Unfortunately, the way we measure “fairness” in media is in
terms of “equal time” or “equal space” given to opposing viewpoints.
This leaves little or no time or space for genuinely
reflective exposition of issues and proposed approaches to resolving them. It gives rise to the meaningless “sound
bite,” and meaningless coverage of political issues as horse races (“so-and-so
is ahead at the clubhouse turn”) and "now I gotcha" coverage rather than coverage of substance.
Unfortunately, the most valuable viewpoints in dealing with
complex issues tend to be those that are themselves somewhat complex to one
degree and another. That doesn’t
make them “fussy” or “pretentious,” or necessarily impossible to understand. It does make many of them realistic
ways of looking at real problems.
Unfortunately, real analytical work that helps sort the
wheat from the chaff as a prelude to presenting a genuinely fair picture in
public affairs reporting takes time, study, experience, and intellectual vigor. With reporting staffs being constantly
cut, newsroom wages stagnated, and advertising time and space sales people
under incredible duress these days, media managers quietly embrace simplistic
approaches to fairness and call it good.
We all would be better served if the “fairness doctrine”
just faded away.