The Fairness Doctrine, implemented in 1949, required broadcast media (radio and TV) to present issues of public importance, and in an honest, equitable and balanced way. The media generally met that regulatory requirement by relatively objective reporting of the facts, with little expression of opinion. One can express a point of view by choosing which facts to present, but the requirement of balance at least constrained that. The easiest way to avoid the regulators was to stick to facts and hew to a centrist presentation of the news that would not produce irate letters to the FCC from either left or right. This imposed a certain political conformity, which is obnoxious, but institutions like Fox News and right-wing talk radio were not practical. All of that changed when Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
In those earlier days there were other forces that exerted a moderating political influence. There were only 3 TV networks, which were, by practical business necessity, non-partisan, which meant that they were blandly centrist in their political reporting, but they also made an effort to be objective and balanced in their coverage.
Newspaper journalism was also different. Until fairly recently news stories were expected to be, by generally accepted standards of journalistic ethics, objective and balanced. This spoke to the credibility of a newspaper, because a lack of balance in a news story would reflect badly on the whole paper. Recently, reporters have gotten bylines and news stories have come to be seen as personal expressions. Levels of objectivity and balance have declined markedly. In many news stories the opinion of the reporter is clear, and even vehement, to a degree that was once unacceptable outside the editorial page.
Now, many people get all of their "news" from completely non-objective sources. From Fox and right-wing talk radio they can hear almost nothing but lies and favorable commentary on the lies. If that is not enough they can have the bizarre political philosophies presented on those media, and their own irrational fears and baseless prejudices, reinforced on the internet. Ignorant or troubled minds may never be exposed to the grounding influence of simple facts, and dishonest politicians can safely lie, because prominent, slick political operators in the broadcast, print and internet media will swear that every lie is the truth.
Democracies need more than lots of stridently expressed conflicting opinions. They don’t function well without institutions that reliably and regularly provide people with objective facts, including the ones they don’t want to hear, and that effectively refute falsehoods. In the absence of such institutions we have politics governed by the self-serving lies of politicians and interest groups and by individuals’ dangerously uninformed, simplistic illusions, validated by many sources. We will have extremism and violence driven by political visions that are simply delusional.
I don’t know the answer to this problem. The cacophony of information sources now available is a joy, but the greater range and diversity also delivers demagoguery and feeds political ignorance and even psychopathology in ways that Walter Cronkite and the old daily newspaper never did. I hate the idea of censorship, but all responsible people exercise some self censorship, and institutions should as well. We need to concede that in a democracy freedom means more than just getting away with as much as you can. Our system of government is more fragile than we realize. For the common good, newspapers should again aspire to balanced reporting that will inform more than inflame, with a real commitment to objectivity. Perhaps self control is not enough for the entertainment circus of the broadcast media. When even a precious and valuable freedom comes to be abused so egregiously that its expression becomes a danger to society it can become necessary to restrict that freedom. We should never restrict it more than absolutely necessary, but in that spirit perhaps we should reluctantly return to the Fairness Doctrine to curb the excesses of people who abuse the public airwaves by refusing to submit to the simple discipline of the truth. It would be a sad day if we have to do that, but there may be much sadder days ahead for our nation if we do not.