Genachowski to Chair FCC: Prospects for Media and Internet »

Posted By JSilver 10 months, 3 weeks ago in News

President-elect Barack Obama will nominate Julius Genachowski to head the FCC. Genachowski anchored the drafting of Obama's media policy agenda...

Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »

924 Views Share Story 14 Comments Report

Submitted By:
JSilver

I am currently the executive director and a co-founder of Free Press. Before Free Press, I ran a statewide campaign for public funding of elections ...

Other Related Articles:

RSS Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 14 (view all)
- Display
  • 100%
    iamamaniac10 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    I think Genachowski as Chair FCC is a good choice!

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply

    2 Replies

    loading loading ...
  • 67%
    scott426110 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    Before the wingnuts start in on what one of their nutcase radio darlings Bill Cunningham (not to mention their God... Rush Limbaugh), calls the "Un-Fairness Doctine," let me just share with you what it actually was:

    According to Steve Rendall of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting),

    "The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."

    He's right. In fact, the doctrine was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. That is what it was. Nothing wrong with that.

    But it's worth noting that Limbaugh began his radio show in 1988 - the year after the FCC declared that stations could air political commentary without a mandate for opposing viewpoints - declaring himself the first post - Fairness Doctrine talk show host. His show would be conservative....and he set himself on a self-declared "Mission from God" to destroy liberalism and everything it represents.

    Now even Thom Hartmann (the best host on the radio and much more mentally challenging, IMO)

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/

    - who is in the midday slot on Air America stations opposite Limbaugh - will say that even liberals do not want the Fairness Doctrine again....so it is really a moot point.

    Why? Because media has become too vast in scope. In 1987, television networks consisted of ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. That was it. Cable television was still relative and offered much less than it does today.

    And if you had cable television, you were fortunate enough to have CNN Headline News, which started in 1982 by Ted Turner as CNN2 and was a reliable ALL NEWS channel with no opining and 13 minutes of ACTUAL NEWS and three to five minute segments for sports, weather and pop culture. At the bottom of the hour it started over again.... 48 newscasts a day, 7 days a week (Starting in the late '90s Headline News began to alter that format and in the last few years it has become the atrocity it is today).

    Of course, now the media landscape is so vast that it would be impossible and impractical to enforce such a mandate.

    (....more....)

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply

    4 Replies

    loading loading ...
  • 83%
    scott426110 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    (....cont'd...)

    I would like to see an "equal signal" requirement of companies like Clear Channel, which - thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that our buddy President Clinton signed into law - allows such a company to dominate a market. What I mean is simply that if a conservative talker is owned by that company, an equal signal should be designated to liberal talk (and remember, we are talking about a companies that own multiple stations...and even more HD signals in the digital age...).

    Now that probably won't happen, but IMO it should...

    My hope is that that will be a moot point too. Clear Channel is one company that has begun to recognize that the liberal's money is as green as the conservative's. It is, after all, just another niche market to them...

    And my hope is also that the internet will remain free and vast and unedited and that I will always be free to investigate the news.

    One thing is definite. The genie is out of the bottle. Media is forever changed and the best we can do now is to adapt and move the transmission of said media into the 21st century...

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply

    1 Reply

    loading loading ...
  • 33%
    tadair91910 months, 3 weeks ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    regulation = bad

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 2) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 3)
    Reply
    loading loading ...
    View All 14 Comments

    Add a Comment

    Sign In With Your Propeller Account

    Forgot your password?

    Please keep your comments relevant to this story.

    To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.