Fairness/Accuracy in news media

Split off from the Does the GOP want the country to default topic.

In the 80's, there was a policy in place called the Fairness Doctrine, which required newsmedia to cover both sides of an issue. So, for example, you could not have a pundit talking about how welfare is wasteful and takes away from hard working americans without another person talking about the statistics behind poverty or how much welfare costs or what it gets a person.

This topic is about the Fairness Doctrine, about how, and indeed if, we should regulate news media, and to compare it to other countries. This is not just about america, this is about all news media.

When somebody is allowed to make a bald-faced lie and claim it was not intended to be a factual statement...well, I think that's a problem.

This, I've seen the most slanderous of lies on TV, and they never get called out on it.

Usually they hide behind "Oh it was an opinion piece!" crap, despite it being advertised as news.

The Fairness Doctrine is a double edged sword because it can create controversy where there is none. For example, if the discussion were like evolution then the Fairness Doctrine would dictate that on one side you have a scientist arguing the evolution exists and on the other side you've have some theologist argue that it does not. Yet both would be treated equally as scientific when in reality it is not.

What is more important is that media merely is not deceptive and does not lie and they should be punished for doing so. That might be difficult to manage but I think it better than just some flat rule on equal face time. That works if it is face time for political interviews, it doesn't work if it's on specific issues.

The loophole is that any issue that has largely been wholly decided to be one way by all the experts in the field (like say evolution or climate change) becomes controversial when put on the media and you split time 50/50 between the two sides. So you weaken your opponent by focusing on specific issues and create false controversies.

To what extent does news media exist as an officially recognized category separate from other print/TV/internet in general? In the US and elsewhere? (I know nothing about this)

Because it seems to me that if you want to even think about regulating something, you have to clearly define it and separate it from similar things. And the US at least doesn't have either any truly national papers, or a state media organization, so the border is blurry in all cases.

We're still better than London's giggly "newspapers". Those people are the real heirs to Hearst.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:21:56 AM by johnnyfog

Also the fairness doctrine made for really boring programming. Talk shows of all kinds didn't work back then. Only after the fairness doctrine went out did talk shows become popular.

Any real ethical standards in news media would hold that news is treated in an accurate, factual, unbiased and fairly-presented manner. If a news outlet is twisting facts and, to be blunt, making up shit then it isn't a news outlet but a propaganda machine.

I think that Journalists should have to take an Oath like the Doctor's Hipocratic oath, but about presenting the facts, not editorializing, attempting to be objective, etc.

The "fairness" doctrine is bullshit. It's not like there is one source of news in existence.

@Cancer: Unfortunately, news isn't supposed to be entertaining, its supposed to be informative.

@Deux: who said that there was only one source?

It's the assumption of the fairness doctrine's existence is based on (if it wasn't a thin mask for censorship anyways).

edited 30th Jun '11 11:32:04 AM by deuxhero

@OP: Nitpick: The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949.

That said, the FCC*

Also, as I said above, FD was initiated in 1949, when there was a hell of a lot fewer choices for broadcast news than exists today, even ignoring things like the internet (particularly blogs, podcasts, and websites where for a relatively trivial investment one can air their opinions for the whole world to see, even if they only cover issues local to where they live).

In short, the unique conditions that spawned the Fairness Doctrine are no longer relevant, and acting as if they are does no one any favors.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:44:50 AM by Nohbody

Officially. Everyone knows what it is REALLY for.

It wasn't "unique" conditions. Radio wasn't a bizarre magic in the 1950s. It's censorship like everything the FCC does beyond frequency registration.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:45:03 AM by deuxhero

It's something that should be dealt with via society, and not so much by the government. That said, discussions about specific individuals should have the same risks of libel and slander that would exist for the average joe citizen, scaled up to be a real threat for mass media sources.

^^ "Unique" as in there were a lot fewer broadcasters at the time, particularly in regards to TV. That certainly isn't the case today, and that's not counting cable TV or the internet stuff I mentioned.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:46:38 AM by Nohbody

The number means nothing, if nobody listens to them, because whatever truth they have is buried under a stack of lies.

FD had nothing to do with truthfulness, just that opposing viewpoints be made available on issues.

Nothing? That's a bit excessive. I would say it at least gives a chance for the opposing side to be heard instead of drowned out. But my concerns are with accuracy, and I do not feel that it's desirable to just handwave the problems with deceitfulness by asserting that there are other options available.

It's really not that simple. A lie can still make it halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.

edited 30th Jun '11 11:55:00 AM by blueharp

@Handwaving: That seems to be what FOX news does...

So now I'm wondering, is it possible to start a class action lawsuit against fox for all of the stuff that they lied about? They've damaged the reputations of politicians, private citizens, and entire classes of people, haven't they?

They have more than enough lawyers to win any such case.

But the list of wronged people includes politicians, who have lawyers to counter.

It's not "deceitful", it's the entire freaking point of the Fairness Doctrine. Hell, look a few posts above my first one, and you can see The Other Wiki's FD page quoted.

That said, government regulation is almost invariably the worst way to ensure "fairness" (which in and of itself is interpreted in a wide range of ways), as depending on who's in power what's considered "fair" may be "they agree with me", while opposing viewpoints are considered "unfair". See Nixon's threatening one of the TV stations owned by the Washington Post with not renewing their license, due to WaPo's Watergate reporting, for just one of many examples of government not being about fairness but obstruction of the opposition.

And I was wondering how long before Fox News was mentioned...

edited 30th Jun '11 12:05:59 PM by Nohbody

>Party poppers go off over me.< ^_^;

What about restrictions on the ownership of the amount of News groups?