Pledge-O-Rama Returns April 19th through April 26th - dig deep and support great Campus & Community Radio in Winnipeg!

Listen Live

On-air now: Democracy Now 12:00pm–1:00pm

Up next: Bang & Whisper 1:00pm–2:00pm

Program Directory

Radio Survivor

The Fair­ness Doc­trine – a Fed­er­al Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Com­mis­sion rule that’s been out of com­mis­sion since the 20th cen­tu­ry – just doesn’t seem to die, at least in the minds of politi­cians, the press and much of the pub­lic. Politi­cos of many polit­i­cal stripes trot out its specter as a bogey­man any time its con­ve­nient, while efforts to reg­u­late online speech draw inevitable com­par­isons. Accord­ing to Prof. Christo­pher Ter­ry from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta, that’s because peo­ple fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­un­der­stand what the Fair­ness Doc­trine was, why it exist­ed, and what it did. Often assumed to be a man­date for equal time” for oppos­ing posi­tions, it was both more nuanced and less pre­scrip­tive. More­over, the FCC’s inter­pre­ta­tion and enforce­ment evolved over the years, from its first for­mu­la­tion in 1949, until its death in the 1980s. Prof. Ter­ry is here to set the record straight, explain­ing the ratio­nale, his­to­ry and actu­al life of the Fair­ness Doc­trine. He also details why it was, and would be, a poor tool to grap­ple with the per­ceived imbal­ance of par­ti­san nation­al media, and why he thinks its zom­bie should final­ly be laid to rest.