The Fairness Doctrine

           My verse of political exchange as a Christian: Titus 3:2, “Remind them…to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone.”  How might we manage that?  Perhaps by the “Fairness Doctrine”.

So here is something interesting, at least to me.  We used to have efforts to keep the news correct and balanced in this country.  According to a USA Today “Fact Check” report, from Nov. 28, 2020,

“The Federal Communications Commission has long been charged with issuing broadcast licenses to radio and television stations that operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," per its website.

In 1949, the FCC issued a report that established the duty of broadcast licensees to cover controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. That obligation was termed the Fairness Doctrine.”

What is the “Fairness Doctrine”?  As described in the article, it goes something like this:

“Its basic requirements were that broadcasters "devote a reasonable portion of broadcast time to the discussion and consideration of controversial issues of public importance" and "affirmatively endeavor to make ... facilities available for the expression of contrasting viewpoints held by responsible elements with respect to the controversial issues," per a report by the Congressional Research Service.

"In practice, it required broadcasters to identify issues of public importance, decide to cover those issues, and then to afford the best representatives of the opposing views on the issue the opportunity to present their case to the community," the report explains.”

But that is not where we are now.  I went looking at the FCC website to see what they said ‘officially’.  Did not find the Fairness Doctrine per se, but here are the limits of broadcast journalism when it comes to ‘the truth’:

News Distortion.  The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover.  For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.  However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news.  The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”  The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news.  Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news.  However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.  (copied and pasted 1/25/22)

It seems that the Fairness Doctrine was taken down as basis of FCC work in 2011 and more particular applications of how the process can be abused, as with hoaxes or this, news distortion, took its place.

I got interested in this after reading a report that President Ronald Reagan did away with ‘the Fairness Doctrine’, the immediate result of which was the rise of partisan news outlets, in particular, Fox News.  But that is not the case.  The FCC has jurisdiction over licensees on the public airwaves.  Fox News and CNN and most present news comes on cable, unregulated.  Kind of like the newspapers in this country in the 19^th century. 

If you want to know more in that regard, my source is “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln”, where Doris Kearns Goodwin traces the politics leading up to the election of President Lincoln.  A significant portion of that is how each side had its newspapers to get its partisan message out to the electorate-sounds a lot like online news and cable news today.

So, to return to the USA Today Article,

“The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses.

The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that broadcast is "distinct from cable, satellite, and the Internet, which are all services for which consumers must pay.

"It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers," it continues.”

My knee jerk reaction is to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine.  But who then would get to interpret what that means?  According to the article, the Democratic Congress attempted to codify this into federal law in 1987, but it was vetoed by President Reagan.  That may be a good thing, especially in this political climate.

          If I read this right, whichever side held the White House holds the strings to the FCC regulatory base because the FCC is in the Executive Branch.  And whichever side held the Congress could attempt to legislate how the Fairness Doctrine applies.  Or, far more easily, either party could simply ignore the Doctrine for their own benefit had they the political clout to do so.

          Without the Fairness Doctrine, the limits of ‘news reporting’ seems to run to the edges of what is acceptable under the First Amendment.  In a country where spending money has been deemed ‘free speech’, that is a little intimidating. 

          This is all patriotic me.  This is me worrying after the future of our democracy in the United States.  What about the Christian me?

          Are their ‘biblical boundaries’ to the First Amendment?  Boundaries that we, as Christians, would voluntarily hold ourselves to as people of faith?  Do the tenets of the “Fairness Doctrine” provide Christians as a way to bring together the First Amendment and Titus 3:2 (the Biblical basis for my argument on what political speech should look like)?

          Can I go any further without putting people completely to sleep?  More to come. 

Peter Hofstra