UPDATE: Today's U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the nomination of Julius Genachowski to become FCC chairman started out with a bang, when both its chairman and ranking Republican issued warnings that things need to change. "Fix the agency or we will fix it for you," said committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, the West Virgia Democrat. He called the nomination "mammothly important" and accused the FCC of too often acting at the behest of the bottom lines of special interests, rather than regulating them. "Show that it is not battered beyond repair." The smooth-talking former adviser to Barry Diller took it all in stride. He did say he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, something that some Congressional Democrats want to revive but President Obama opposes. No surprise, Genachowski says he’s against it because “I strongly believe in the First Amendment” and doesn't think the FCC should be involved in censorship based on political speech and opinion. Of course, Genachowski also did the policy work regarding on this during the Obama campaign and transition and is the guy who told Obama to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
He had something for everybody in the debate over whether the FCC should clamp down on violent or sexy TV programs. “I share the concerns of parents on indecency,” he said. “The FCC’s job is to enforce the law, and it will enforce the law.” But he added that he wants to “make sure parents are empowered” to block shows. “I have great hope over what technology can do. I’d like to see innovation in this area.” He also side-stepped questions about whether he’d allow more media consolidation by relaxing rules that limit the ability of a company to own a newspaper and TV station in the same market. “My heart is filled with respect for newspapers and the role they play in our democracy,” he said, but added, “it wouldn’t be right for the FCC to ignore the real problems in the marketplace.” With newspapers in such trouble and the FCC rarely encountering a media merger it didn't like, it's hard to tell whether or not Genachowski would allow Big Media to keep becoming Behemoth Media with so much power and influence concentrated in the hands of so few.


No surprise here, alas. The cows are already in the slaughterhouse and Genachowski wants to keep watching the barn door.
Same old, same old. I feel that without a return to the Fairness Doctrine, US media won’t change one bit. I’ll stick to publicly funded stations in Europe and independent sources like this blog.
The Fairness Doctrine not only wouldn’t return media to the “good old days’ but is clearly unconstitutional. Great news that this guy opposes it.
The Fairness Doctrine would require rightwing propagandists like Flush Limpball and Faux News to present an opposing point of view, aka “The Truth.” What’s wrong with that?
I’m not sure how requiring both sides of an issue to be heard is either censorship or unconstitutional. No one’s voice is being stifled.
The Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time law are often confused. The Fairness Doctrine, established in the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, stipulated that 1) a broadcaster devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial issues of public importance; and 2) that it be done fairly by affording reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard. The Equal Time law, under Section 315 of the Commications Act, applies to legally qualified poltical candidates and stipulates that, if one candidate buys air time, opposing candidates must be allowed to buy equal time. Note that it says “buy”; contrary to broadcasters’ whining, it does not require them to give free time.
Contrary to richard’s (q.v.) comment on the Fairness Doctrine, it’s hard to comprehend how giving the public more information could be construed as censorship. Indeed, it’s the opposite. Broadcasters and cablecasters are supposed to operate in the public interest, and the airwaves belong to the public, so opposing the Fairness Doctrine makes no logical, moral, or Constitutional sense.
Doesn’t the FCC pretty much violate the First Amendment just by existing?
Fine, you people want the Fairness Doctrine applied to Rush, Hannity and the rest of the right wing?
Then I want it applied to Chris Matthews and everyone else on the left at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC and PBS.
Fair is fair, right?
You have a deal, Joe Cool! Fair is fair; let the public decide. That’s what the Fairness Doctrine was all about!