Politics without a Fairness Doctrine

In the last decade or more our country’s electorate has crossed insidiously precarious lines. The fracturing of our information sources has fueled not just the growing political divide throughout the U.S., but divisions in relations within our local communities, our neighbors and even our families. We don’t just think differently about the issues. We’re not even talking about the same issues.

We’ve always had differing opinions. But now due to the plethora of biased information sources some look upon those with different opinions as an enemy.

This was not always the case. There was a time that media sites gave balanced perspectives about the issues which tempered our differing opinions. But that changed in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was overturned by the stroke of a pen.

In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine was introduced by congress because lawmakers had become concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks to devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. This was enforced by the Federal Communications Council, the FCC, members of which are appointed by the president. The FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest”.

But then in 1985, under FCC Chairman, Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. So in 1987 the FCC, with a 4-0 vote, filed a petition seeking a new law to repeal the Fairness Doctrine.

To preempt the FCC decision, Congress then passed a bill to codify the Fairness Doctrine with the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 S. 742. But this was then vetoed by the president and Congress was unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to overturn the president’s veto. And since 1987, in the name of “freedom of speech”, there have been no limits on civil discourse or information presented as facts, so anyone can say almost anything with impunity.

During my lifetime every president has made decisions that resulted in long term negative impacts. So the purpose of this letter is not to denigrate any particular leader. It’s to show how in the name of something we cherish, in this case freedom of speech, the policies that we adopt and accept as a nation can undermine the very thing they’re meant to protect.

And now that the media can say or write almost anything without accountability, how do we know that we’re getting the truth or that we’re simply the subjects of manipulation?

If we are not learning differing points of views about issues through the information sources we choose, and if they’ve aroused our animosity and fear instead of understanding and contemplation, then we are most certainly being manipulated.

So the question is where do we go from here?

All of our freedoms, including freedom of speech, depend on preserving the very system that grants them. And our Democratic Republic depends on its members debating controversial issues with civil discourse; that means courteous, constructive communication with a show of mutual respect for each other and, most importantly listening to and considering differing ideas and opinions. Countries that don’t protect their democracies by doing so, devolve into authoritarianism.

So we need to demand balanced civil discourse from the media, our leaders and from ourselves if we expect our Democratic Republic system to work. And if not, by default we’ll be allowing continuous fracturing of our country, our local communities and even within our families. The choice is clear. It’s up to us.

Georgia Earley
Bonners Ferry