Argument Surrounding the Fairness Doctrine

1354 Words6 Pages
Whether it is through a newspaper, television, magazines or talk radio, people will always communicate through some type of medium. Now, whether or not the mediums are tainted with bias is a question of beliefs. Some people argue that journalism today is rather fair and balanced, while others would vehemently oppose that view by saying that bias is definitely prevalent in news media and other mediums today. In some instances, there lies the belief that the fairness doctrine should be reestablished in order to mend the problem of bias; however, many would strenuously fight that by arguing that such an act would destroy the freedom of the press guaranteed under the first amendment. Another argument surrounding this issue is the expectation of journalists to be as objective to each issue as possible. Contrary to this, people argue that it isn’t possible to be completely objective. Many arguments surround the issue of media bias. Today, many argue for the return and enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. The doctrine was established in 1934. It required that anyone who had a broadcasting license had to present both sides of an issue. Broadcasters, however, had the opportunity to decide how long they would cover the “other side” (“The Broadcasting Fairness Doctrine” 3). Dave Johnson, a columnist for the Huffington Post, argued back in 2009, for the revival of the fairness doctrine. In his column, he writes that the fairness doctrine would reintroduce the idea that the public owns the resources of the country, the laws, and has the power to tell corporations what to do instead of them telling the public what to do (Johnson Par. 4). Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor for the Reagan administration and current president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, wrote that the fairness doctrine is irrelevant. He wrote, “At a time when television was in its infancy,

More about Argument Surrounding the Fairness Doctrine

Open Document