The Myth of Balanced Journalism: Why Cable News Isn’t Required to Show Both Sides

In an era where media credibility is under constant scrutiny, many Americans assume that news networks have a legal obligation to provide balanced reporting. This assumption, however, is incorrect—especially when it comes to cable news. Unlike traditional broadcast networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS, which operate under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, cable networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are not bound by the same fairness doctrines. This allows them to present one-sided interviews, exclude opposing views, and curate narratives that align with their editorial preferences without legal repercussions.

The Abolition of the Fairness Doctrine

A major reason cable news can operate this way is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that the FCC originally introduced in 1949. The doctrine required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner, offering airtime to opposing views. However, in 1987, under President Ronald Reagan’s administration, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, citing concerns over its impact on free speech. The decision was reinforced by the courts, which ruled that forcing networks to present both sides of an issue could amount to government overreach and censorship.

Importantly, the Fairness Doctrine only ever applied to publicly licensed broadcasters who used public airwaves—such as AM/FM radio and over-the-air television networks. Since cable networks operate through private contracts with consumers via cable and satellite providers, they have never been subject to the same FCC mandates.

Cable News and the Absence of Neutrality Requirements

Because cable news is not legally obligated to provide balanced reporting, networks like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News have the editorial freedom to selectively present information. They can:

• Conduct one-sided interviews without giving a platform to dissenting voices.

• Frame news stories with editorial bias, shaping public perception through omission and emphasis.

• Utilize pundit-driven narratives, where commentary is presented as factual analysis.

This has become increasingly evident in how CNN operates. Over the past decade, CNN has been criticized for its editorial slant, particularly in political coverage. Unlike traditional newspapers that may openly label themselves as opinion-based outlets, CNN continues to market itself as an objective news source while frequently engaging in selective reporting.

How CNN Violates the “Balance” Expectation (But Not the Law)

While CNN is not violating any legal mandates by airing biased coverage, it does challenge the public’s expectation of journalistic fairness. Here’s how CNN, like other cable networks, shapes narratives without counterbalancing perspectives:

1. One-Sided Interviews

   • CNN has been known to feature guests who support a particular viewpoint while excluding credible voices from opposing perspectives. For example, during key political events, the network often interviews analysts or politicians from one party without providing equal representation to the other side.

2. Selective Fact-Checking

   • CNN's fact-checking segments often scrutinize statements made by certain political figures while ignoring similar misstatements from others. This creates an impression that only one side is misleading the public, even when both sides engage in spin.

3. Agenda-Driven Panels

   • The network frequently convenes discussion panels where the majority of guests share the same political stance. This creates an echo chamber rather than a genuine debate, reinforcing a predetermined viewpoint.

4. Narrative-Driven Headlines and Story Selection

   • Coverage decisions, such as prioritizing certain stories while downplaying others, contribute to biased narratives. CNN, like its competitors, decides what is “newsworthy” based on its audience and ideological leanings.

Why This Matters

The freedom of cable news networks to shape narratives without presenting opposing views has significant consequences. Without a requirement to balance perspectives, networks can reinforce ideological divides, manipulate public perception, and contribute to political polarization. While consumers may assume that major news organizations have a duty to report in a fair and balanced manner, the reality is that no such obligation exists for cable networks.

Ultimately, viewers must recognize that cable news functions as an editorial product rather than a purely journalistic enterprise. Those seeking truly balanced reporting must diversify their media consumption, critically evaluate sources, and acknowledge that networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC cater to specific audiences rather than universal objectivity.

Conclusion

Before concluding this observation, we must recognize that so-called "reporters" like Erin Burnett often evade their ethical responsibility in how they approach what some might call an overpaid zealot lobbying on a corrupt platform that is CNN. Cable news networks, including CNN, are not required by law to present both sides of a story. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the private nature of cable broadcasting have allowed networks to engage in selective reporting without violating any regulations. While this approach may align with business models and audience preferences, it also underscores the necessity for media literacy. Consumers must be proactive in distinguishing between fact-based journalism and editorialized narratives, recognizing that fairness in cable news is a matter of choice—not obligation.

If I were to be quoted? I would say... "...we must acknowledge the ethical dilemmas posed by modern cable news reporting. Journalists, including Erin Burnett, operate within a media landscape where selective reporting is not just common but often incentivized. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the private nature of cable broadcasting have removed any legal obligation for networks like CNN to present balanced viewpoints. While this business model caters to segmented audiences, it also underscores the necessity for media literacy. Consumers must actively distinguish between objective journalism and editorialized narratives, recognizing that fairness in cable news is a matter of strategic choice rather than regulatory obligation. And for a lack of better statement, know that the cable news is not making the right choice."