Why Has This Country Gone Bonkers? Part 2: Dropping the Fairness Doctrine

We are more divided than ever because we have the outlets to stay divided. Cable TV has provided that.

It's no longer new. Both MSNBC and Fox were created in 1996, and have been at loggerheads ever since. It has created a new kind of journalism, one not that great for the country.

They were given permission in 1987, again at the behest of the Reagan Administration, which, I keep
emphasizing, ruined the country. The Fairness Doctrine, guidelines from the Federal Communications Commission which demanded that both sides of an issue be represented when it's presented, was declared null and void. News delivery would now be a matter of market share.

It brought on the present situation, especially Fox News, the leader in national disingenuousness. It's daytime news division, actually, isn't that twisted: it does, for the most part, report the news directly and without much bias. But it's in its news choice that it differs significantly from its counterparts. And, of course, with its nightly commentators, who are about as detached from the truth as people can be, just to give its viewers something they can rant about.

"We report. You decide" is its motto, which shifts the focus upon the viewer, not the deliverer of news. Whatever Fox reports, therefore, is the truth, and its up to you to do something about it. This populist approach strikes well in the hearts of those who don't question, just accept what's being handed to them.

It's perfect for the lazy thinkers, those quick to draw conclusions and not consider possibilities. It's perfect, too for the 45 supporters who he has targeted and has in his pocket. That's why his support has never gone higher than 50 percent, nor much lower than 40; that's the kind of country we now have.

It was not always so. There were three major networks once: ABC, CBS, and NBC. They all pretty much reported the news the same: the viewership switched to whomever appeared more attractive, trustworthy, or reliable, but the differences between, for instance, Howard K. Smith, Walter Cronkite, and Huntley and Brinkley weren't all that sharply drawn. The lead stories were often the same and the formats were usually very similar as they are today: 22 minutes of reporting, mostly in the field, with the anchor reaching out to those giving the details, with the last three or four minutes devoted to "soft" news, something cultural or quirky to lessen the blow of what the viewer's seen in the bulk of the broadcast. In those terms, the network news isn't much departed from what it was 50 years ago. Deeper analysis usually came from the MacNeil-Lehrer report on public television, which tried hard to be even-handed.

Both cable and network news suffered from sexism to varying degrees. A whole movie, Bombshell, has been made about Roger Ailes' harassment of beautiful blondes working for him. MSNBC has not been afflicted with this problem, to the best of our knowledge, though Matt Lauer had issues when he was at the flagship station.

But can we trust what's being delivered? The half-hour network shows are trustworthy to the extent that they can develop stories; in this age of expanding, 24-7 news cycles, though, they always come up a bit short. 30 years ago, you could be fairly well satisfied that you knew something at the end of the broadcast; now, you're not sure if you really know anything--or, because of the thoroughness of the coverage, whether you want to know anything else about it.

But that can't be laid at the feet of network news anymore. The country has leaned on cable news hard, and has bifurcated because of it. The political spectrum used to look like the python that had swallowed the deer; now it's well flattened and getting fat at both ends. The center isn't nearly as powerful as it used to be because we can't find it anymore.

That's largely because of the internet and the noise that emanates from it. It's time to consider at least a partial public ownership of that entity, to ensure that factual rigor and integrity are given the greatest priority. The sheer volume of nonsense messes with our heads.

Now, you can watch cable news deliver basically the same information in different forms for an hour at at time, starting at 5 a.m. Morning Joe to The Eleventh Hour, you get pretty much the same thing again and again. It's quite the same at Fox starting just before the dinner hour. You can settle in for a whole evening of outrage.

Make no mistake: I prefer MSNBC. They really do stick to the facts. They really do explain how the right-wing news media, Fox among them but not exclusively, tend to obfuscate and exaggerate for effect. I see Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, to give two examples, do the latter, but I don't hear them intentionally mislead. You can count on the same rotating group of talking heads as guests, though, if you tune in to any expanse of three days' worth of reporting. That tends to give it a sameness that's fun to absorb in the short run, but less than satisfying in the long run.

With the Fairness Doctrine, that might not have happened. But its absence is well established now. CNN used to be something of a balancing act between poles, but its well-established feud with 45 has given it a liberal reputation that it didn't formerly deserve. To its credit, it hasn't backed off reporting the news as it sees fit. It still has its integrity, as do the New York Times and Washington Post.

45 lost his temper with Fox again the other day, which indicates that news coverage can only hide so much bias before it has to admit that he's making things up or he's hiding things--which, of course, we know he is and does. That he's getting attention he doesn't deserve is a problem that networks have tried to deal with, most recently the incessantly boring, deflecting and obfuscating press conferences that are said to clarify the government's position on the virus, but are actually designed merely to give 45 a podium where he would normally have none.

More later on this, but the best attention paid to him is none. He only creates damage. He isn't helping anything, not even himself. So I suppose it does serve a purpose, but none that assists the public good. Fact-checking, now inevitable, (try P olitiFact, for instance) serves the purpose that the Fairness Doctrine once did. When you deal with more than 18,000 lies, something must create a new balance.

For what we have here is a forum only to shout at each other. Nothing gets accomplished in that mode, as we all know personally, whether with friends or relatives. It's yet another example of the 'free market' being less than sacred--in fact, being harmful. If the Democrats get back in control--granted, not anywhere near a sure thing--they would do well to return to something like the Fairness Doctrine, to calm people down if nothing else.

This problem will remain, too, after 45 departs--hopefully, this coming January. But when he leaves, he leaves us ruptured and horribly divided. The responsibility is only partly his. He merely exploited the real problem--that structurally, we can do little else but turn toward each other in conflict, not in unity.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark