The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast TV and radio. It was considered constitutional on the grounds that these were limited public resources. It never applied to newspapers, cable TV, or web sites, which were far less limited.
It was never really the reason that news broadcasts aimed for fairness. They aimed for fairness because they were journalists, and they considered it a point of pride to be accurate and informative.
The broadcast networks (including Fox affiliates) still aim for that, despite the end of the fairness doctrine. But their markets have been eaten into by cable networks, some of which were explicitly founded as propaganda machines and discovered that people preferred it as entertainment.
That depends on what you mean by 'having a balanced news'.
Should reporting present both sides in the same light if the facts support one side more?
Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
> Does a presidential endorsement from the editorial section of a newspaper corrupt the impartiality of the reporting section of the newspaper?
It probably does. If your editor, boss and all your colleagues support candidate X and you come up with a story that hurts candidate X, will you really get to publish it? Will you even try to come up with such a story?
I'm not saying it's impossible to get this right, but under the current climate I don't think its possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine