In 1987 the US Federal Communications Commission abolished the “fairness doctrine”. This had been in place since the 1940’s and required broadcasters to provide a balanced hearing for different viewpoints on topics. It did not specify how this should be done, for example with equal amounts of time, however it meant that a broadcaster’s licence could be in jeopardy if they failed to allow different sides of an argument to be aired.

The repeal of the doctrine paved the way for talk radio to give birth to the shock jock. In 1988 Rush Limbaugh was recruited for a nationally syndicated radio show which by 2020 had become the the most listened to talk radio show in the US with just over 15m listeners every week. The next most popular radio show was that of Sean Hannity with 15 million listeners.

Both broadcasters espoused extreme right wing views on race, feminism, climate change and a range of other liberal causes. Like President Trump, for example, they claimed climate change was a hoax. Thus not only were they extreme, they were also wrong.

They are often portrayed as the leading edge of a process where the media began to divide into liberal and conservative channels with the distinction between them ever more stark. Cable TV networks and the advent of Fox News in 1996 reinforced this evolution. Donald Trump’s channel of choice it also drew some 87 million other older viewers (median age 68) providing a diet of climate change deniers, gun lobby supporters and anti-government groups of all sorts.

The rise of an increasingly militant right wing media has often been presented as one side of a process of increasing partisanship. A process where those on the right and those on the left retreat to their respective extremes and eschew any common ground in political debate.

Whilst it is clear what broad political stand point networks like CNN and MSNBC support there is a false equivalence to their partisanship. First, in terms of degree the right has moved much further to the right than the left has to the left. But worse, they have they have moved to the wrong right. The right which rejects trade, science and experts, (apart from brain surgeons and airline pilots when you are on a hospital bed or in an airplane!) not the right which promotes entrepreneurship, business, commerce, markets and an effective welfare state..

If we take climate change, the consensus scientific view on this has been in place for decades. The rejection of this science is not, inherently, a shift to the right, it is just wrong. That the Republican Party and the right in America have hitched their wagon to that… ass, is not only wrong but in the medium term politically risky. As the scientific reality of climate change becomes a physical reality pretending it is a hoax when it is taking peoples lives and homes must become an increasingly difficult sell.

When mainstream media turn their back on notions of impartiality, truth and scientific facts it is unsurprising the volume goes up and the quality down. Unless the Republican Party takes some serious action to distinguish itself from Donald Trump and connect with the issues the majority of Americans care about they are going to be trapped in a declining market of those who think the First Amendment is really a license to lie.

On this side of the Atlantic we need to be wary of moves which seem to be testing our desire to travel the same road. We have in the BBC a global brand which is highly respected and indeed revered in some countries. It is an important part of our soft power and that may become the only power we have over time so we lose it at our peril. No one would say the BBC is perfect, far from. However, it may be that it is like democracy, the worst broadcaster in the world, apart from all the others. And also like democracy something you really regret losing when it is too late.

Abolishing the fairness doctrine probably seemed like a minor change when it occurred. Its effects have, however, cast a long shadow over US and consequentially global politics. Perhaps it is time to restore it.