Ten months into a year
that should have suggested perfect clarity, why is the goal for a more perfect
union more obscure? For two hundred and twenty-nine years the United
States strove to be a more perfect union. This journey was illuminated
by Amendment One of the Constitution. "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
Why
then isn’t the press, which obviously embraces the freedom granted to it by the
First Amendment, emphasizing the Amendment’s strength to protect ALL the
freedoms granted within the Constitution? Since 2003, when the Bush
Administration changed the FCC ownership rules, can anyone deny the
increased partisanship of cable news broadcasts? Can Fox News or MSNBC
really be praised for reporting news rather than seeking to create
news? While the Constitution protects the freedom of the media, it does
not guarantee its fairness. Related to the First Amendment, the Federal
Government may not place a prior restraint on the news. Broadcast media,
including radio and television, have a special legal status more subject to
regulation than print media: newspapers, magazines; because assignment of a
broadcasting frequency by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
regarded as a public trust. As noted above, until the 2003 regulation changes,
the FCC prohibited a single individual or firm to own both a leading television
and newspaper in the same city in order to insure diversity.
With the increase in
cable and satellite channels the rule was unwisely deemed to be outdated. The
result has been a single entity can now own nearly 50% of a region’s media.
Although the FCC imposes an equal-time rule, which requires stations to give equal time to
opposing candidates if free time is given to any candidate, or to offer
opposing candidates air time at an equal price in the case of paid political
commercials. However, the equal-time requirement does not apply to news, talk
shows, or documentary coverage. This is just one loophole whereby partisanship
is now allowed to freely create fear and distortion to retain power rather than
empower an informed populace.
The result of such media
oligopoly and manipulation is the promotion of prejudice and fear rather than
balance and education. The Fairness Doctrine, which once enforced
the FCC’s belief that broadcast licenses (required for both radio and
terrestrial TV stations) were a form of public trust. As such, until the
1987 repeal, licensees were required to "provide balanced and fair
coverage of controversial issues.” In the ensuing thirty-three years it should
be very apparent to the three branches of government and the American people
that the Fairness Doctrine truly did serve the public interest.
If
the first step toward promoting education is to ensure an informed populace,
then the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.
Expectations should include quasi-news and talk shows. Without FCC
regulation, the media has become a magnifier of partisanship. Thus, not
ensuring an expectation of equal access and fairness, the very freedoms granted
by the Constitution would continue to be eroded by partisan
manipulation. By contrast, balanced education through bi-partisan
presentation of information would be this great country’s best deterrent to
self-centered fear and unfounded prejudice that seeks to divide rather than unite.
To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2020). The need to restore the Fairness Doctrine. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
