[DeltAlum]

JAM,

Until the advent of FoxNews, there is no way that any major national electronic news organization would have done that.

The reason began with the now replaced Communications Act of 1934 which legislated equal opportunity and "fairness" from broadcast journalists. The TV networks and stations were bound by that law, because otherwise they could lose their license. Given that the Federal Communications Commssion is generally controlled by the party in power, nobody was willing to take that chance.

The so called, "Fairness Doctrine" which, although much misunderstood, dictated equal time or equal opportunity in stories and editorials was dropped in an update of those rules in the late 1990's, but the basic tenants of fairness in coverage remain.

In the beginning, the cable news networks followed suit because they had US broadcast companies as their founders. The fact, though, is that the FCC has little or no control over cable -- because the don't broadcast over the "Public Airwaves." (Sorry, I know I've been through this before.)

Fox broke the mold because it's owner (in the beginning) was not an American Citizen. In fact, he had to become one in order to buy US broadcasting facilities before he could have on air stations. I'm talking, of course, about Rupert Murdoch, owner of The News Corporation. I contend that if you look at his local on-air stations, you will find a much more balanced editorial philisophy -- at least at those who do newscasts, which many don't.

(This whole thing becomes blurred since the majority of people receive all of their video sources from cable and don't know what is an on-air and what is a cable programming source.)

I used to chuckle when I heard about the "Liberal" (or conservative) Media. Every station I've ever worked for kept phone logs, and are required to keep written (letters and now e-mails) comments from viewers for their FCC Public File which is a part of their license renewal committment.

In EVERY controversial story I can remember, the comments in favor of one side or another were within a couple of percentage points of being dead even. This is/was particularly true of political stories, because the oversight was so strict.

That indicates to me a pretty fair and impartial system. The thing is, of course, that depending on your leaning, a balanced story leans one way or another in your mind, depending on whether you agree or disagree. You hear or read into reportage what you want to hear. If I am absolutely down the center, politically, and you are somewhere on the right -- I'm still left of you. And vice versa.

At least historically, I really do believe that broadcasters were pretty fair because they were the only journalists upon which the government could influence some amount of control.

Print journalists aren't licensed.

No matter how any Executive Producer or line producer aligns politically, there was (is still in the case of on-air media) a higher authority who must guard the station license -- because without one, the station cannot remain a viable business.

If George S. (not going to try to spell his name), who works for ABC, was able to quash a story or duly influence it one way or another, it was most likely because the story (or book) was wrong.

Newspapers and other print media have/had no such control and historically have been tagged as leaning heavily to the right or left -- even to the point of the "Yellow Journalism" of the past.

All of the above is the reason that I dislike the cable networks so much. Their strict standards of professionalism and fairness aren't the same as the ones of the journalists of the past who were the "most trusted," (ala Walter Cronkite) people in America.

Unhappily, that has changed pretty dramatically in the past several years.

(part of that is because of political parties propaganda efforts, but I'm not even going to get into that.)