairness Doctrine by simply reducing the airtime of both perspectives, thereby giving the opposing side less weight. In doing this, however, broadcasters cannot portray the full nuance of a sociopolitical issue, allowing for further misinformation and misrepresentation. The Fairness Doctrine’s obligation to balance content, even when evidence supports one side, creates an environment where truth and misinformation can be misconstrued as equally valid.
In addition to its tendency to falsely equivocate opposite sides of an argument, the Fairness Doctrine does not translate into the Digital Age. The original legislation was introduced at a time when television was the most prevalent form of digital media. Television, like it is today, is often governed by agencies that could effectively enforce the Fairness Doctrine. However, in modern-day, broadcast television viewership has declined, especially among young populations, according to CNN. For Gen Z and Millennials, social media prevails as the foremost source of news, according to the American Press Institute. For the Fairness Doctrine to have any impact on the news such young people consume, it would have to be implemented in social media. However, the doctrine would not be impacting large cable networks, but rather, individuals who take to social media as a means to express themselves and share content with others. In this case, the Fairness Doctrine becomes another way for the government to impose itself on free speech and the free use of technology. The Fairness Doctrine has become antiquated: its provisions fail to address evolving forms of digital news reporting, thus becoming both oppressive and obsolete.
Rather than reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, efforts should focus on empowering constituents to seek out diverse sources of information on their own. The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine is to reduce misinformation and promote bipartisan mediums of getting news, however, as previously established, it fails to accomplish the former, especially in the modern era. If the government really wants to reduce misinformation and promote a more nuanced lens on sociopolitical issues, its best route is to empower citizens to do so. This can be done through enforcing media literacy and bipartisan research in educational curriculums, making such programs more readily accessible through libraries or online alternatives, and encouraging the usage of different news outlets that perpetuate different viewpoints. These alternatives are much more effective and easily translatable to the digital age, straying away from the misinformation that the Fairness Doctrine can uphold.
The fairness doctrine, which often causes misinformation, is inapplicable to the digital age, calling for a different approach to reduce partisanship. While the intentions of those trying to reinstate the doctrine are noble, we must acknowledge how the Fairness Doctrine can negatively impact America in the modern age: instead of relying on the past to undo present issues, Americans must innovate. Modern problems must come with modern solutions, solutions that the Fairness Doctrine cannot provide.
Pro-Reinstating (Naomi)
A far cry from George Washington’s idea of maintaining a nation free from the divisiveness of political parties, excessive political partisanship is quickly becoming one of the biggest problems facing America today. As America’s main source of political information is from the media, attempting to de-bias news sources to prevent such extreme partisanship from increasing should be a major goal for politicians and citizens alike. The Fairness Doctrine, a policy established in 1949 requiring opposing viewpoints to be given equal amounts of time on broadcasters’ news segments, provides the perfect solution. It is for this reason that the Fairness Doctrine should be renewed, reducing media bias and thereby contributing to a less divided citizenry.
The Fairness Doctrine, a policy established in 1949 requiring opposing viewpoints to be given equal amounts of time on broadcasters’ news segments, has significant application in modern America. The issue of media bias is obvious; according to the Pew Research Center, 77% of Americans believe their media is biased and desire change. In a republic like America, citizens’ opinions may easily be swayed by the media, and have been proven to do so in the past, for example, when the yellow journalism of the late 1800s was responsible for starting the Spanish-American war. Thus, unbiased reporting is crucial for ensuring a more informed and intelligent voting population. Although jingoism is not as large of a threat now as it was during the time of the Spanish-American war, biased segments put out by media companies on both sides of the political spectrum produce a new, more dangerous issue: deep-rooted political divisions that prove to be a threat to the democratic process. Furthermore, the events of January 6th, 2021 provide a perfect example of the potential consequences of biased media. Supporters of the Republican Party, encouraged towards extremism by biased information from media outlets like FOX News, stormed the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the 2020 election results from being certified. The Fairness Doctrine, by limiting the amount of extremist and biased media available for citizens to consume, provides a viable solution to the problem of political division and can prevent events like January 6th and the Spanish-American war from taking place in the future.
A major criticism against the Fairness Doctrine is that it suppresses free speech; yet a quick look at our nation’s political history is enough to demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom, and limits may be imposed when speech presents itself as a threat. Cases such as Schenck v. United States, in which legal limitations on free speech were upheld by the Supreme Court, provide a perfect example of this. Furthermore, the Supreme Court unanimously declared the Fairness Doctrine perfectly constitutional in the 1969 case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v FCC (Federal Communications Comission). Claiming that the Doctrine “enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court effectively destroyed any argument about its unconstitutional nature.
Ignorance is antithetical to the success of a republic like America; yet when the populace is provided with only biased media, ignorance multiplies and divisions deepen. The Fairness Doctrine provides a straightforward and effective solution to this problem; by reducing media bias, it allows citizens to see the whole picture and afterwards derive their own opinions, rather than swallowing the beliefs of whatever broadcasting company they subscribe to. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is thus essential for our nation’s political health, because as Thomas Jefferson once argued, a sound democracy rests upon a well-informed citizenry.
