Some contribute the rise in conservative talk shows, broadcasting, and radio to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine (FCC) is a policy, introduced in 1949 that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the FCC's view, honest, equitable, and balanced. Meanwhile, critics say the Fairness Doctrine was a restriction on free speech, but its intent was to require broadcasters to allow the airing of opposing views on all issues that affect their communities. Even when the original Fairness Doctrine was in place, the voices of marginalized groups (women, LGBTQ2+ folks, people of color, etc.) in broadcast media and radio were still largely trivialized or purposefully excluded. It begs the question of what good the original Fairness Doctrine actually did and what could exist today that would help depoliticize national media and include more voices in those conversations.

Under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasting networks would have, for example, conservatives and progressives get the mic and tell their side of the pressing issues in any community. Individuals and private corporations had licenses to broadcast and Congress mandated the FCC provide broadcasting licenses when there was a public need, which would prevent an exorbitant amount of competition. Keep in mind there is a difference between broadcast and cable news; broadcast is free while users pay a subscription to watch cable. Cable stations like CNN or Fox News, with the exception of their local operations, would not have faced restrictions from the Fairness Doctrine, while ABC, CBS, and NBC would have as broadcast stations at the time. To make sure that those given broadcast licenses served the public interest, the FCC created the Fairness Doctrine with two basic premises:

1. that every licensee devote a reasonable portion of broadcast time to the discussion and consideration of controversial issues of public importance.

2. that in doing so, [the broadcaster must be] fair – that is, [the broadcaster] must affirmatively endeavor to make . . . facilities available for the expression of contrasting viewpoints held by responsible elements with respect to the controversial issues presented.

Due to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast channels can now side one way or another on the political spectrum with many channels largely swinging to the left or the right. There is no requirement that they give airtime to all sides of an issue. This doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule, which only applies to politicians. Though the equal-time rule still exists, only temporarily suspended in 1960 for the Kennedy-Nixon debates, it is abundantly clear that the rule is largely not enforced at all.

It is responsible for reporting, responsible journalism, to give a voice to all sides of an issue, but no one would know that looking at the current state of U.S. media. Turn the channel back or forth between CNN and FOX News and it appears as if there are separate realities, not multiple sides of an issue or an array of voices. This is not new commentary, still, there has yet to be a solution proposed to adequately address the problems stemming from politicization and exclusion.

For 20 years since the fall of the Fairness Doctrine, the debate about reinstating it became a political issue rather than a substantive debate. The current state of increasingly partisan politics is a frequently discussed issue for all sides of the political spectrum, but amid such a divide solutions are like needles in haystacks. The question of whether or not to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine needs asking. However, if that happens, the doctrine needs to expand its role and ensure the most marginalized voices in the U.S. receive just representation in broadcast media on all platforms.

What is clear is that the furthering of the political divide in the U.S. drives violence. It is abundant and clear in the rise in white supremacist violence since 2016 and in the recent Black Lives Matter protests for social and racial justice, both of which are everpresent concerns in U.S. life today. Perhaps it is as simple as reinstating the Fairness Doctrine as it once was while requiring a greater scope of voices to speak on the issues in their communities. Rulings in the Supreme Court already upheld the ability of the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine on multiple occasions, even as they acknowledged the potential negative effects on free speech. Perhaps there is no way to stop the rise of partisan cable news like CNN and FOX without violating free speech. Still, considering the media’s role in the politicization of politics in the U.S., something needs to be done to address the increasingly partisan nature of reporting.