Background:

Way back in the "olden days," before the internet and social media and 24/7 cable news networks, "news" traveled much more slowly. There was even a time when some TV Broadcasting stations and radio stations actually went off air around 11:00 pm. There was no such thing as information going "viral". Rumors of course, could still proliferate but these tended to have localized regional audiences.

There was also a LAW, called the Fairness Doctrine that governed what media could print or claim. It was controversial in some ways, as opponents felt it restricted free speech. But proponents argue it was necessary to have some standards so that the public could trust the information they were given. The principle was that news outlets had a public duty. The news was to be clearly separated from opinion.

How do NEWS & Opinion differ?

NEWS: "The Wright brothers flew the first aircraft"
OPINION "America is the best because we flew first."

The first iteration of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was introduced in the USA in 1927 by Congress who had given the Federal Radio Commission authority to grant broadcasting licenses to radio stations. The doctrine was further refined by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in the late 1940s due to the advent of TV, and also due to the aftermath of WWII. Broadcast stations were and still are required to be licensed by the FCC in order to operate. Such regulation is intended to serve and protect the public interest.

FYI: In my understanding, FCC regulations currently only pertain to BROADCAST channels, not cable.

The basic premise of the Fairness Doctrine was that those reporting the news had an obligation to both truth and fairness.

Truth meant, news agencies and journalists couldn't just make up stuff but had to have reliable sources and documentation for stories they published. Fairness required that broadcast stations’ coverage of controversial issues was balanced and fair. Opposing viewpoints were required to be provided, in order that readers/listeners could determine their own point of view based on information gathered in keeping with journalistic ethics. This Rule also limited how much personal opinion broadcasters or journalists could infuse into their reporting, although bias or some sort is impossible to completely eradicate from any story. Opinions could still be broadcast as such but had to be couched as Editorial content, signifying it as opinion.

The news was to be clearly separated from opinion.

You did not have pundits like today, who under the guise of "news reporting" are actually spinning information to suit their own political agendas, on either left or right.

Recall that the first half of the 20th century had witnessed the first full-blown use of propaganda to incite nations to persecute minorities and go to war across the globe with one another. Those who promoted the Fairness Doctrine believed that information had serious power, and that misinformation could create great harm. Reporters were still free to investigate what they wished but they were not allowed, under threat of censure, fines, or even criminal charges, to publish unsubstantiated rumors or lies.

Over the years this policy faced many challenges, in push back from First Amendment rights groups. Under Ronald Reagan's presidency, this doctrine was essentially dismantled in 1987, although stipulations remain that still limit some broadcast content. (Child pornography being one example).

Why does this matter?

Since 1987, radio and TV talk shows have proliferated.
The line between what is "news" and what is opinion has become increasingly blurred.
Stations and their pundits are no longer required to fairly present differing perspectives. Reputable ones, however, still attempt to follow standard journalistic ethics.
The advent of cable TV and the internet/social media further complicates both the sheer amount and the type of information that comes at us on a daily basis.
As we saw in FILTER BUBBLES, there is no one curating the information coming our way. Unseen algorithms determine what information we are exposed to and what is "filtered" out.
Consequently, WE, the public, have to be information curators. But many of us have limited skills in parsing fact from fiction or knowing how to assess the veracity of various claims.
It is therefore not surprising that in such a climate, more and more people are susceptible to conspiracy theories such as those promulgated by QAnon. The attached article by Psychology Today explains why people are so vulnerable to misinformation.

Please read these important links.

QAnon

The Fairness Doctrine

The False Believers