Return to story

Fairness versus disclosure: Should we rate the media honestly on their political slant?

February 4, 2007 12:51 am

SHOULD THE Washington Post be labeled clearly as a liberal paper? And the Wall Street Journal as conservative? Should viewers be told upfront that Fox represents a conservative slant, with the Big Three networks representing liberals?

Perhaps it's time for viewers and readers to know just what they're getting. Perhaps it's time for a caveat-oriented Disclosure Doctrine to supplant the return of the politically motivated Fairness Doctrine.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications explains the Fairness Doctrine as valid for the 1940s' frontier days of broadcast journalism. Designed to make sure that newly licensed broadcasters (of which there were few) did not use their stations simply as advocates for a singular perspective, the doctrine mandated equal time on controversial topics; it became part of Federal Communications Commission regulations.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration repealed the doctrine as unnecessary for a now well-established free-market broadcast industry. Reagan's logic seems even more valid today--with countless information sources now available in print, together with a slew of satellite, cable, and broadcast outlets, and innumerable information sources via the Internet, the public has myriad information options.

Paul M. Weyrich, the chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, agrees that subjects can be discussed without the dated logic of the Fairness Doctrine.

"Liberals have tried [and failed] to imitate what conservatives have done with radio," he wrote. Having failed using a business model, conservatives argue, liberals in Congress are now attempting to utilize government control of the media by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine--forcing radio stations to balance popular programs like Rush Limbaugh's with an equal number of hours of opposite perspectives, whether listeners want that or not. In short, mandated quantity, not quality; the opposite of a truly free market.

Conservatives counter that popular conservative talk radio provides balance already, since liberal perspectives (they say) dominate newspapers and network news.

The crux of the issue, then: anticipation that the doctrine's return would effectively shut down conservative talk radio, which Weyrich calls "our answer to The New York Times and The Washington Post."

While newspapers like the Times and the Post clearly have an overall slant, their op-ed pages are generally not the problem. They are what they are, and most papers, including this one, run columns with opposing viewpoints and feature nationally syndicated columnists from all perspectives.

The same is true of televised opinion segments, such as those of MSNBC's Keith Oberman, and his adversary at Fox News Channel, Bill O'Reilly--as well as news roundtable and panel discussions among pundits and "talking heads." They are what they are and clearly state so.

Ditto Rush Limbaugh and Alan Combs, two examples from talk radio. Limbaugh wears his conservatism on his sleeve, and Combs fully discloses his liberalism.

It's in the newscasts and newspaper accounts of political news and hard news events where things can get dicey. Many newspapers reveal leanings in subtle ways--through the page placement of stories, and the message projected by choices in headlines, for example.

Broadcasters have more tools. They use writing, sound, and visual imagery to inject their bias, be it intentional or inadvertent.

When intentional, in whatever format, it's a business gamble--viewers, listeners, and readers who discern bias either stay tuned for the comfort of a view they share, tune out in protest, or pay attention to learn "how the other side thinks."

The danger, of course, is that professionalism--aka objectivity--can collapse during important moments. When CBS News' Katie Couric zealously reported Jim Webb's election lead over Sen. George Allen, she was unbecoming of a nominally objective network news anchor. It perhaps was not surprising, since Bernie Goldberg's book "Bias"--about life at CBS News--reveals the subtle means by which CBS attempts to sway viewers to its political agenda.

And when top executives of the Big 3 Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) met with John Kerry's aides and asked what they could do to affect the 2004 election, their over-the-top use of power spoke volumes. To many viewers, conservative outlets (Fox is one) are no different.

Yet Fox's ratings (unlike CBS') are up--which means its advertising revenues are up in a free-market climate that government should not tamper with, lest it endanger freedom of speech and commerce, two pillars of American success. If failed programming like the liberal Air America radio network was to succeed, its advertising support would have assured it. But a poorly produced and ill-managed on-air presence failed to attract or hold audience, and its advertisers abandoned the sinking ship.

The lesson? If it's good, people will want it; if not, the market cringes and the public turns the dial.

What to do, then, to help news consumers? Trust our intellects--but give us an honest heads-up, too. In short: Enact the Disclosure Doctrine, as outlined below, in lieu of a national Fairness Doctrine:

Every newspaper prints a succinct statement declaring its publisher's point of view (the news side of the operation may actually require a different statement than the editorial side, as there are competing slants within some newspapers).

Every visual news broadcast sustains a symbol on the screen (similar to entertainment ratings for age-appropriateness, etc.) declaring its slant.

Every radio news feed and political program announces its slant at the top and bottom of every hour.

A congressionally appointed bipartisan commission composed of ombudsman media types from major media associations could help determine fair labels.

Campaign donations should be well-publicized. Fox's Neal Cavuto donated $2,000 to the Bush campaign. Who else gave what to whom?

Let's make it clear to everyone where the news is coming from. They can be proud of where they stand, but not deceitful about it.

After all, when 70 percent of Washington journalists surveyed said they are Democrats, is it any wonder that White House spokesman Tony Snow has to be ready to do battle every day?

We the People should always have access to the information necessary to understand that battle--but government officials should never tinker with freedoms in order to flex their muscles for political purposes.