When fairness is no longer a doctrine, it must be a practice

In the annals of American broadcast journalism, the Fairness Doctrine stands as a testament to a time when balanced reporting was more than a noble pursuit; it was a mandated practice.

The policy, established by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, obligated broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on contentious public issues.

This era of regulated balance came to an end in 1987 when President Ronald Reagan's FCC decided that the increasing diversity of media outlets meant the doctrine was no longer required. This pivotal shift laid the groundwork for significant transformations in the media landscape.

Polarization in media and its impact on democracy

In the post-Fairness Doctrine era, we have witnessed an unprecedented polarization of American media. Freed from the obligation to present differing perspectives, many media outlets have defaulted to presenting narratives through a singular ideological lens.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine isn't the sole cause of media polarization, of course. The advent of social media and the algorithm-driven delivery of news, coupled with business incentives that prioritize engagement over balance, have exacerbated the divide. The outrage economy is a self-perpetuating system.

These shifts have profoundly affected our democratic society. Public discourse, once anchored in a commonly accepted set of facts, has fractured into micro-environments, subsets and cohorts, each espousing its unique version of reality. This accelerates the erosion of civil dialogue, undermining a critical component of our democracy. In this polarized media landscape, trust in the so-called fourth estate has plummeted to an all-time low.

Social media platforms, with their indiscriminate blending of content from trusted news outlets and dubious blogs, have furthered this erosion.

The shift towards subscription-based business models is a double-edged sword. While it has provided a lifeline to many media organizations in the face of shrinking advertising revenues, it has also inadvertently deepened the echo chambers. By prioritizing content that affirms their subscribers' worldviews, media outlets perpetuate these bubbles. And with quality journalism often locked behind paywalls, the information divide grows wider, further threatening the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry.

The path forward: embracing fairness as a practice

In the face of these challenges, it's crucial to remember that the principles of the Fairness Doctrine, though no longer legally enforced, needn't be abandoned. Instead, we should strive to voluntarily integrate these principles into our journalistic practices. By emphasizing fairness, balance and a representation of diverse viewpoints in our reporting, we can begin to counteract the rampant polarization that currently plagues our media and, by extension, our public discourse.

Navigating today's media landscape is challenging. It's shaped by a web of social, technological and economic factors that defy easy solutions. Meanwhile, the erosion of civil dialogue, the declining trust in media, and the fragmentation of our public discourse pose serious threats to our democracy.

We need to raise our journalistic standards. Both-sides-ism isn't fairness — it's a failure of critical thinking or intellectual honesty. Let's not be naive: There are people and interests who deliberately skew our public discourse through misdirection, false equivalence and outright lies. We must counter those pernicious efforts by demanding a commitment to good-faith debate, which will pay dividends in rebuilding the trust that across the spectrum of ideas.

Adopting a voluntary commitment to the principles embodied in the Fairness Doctrine represents a step in the right direction. It signals our dedication to upholding the ethical tenets of journalism, our respect for diverse viewpoints and our unwavering commitment to nourishing an informed and balanced public discourse.

When fairness is no longer a doctrine, it must become a practice. Our democracy, in its present state, urgently requires this shift. For the media industry, it's not just a question of ethical responsibility but an existential imperative. The very health of our democratic society might depend on it.

Originally published on Poynter.org