Obama FCC Nominee Comes Out Against Fairness Doctrine (VIDEO)

So, for the better part of the past year, right-wing radio talkers have been sore afraid that President Barack Obama was going to reimpose this piece of legislation called the "Fairness Doctrine." And right along, I've been trying -- vainly! -- to chill people out, and let them know that no such thing was going to happen.

What is the "Fairness Doctrine?" Imposed in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that the scarcity of media resources made it necessary that FCC license holders allow competing points of view to have equal time and access. In practice, the Fairness Doctrine was always tricky to enforce, and so in 1987 is was done away with. In the immediate offing, right wing radio flourished. Of course, since then, the media has expanded to include satellite radio and cable television and the internet, eliminating the original "scarcity of resources" argument that underpinned the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, while greatly complicating a media sphere that the law couldn't handle well when it was implemented nearly sixty years ago.

Since I took up my position on the Fairness Doctrine watchtower, I've written about it a bunch of times. I called it a "fake right wing firestorm," and pointed out that many liberals were against it. I called it a "phantom menace" that was maybe being caused by "brain worms." I went looking for something that looked like a fervent supporter of the Fairness Doctrine, finding only an obscure backbencher from California. I also wrote some stuff about something Ann Coulter said in an email, which somehow applied to this discussion.

Yet the paranoia that Obama would be getting all up in the radio tubes and force talk radio to start presenting an equal array of opposing viewpoints, thus destroying America, has persisted. So, will today's news, via Broadcasting & Cable settle the issue, once and for all?

Julius Genachowski, President Obama's nominee for chairman of the FCC, said Tuesday that he did not support reimposing the fairness doctrine.

He was asked at his nomination hearing by ranking Senate Commerce Committee Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to publicly state the opinion he had expressed to her in a meeting--that he did not support the doctrine, even if it were arrived at by ancillary routes like localism mandates.

Genachowski said he strongly believes in the First Amendment and doesn't think the FCC should be involved in censorship based on political speech and opinion.

It should! But it probably won't!

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Media On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Downtown]

"An important message from Free Speech Coalition Chairman Roger Hedgecock.

ABC News has reportedly agreed to broadcast its news June 24 from the Blue Room of the White House, virtually turning over news programming that night to the Obama Government.

ABC also plans a prime time special, "Prescription for America", again broadcast from the White House. This "Special" will feature Obama Government officials promoting the President's proposal for Government health care. No opposing views are allowed on the program.

As Chair of the Free Speech Coalition donttouchmydial.comm), I call on ABC to include all points of view on this most important issue. As more Americans become familiar with the complexities of the health care system and the various proposals to "reform" it, it is the responsibility of the "News" to let all voices be heard.

ABC News is in danger of becoming a propaganda organ for the Obama Government.

Our Coalition was formed to fight restrictions on Free Speech in the Media, particularly the "Fairness Doctrine" and its evil offshoots "localism" and "media ownership diversity" --policies now being considered for the purpose of censoring conservative talk radio by the Obama FCC.

For ABC News to present only the Obama Government side of this important issue would betray the public interest in a free press. "

They've obviously never heard of Fox News. Or, I suspect, the concept of irony...

www.pbradio.net

[Downtown]

This whole Fairness Doctrine thing is a perfect microcosm of the insanity that's now pervading the wingnut/neocon/Refusenican Party... They've built an entire industry around this boogeyman of theirs - books, websites, etc.

I attended a talk-radio industry conference a couple weeks ago and it was the hot topic, despite being completely fictional.. For kicks, I signed up for one of the wingnut mailing lists about this topic and the other day received their latest screed in which, i sh%# you not, in their faux-outrage over the ABC special to be broadcast from the White House, they themselves call for the imposition of very Fairness Doctrine-like measures to counter ABC's exclusive. See if you can spot the contradiction/hypocrisy/insanity (cont'd in next post due to lenght):

[whocan]

come on, other than FOX, and some talk radio,,,,,THE MEDIA IS GAY FOR OBAMA

[kimk3]

I'm OK with no Fairness Doctrine, it's pretty lame. But I want to de-consolidate the media. There will be plenty of fairness if more people are allowed to own radio and television stations instead of 5 multi-nationals running all the media, who also happen to have Republican and/or defense industry contracts that don't serve we the people. .

[sdskelton03]

Jason

Last fall, I surveyed the offices of the US Senate. Most senators of both parties refused to take a position on the Fairness Doctrine, but I did find two Democratic Senators that supported it's re-institution.

I have a job and did this in my spare time. You are a professional journalist. If you were really searching, you should have easily found as much support as I did.

[simplysimon2]

Obama strikes out again. Complains about Fox and lets them have free access to the public megaphone by appointing someone he knows will not support "fair and balanced" airwaves just like he won't support gays in the military, won't support a public health plan (watch), won't end the ffing wars. Bill Maher was right: Obama's George W without that winning attitude that started an unjust war, gave tax cuts to the rich and shredded the constitution. BO and his wife are pretty and cool but give equality a spineless flavor. Imagine sellout, weak kneed Obama during the King's years, there would have been no revolution that produced a black president who talks like a Democrat but walks like a Republican. There must be fairy dust in the White House that transforms good men into dolts. I worked for the creep and got gypped.

[JakeMontero]

right on! MSNBC should be the ONLY channel!!! god knows choice s.u.cks

[LeeCalif]

Forget it. The people need to take back the airwaves and starting shortly.

[wizegeye]

The people need to take back the airwaves? Who says the people haven't decided what's on the airwaves now? If the conservative talk shows weren't making money for the broadcasters, they would go off the air. To stay on the air, shows need sponsors. Sponsors support the shows with the largest audiences. Audiences are made up of PEOPLE. Therefore, the people will get what they want. Just because you as an individual don't care for the current makeup of the airwaves doesn't mean the majority of those who listen to the airwaves agree with you. A free market will give the people what they want. The Federal government determining what voices should be heard is not the answer. Isn't that what the government of Iran is doing right now?......only allowing pro-government voices to be heard over the airwaves?

[1088]

What you need to do is use their laws based on News Networks inciting crimes against our Government. Everybody deed to be responsible in their actions and words.

[CelticMajic]

which government are you speaking about, the present one or the previous one. Pretty important as I am sure the perspective change would be significant.

In other words, lets let whomever is in power decide what is "inciting crimes against our govenrment" and all would be well...

[Helzapoppin]

Requiring the accommodation of an opposing viewpoint to counter bias is NOT censorship. It does NOT limit free speech. If anything it INCREASES speech. To call the Fairness Doctrine censorship is like saying breathing is bad for your lungs.

[starkcr31]

It's called capitalism. If liberal talk radio shows were popular, they would exist. The reason they fail is because no one wants to hear them. The reason being that the liberals already own every other media source. Talk radio and Fox News is all we have.

[Dante in Madison]

Can you spew a bit *more* propaganda? There are plenty of "liberal" talk radio shows that are thriving at present. They don't get the same exposure as the right-wing talk shows do because of the lack of the Fairness Doctrine.

Ed Schultz, Tom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy. They're all broadcasting loud and strong so try another argument that they don't exist.

To allow one side of media with a specific political bent (i.e. Fox, Rush, Hannity, et al) to dominate the airwaves is a form of censorship and even worse, it's borderline dictatorship.

[Soundofthunder]

Somewhere over the rainbow, your post makes sense.

Here, in reality, not so much.

SOT

[CelticMajic]

Excellent answer in your 1st two sentences. This would not be an issue if liberal/progressive radio were commercially viable--just doen't fair too well in the market place of ideas. So far this has proved not to be so hence the search for "requiring" or "mandating". If the opposite were true--you would not hear a peep.

[CelticMajic]

"requiring" is the key word here. In your proposition the "government" would do the "requiring". The alternative is to allow the market (read people) decide. What is wrong with the alternative?

[yankees]

For those who wish for the fairness doctrine, the old saying", "Be Careful What you Wish For". We all know it is targeting Right Wing/ Conservative Radio and Fox Cable but it will spill over to the Newspapers and Mainstream TV which make up the Liberal faction. If Fox Cables ratings were like MNBC would we care?
Just look at the hoopla over Obama's Health Care plea on ABC, no opposition allowed, (sounds like Iran or Venezuela). By the way I agree with most of the Health Care program but I recognize the hypocrisy.
Hateful speech is on both sides, just listen to MNBC, the far left's equivalent to Fox Cable.
We are still a country of Free Speech and we have the power to turn off programs we don't like and not read newspapers we don't agree with. By silencing the opposition, no matter who is in power, takes away the basic freedom we enjoy as citizens of this country. Do you think the Huffington Post would be allowed in Iran, Venezuela or China unless it supported the governments position?

[tailgateshirts]

I'm confused why this is even news. Not once had Obama leaned towards being pro-fairness doctrine, or any of his administration officials.

This is just a right wing scary talking point

[bhyman]

Well, if you tune into Hannity, Rush, or any of the other right-wing crazies you will hear them repeatedly bring up the Fairness Doctrine as if it was being pushed by the Obama administration. So, to many of the folks that do follow those programs, this is real news. Unfortunately, I suspect none of them read HuffPost, so they'll never really see the truth.

[starkcr31]

It wasn't pushed by Obama, it was pushed by the democrats in congress.

[LemonMeringue]

Sedition and slander are somehow allowed these days.

Where are the lawyers?

[bascombe]

following dollars, ehich has always been their job.

[bascombe]

following dollars, which has always been their job.

[yankee011]

Doesn't the Fairness Doctrine really say their should be EQUAL time or just give time to differing views whether that be 1 hour or 5 hour but not necessarily EQUAL time?

[starkcr31]

Why don't we apply the fairness doctrine to TV and newspapers? As it is, conservatives only have Fox News.

[LemonMeringue]

Unbelievable:

Some still talk about "liberal bias." How is it possible to be so ignorant? By limiting oneself to Fox News?

This illustrates just how much the Fairness Doctrine is needed.

Dumping the Fairness Doctrine is just one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was not a good president.

[wizegeye]

The liberal tilt of the media is not a myth. It's reality. There have been a number of polls and surveys of journalists and the vast majority consider themselves liberal. In the past, journalists tried to be fair and not allow their political leanings affect their journalistic integrity. Some journalists are still able to do this, but many more feel it's OK to mesh their political views with their reporting. This occurs on both the right and the left, but since most journalists lean left, it's more noticable on the left.

[LemonMeringue]

That is all I need to know. Ditch him.

Ronald Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine (the year Rush Limbaugh started) and that is the ONLY REASON all this terrible stuff could have been done to this country by neocons.

[wizegeye]

I don't care for Rush myself, but the only reason Rush has been on the air for so long is that he has a huge audience and he makes a ton of money for his parent company.

[lgillooly]

Actually the Rush program was given to hundreds of radio stations for FREE when he started to get the propaganda nationally. Clear channel just laid off over 3,000 people,but did not reduce Rush's 50 million/yr contract. His propaganda works. 91 percent of our radio airwaves present the Right wing crap. Then when the national shows are over they have a local mini-Rush or mini Hannity to repeat and repeat the same crap......This does work and we need to break up the monopoly. It is not free speech when 9 out of ten stations are Rush,Hannity, Beck, Savage, Ingram etc etc
Why do you think they are so paranoid about a Fairness type doctrine.....It took them a long time to build this powerful vertical infrastructure.