The background information is:
Pro: Ever since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987 the coverage of politics on television has seriously deteriorated. Cable TV news has become nothing but an outlet for outrageous slanted opinions; serious discussion of the issues has been largely shunted to the side. For the sake of the public interest, the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated, thereby forcing TV channels to present opposing views on public policy issues. Such a change would greatly reduce political polarization and bring America together again.
Con: The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 because the expansion of the number of channels made it impossible for a single network to silence a particular point of view. People can now easily flip through multiple channels to get alternative points of view. To force each channel to present opposing points of view would involve excessive regulation of free speech in the 21st century. We cannot expect government regulation of the media to solve the problems of political polarization that we currently face.
Make a comment of the following paragraph:
I am on the con side, which means I believe the mass media should not be forced to present opposing points of view. First of all, as mentioned in the question itself, this regulation will result in an excessive regulation of free speech. It means the government should invest more energy to make sure the mass media has presented a comprehensive and many opposing points of view. It will add lots of burden for the government, and heavy government means heavy burden for the American people, while I think at this moment, the American government should focus on the other more important things, like the poverty, the wealth gap, the health care and COVID-19. Secondly, there are already so many media, including the mass media, the news agencies, the newspaper, cable TV, and today, there are many people broadcasting news and their opinions on their social media, like twitter and facebook. It means people could get plenty of opinions from various sources if they want. I think it could be justified that different media might hold different opinions, and these differences could result in healthy and positive discussions on these social problems. Through debates and discussions of various sources, people could critically think about these social problems and generate their own opinions. This could be a good thing.
Some people are blaming the mass media for the growing political polarization of the United States, while I think this opinion might be biased. Maybe the key opinion leaders, the American government, the political system, the two major parties should first reflect upon their behaviors and make some adjustments, before they blaming the further regulating the mass media. The general public should be educated to seek various opinions, to have critical thinking abilities. Or even if one network could present two opposing points of view, this person might choose to read and only believe in his previous stereotypes.
