How Ronald Reagan Killed the News: The Death of the Fairness Doctrine

By Sir Geo (March 15, 2025)

In 1987, a single stroke of policy changed the landscape of American media forever. The Reagan administration’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—a 38-year-old Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy—set in motion a tidal wave of ideological media, talk radio extremism, and the rise of opinion-driven cable news that continues to polarize American discourse today.

The Fairness Doctrine wasn’t a radical idea. It simply required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. If a station aired a viewpoint, it needed to offer space for opposing views. The goal? To ensure that the public, which owned the airwaves, had access to a diversity of perspectives.

But Ronald Reagan, the former actor-turned-president with a deep belief in free markets and deregulation, saw the Fairness Doctrine not as a safeguard of democracy—but as an obstacle to free enterprise. In his effort to “get government off the backs of the people,” he took a sledgehammer to the guardrails of responsible broadcasting.

⸻

The Doctrine That Kept the News Honest

Created in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was a response to the power of broadcast media, which was limited to a few stations due to spectrum scarcity. Because these stations were licensed to operate on behalf of the public, the FCC enforced certain public service obligations. Chief among them: fairness.

Under the doctrine, if a station aired a segment on a controversial issue, it had to make reasonable efforts to present contrasting viewpoints. The idea wasn’t to censor—it was to ensure a functioning democracy by keeping the public informed with a broad range of perspectives.

The policy helped create a media culture in which figures like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow could thrive—anchors who were trusted not because they pandered to partisan audiences, but because they adhered to journalistic standards reinforced by regulation.

⸻

Reagan’s Deregulatory Blitz

When Reagan took office in 1981, he brought with him a deregulatory agenda that transformed nearly every sector of American life, from banking to environmental protections—and the media was no exception.

Under his appointed FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, a former Reagan campaign aide, the agency adopted a radically free-market view of broadcasting. Fowler famously declared, “The public interest is what interests the public.” That philosophical shift dismissed the need for balance or civic duty, treating television and radio not as public utilities, but as consumer products.

By 1985, the FCC issued a report recommending the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that it violated the First Amendment and was no longer necessary due to the increasing number of media outlets.

That argument may have sounded plausible in an era of cable expansion—but it ignored a fundamental reality: while the number of stations had grown, most were owned by the same conglomerates, and local news diversity was shrinking, not expanding.

In 1987, despite bipartisan support in Congress to codify the Fairness Doctrine into law, Reagan vetoed the legislation. Just months later, the FCC formally repealed it.

⸻

The Aftermath: Rush, Rupert, and the Rise of Rage

Almost immediately, the media landscape began to shift.

Talk radio exploded, led by figures like Rush Limbaugh, who built a career—and a media empire—on unfiltered conservative commentary. Free from the burden of presenting opposing views, Limbaugh could preach to his choir without interruption. His success proved that outrage and partisanship were not just lucrative—they were addictive.

By the 1990s, the model had metastasized. Rupert Murdoch launched Fox News in 1996, capitalizing on the same formula: slanted commentary, tribal storytelling, and relentless messaging. Without the Fairness Doctrine, there was no obligation to be “fair and balanced” in practice—just in branding.

The result was a media ecosystem where polarization became a business strategy, and truth became a matter of opinion.

⸻

The Legacy: A Divided Information Landscape

Today, the remnants of Reagan’s media revolution are impossible to ignore. Misinformation runs rampant. News audiences are balkanized into partisan silos. Trust in journalism has cratered.

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine wasn’t the only reason—but it was the fuse. By removing the obligation for balance, the Reagan administration shifted media from a public service model to an entertainment model. And once that shift occurred, it was nearly impossible to reverse.

The consequences are still unfolding. In an era of social media algorithms, viral disinformation, and hyper-partisan “news” outlets, the idea that broadcasters should present multiple perspectives on an issue sounds almost quaint.

But it wasn’t quaint. It was necessary. And we lost it.

Because one man—and one administration—believed deregulation was more important than democracy.

⸻

Timeline: The Fall of the Fairness Doctrine

Year Event

1949 The FCC establishes the Fairness Doctrine, requiring broadcasters to present controversial issues fairly and provide opposing viewpoints.

1969 In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, emphasizing the scarcity of broadcast spectrum.

1981 Ronald Reagan takes office; appoints Mark Fowler as FCC Chairman with a mandate to deregulate media.

1985 The FCC issues a report recommending repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, calling it unnecessary and unconstitutional.

1987 (June) Congress passes a bill to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law. Reagan vetoes it.

1987 (August) The FCC officially repeals the Fairness Doctrine.

1988 Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show begins, marking the rise of unopposed conservative talk radio.

1996 Fox News launches, pioneering 24-hour partisan news coverage and cable opinion as prime-time entertainment.

Today Polarization dominates the media ecosystem, with no regulation requiring fairness, balance, or public accountability.