'''Balance''' or impartiality, is sometimes used in reference to political content in the [[mass media]].<ref>[http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/caving-in-to-ideological-critics/2006/10/17/1160850927180.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 Caving in to ideological critics - The Age Oct 2006]</ref> This usage began in [[UK|Britain]] in the early part of the 20th century when the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] was unpopular and receiving little coverage through the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]]. In order to provide an intellectual rationalization for an increased level of Conservative content, [[John Reith, 1st Baron Reith|Lord John Reith]], the BBC's founding General Manager and later Chairman, promoted a concept called "balance".<ref>John Pilger [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4611 "The BBC And Iraq; Myth And Reality",] ''New Statesman'', 4 December 2003</ref>

In practice, "balance" means ensuring that statements by those challenging the establishment are balanced with statements of those whom they are criticizing, though not necessarily the other way around.<ref>http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media</ref>

In the United States, there have been rising problems with the concept of media balance in terms of reporting political, environmental, and economical issues. Social psychologist [[Mahzarin Banaji]] has shown in several studies that all people develop unconscious stereotypes. Both a person’s experiences and the culture surrounding them affect and shape these beliefs. Journalists’ perspectives are also shaped by these unconscious biases, helping them create biases for viewers and readers.<ref name="Elliot, Deni">{{cite journal|last=Elliot|first=Deni|title=Balance and Context: Maintaining Media Ethics|journal=Phi kappa Phi Forum|year=2003|volume=83|issue=2|pages=216}}</ref>

Media influences how voters think about issues and what they think about the candidates behind those issues. Because the media are the primary sources of information, the public only gives great consideration to the issues spotlighted by the media.<ref name=Ramsden>{{cite journal|last=Ramsden|first=Graham P.|title=Media Coverage of Issues and Candidates: What Balance is Appropriate in Democracy?|journal=Political Science Quarterly|date=April 1, 1996|volume=111|issue=1}}</ref>

This relationship was shown through a series of experiments conducted by [http://Shanto%20Iyengar Shanto Iyengar] and [http://Donald%20Kindler Donald Kindler]. Their research demonstrated that even minimal exposure to television coverage was enough to sway the public's opinion of what news coverage was "important" that day.<ref name="Iyengar, Shanto">{{cite book|last=Iyengar|first=Shanto|title=News that Matters: Television and American Political Opinion|year=1987|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|pages=33}}</ref>

The way in which media repeatedly and prominently covers issues also affects what the main issues are, and therefore, what political candidates must address to remain relevant and the forefront of the polls. For example, if the media mainly raises concerns over the environment, a candidate's ability to handle environmental issues will become the basis upon which that candidacy rises or falls. This is what is known as the [[priming effect]].

==Current issues==

{{Globalize/US|section|date=March 2012}}{{Original research|section|date=April 2012}}

[[Pew Research Center]] has found a historic low level of trust in the media because people automatically assume biased coverage depending on different media outlets. [[Fox News]] discusses politics with a conservative slant, whereas [[MSNBC]] allegedly covers topics with a leftward tilt. {{citation needed|date=April 2012}}

Meanwhile, polls{{Clarify|date=April 2012}} consistently show that the views of the supposedly partisan, left-wing [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] are shared by the majority of Americans. In other words, in order for the mainstream media to claim that their version of balance reflects the moderate middle, they're forced to ignore the actual moderate middle.

Across the mediums of print, Internet, television, and radio, journalists increasingly agree with the public's hesitation to trust the merit of their work. A lack of credibility is cited as the most important issue facing journalism according to those journalists who say the lines have blurred too greatly between entertainment and news.<ref name="pew research center">{{cite web|title=Striking the Balance, Audience Interests, Business Pressures and Journalists' Values|url=http://www.people-press.org/1999/03/30/striking-the-balance-audience-interests-business-pressures-and-journalists-values/|publisher=Pew Research Center for the People and the Press|accessdate=March 1, 2012}}</ref>

Part of the controversy surrounding media balance is the question of whether simply omitting news is considered a subjective form of media bias. It is not just ''how'' the news media report critical issues, it is ''what'' they deem critical. The media has received much criticism in its treatment of environmental affairs, wherein the effects of [[global warming]] have been glazed over. People{{Who|date=April 2012}} look to the media to provide reassurance that their assumptions are true. When the media does not report on these issues thoroughly, it betrays the trust of a public who has knowledge of problems that aren't receiving any coverage.

Also a factor in the fight for or against media balance, is that whereas in the past there were only three primary sources for news on television, mediums have splintered into the thousands. If the FCC were to try to more tightly control the contents of their coverage, they would have to encompass all newspapers, journals, blogs, and local televised news. The concept of [[open source media]] takes the control of the flow of information out of the reigns of large corporations, and gives more control to smaller individuals. Daily, new sources of news are created, advertised, and packaged to sell ideologies to consumers. This phenomenon is ever-increasing as new technologies continue to emerge.<ref name="media bias">{{cite book|last=Streissguth|first=Thomas|title=Media Bias|year=2007|publisher=Marshall Cavendish Corporation|location=White Plains, NY|isbn=978-0-7614-2296-9|pages=104}}</ref>

==Regulations==

{{Globalize/US|date=March 2012}}

In 1949, the [[United States Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) introduced a policy called [[The Fairness Doctrine]] that required those with broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so with honesty, equitably, and balance . The [http://1949%20Commission%20Report 1949 Commission Report] served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation on broadcasters. The legislation was to provide adequate coverage of public issues and coverage that must be fair in reflecting opposing views. In 1969, the [[United States Supreme Court]] upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. However, the courts did not rule that the FCC is obliged to do so. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine altogether, prompting many to consider reintroducing the doctrine through Congressional legislation.

In 2011, FCC Chairman, [[Julius Genachowski]], dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and 83 other "outdated" regulatory policies. The doctrine's official end is welcomed by the Republican party who believes the liberal media was being unfairly protected under its obsolete policies.<ref name="fairness doctrine dropped">{{cite web|title=FCC 'Drops' Fairness Doctrine|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/fcc-to-drop-fairness-doctrine/|publisher=FoxNews.com}}</ref>

With the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, the United States awaits the outcome of the battle of media checks and balances. There are some who argue that reporting every issue with equal measure is ignorant and does not reflect the more imperative issues facing our country. There are others who claim that not giving an equal voice to all issues and especially all candidates, violates American's right to all sides of current affairs. The media affects and is affected by issues of politics, governmental agenda, environment, economy, and character analysis.

== See also ==

* [[Broadcasting]]

* [[Objectivity (journalism)]]

* [[Propaganda]]

* [[Media bias]]

* [[Priming effect]]

* [[Federal Communications Commission]]

== References ==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

[[Category:Journalism]]