Our country needs a new version of the Fairness Doctrine

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
James Coltella is a freelance writer and strategic communications professional. He recently graduated from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government with a master’s in public administration.
We live in a world of partisan media, in an ecosystem in which facts can go unchecked and opinion forms the reality for many audiences. But it didn’t used to be this way.
In the 1940s, concern over the dominance of the then-three major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, led Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to establish the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that ensured that broadcasters would give airtime to contrasting opinions. It was in place until the late 1980s.
Despite Congress’ attempts to codify it into law, the FCC under President Ronald Reagan’s administration repealed it, allowing for an environment in which biases can run rampant and public trust in journalism is at an all-time low.
The news media play an important role in our society, including by helping citizens understand their society. Political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler go further, suggesting in their new book “Partisan Nation” that society has come to rely on the media as “arguably the dominant pathway through which citizens make sense of the political world.”
Given this dominance, there is an argument to be made not only for responsible journalism but also some new version of the Fairness Doctrine — one that doesn’t just give voice to different opinions but also ensures that they are rigorously fact-checked. The media have an opportunity to play a role in quelling polarization and helping lead people back to a moderate understanding of their country and the world in which they live.
Critics argue that attempts to regulate what broadcasters say runs counter to the First Amendment. Given the array of news outlets, they argue that there are ample opportunities to hear different perspectives — it is not the place of authorities to dictate what is fair access and which opinions can be presented.
The fact is that not all people live in areas with reliable internet or cable connections. Last year, Forbes, citing a study by technology company BroadbandNow, reported that 42 million Americans have no access to broadband. And even if they have reliable access to sources of information, do we expect too much from people who are struggling with the realities of day-to-day life? Do they have the wherewithal to fact-check politicians’ claims? Audiences should be able to trust their media to provide them with balanced coverage that is free from lies.
This has become all the more important as people become unable to separate truth from partisan fiction spewed by political leaders. When former President Donald Trump called into question the professionalism and impartiality of BBC reporter Jon Sopel, who is subject to the British version of the Fairness Doctrine, he reinforced the idea that we should distrust journalists — particularly those asking the tough questions.
Our journalists must remain free to subject politicians to debates and interviews we as voters need. We require our media to challenge both sides. If people are led to distrust sources that challenge their beliefs, that “is a recipe for misinformation and susceptibility to disinformation,” Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts argue in their book “Network Propaganda.”
Challenging our preconceptions isn’t just about helping us admit when we are wrong but also confirming when we might be right. If we fail to listen to different sides of the argument and sources of information, it doesn’t matter how plentiful those sources might be.
While some believe that the former president was facing three opponents during ABC’s presidential debate, checking wild and baseless claims must be the duty of journalists standing up for principled reporting. When one side appears more extreme in their views, objectivity will of course seem imbalanced, but we can little afford audiences succumbing to ludicrous propaganda, such as about Haitian immigrants eating pets. We must push against confirmation bias and remain tethered to reality so that important policy differences can be questioned and decisions reached about charting the best course forward.
Unfortunately, we live in a time in which people are prone to believing stories not based in fact but rooted in emotion, anchored in a toxic environment of polarizing partisanship. To counter this, we need journalists to be empowered to ask hard questions and challenge perspectives, but most importantly, to be believed.
While we should of course protect free speech, there are media entities that appear to require a new set of rules or journalistic code to ensure that they do not fail in their fact-checking and truth telling. Public trust relies on ethical journalism, and in these high-stakes times, we need guidance so our societal tensions don’t boil over and we don’t lose the ability to see the truth and make sense of the world.