Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

I want to propose a crazy idea that people will likely laugh at and that will never gain traction: resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine.

The 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine marked a significant turning point in American media, and its consequences have become increasingly apparent. Before its abolition, broadcasters were required to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, ensuring that audiences received a balanced range of perspectives. Keyword: Fairness. Today, that balance has vanished, replaced by hyper-partisan news outlets that cater to ideological bubbles. The result is a fractured society where misinformation spreads unchecked and debate feels more like warfare than discussion.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is an idea many will dismiss outright—too restrictive, outdated, impossible to implement in the digital age. However, these objections overlook a crucial point: the modern media landscape is a free-for-all, driven not by journalistic integrity but by algorithms designed to amplify outrage and deepen division. Social media platforms often prioritize sensationalism over accuracy, while cable networks tend to thrive on partisan commentary rather than balanced reporting. If we care about restoring informed discussion, some level of media accountability must be reinstated.

That doesn’t mean reinstating the Fairness Doctrine exactly as it was. The old model functioned when radio and television were the primary sources of news. Today, enforcement must expand beyond broadcast to encompass online journalism, podcasts, streaming services, and social media. Instead of mandating equal airtime, a revised Fairness Doctrine could emphasize transparency, requiring media outlets to disclose biases, funding sources, and algorithmic influences on content. Fact-checking incentives could motivate news organizations to verify claims before publication, and tech companies could be required to regulate how their algorithms amplify misinformation while ensuring a diverse range of perspectives is presented.

Critics will likely argue that such a policy infringes on free speech. But is unrestricted media truly "free" if clicks rather than facts drive it? A modern Fairness Doctrine wouldn't dictate content—it would hold platforms accountable for how information is presented, ensuring that audiences aren't trapped in one-sided echo chambers. Without some form of intervention, the public will continue to be inundated with half-truths, conspiracy theories, and outrage-driven narratives, with no obligation on networks to provide contrasting perspectives or factual corrections.

The solution won’t be easy. Government regulation always carries risks, and media organizations will fight against external oversight. However, the alternative is allowing unchecked polarization and misinformation to further erode democracy. Isn’t that much worse? The conversation about media fairness and transparency is essential. If the principles of the Fairness Doctrine can be adapted for the modern age, they could help restore public trust in journalism.

Did the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine lead to the media free-for-all we have today, or did it simply shine a spotlight on it? In an article by the Poynter Institute of Media Studies, Dennis Patrick, the former chairman of the FCC at the time of the repeal, reflected on that action, saying, “It’s not the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine that created the division. It just allowed us to see how divided we are.” 

Fairness! What a concept. If we care about a well-informed public, then ignoring this idea may be the real mistake. However, reviving the Fairness Doctrine is a notion that many of you are likely laughing at right now.

(Tim Herrera is the author of “Public Speaking: Simple Steps to Improve Your Skills,” which you can find on Amazon.)