In running for president, Barack Obama campaigned on one word: change. And for media, come January, that change will be signaled by who the new president appoints to head the Federal Communications Commission.

While no names are being tossed out as yet, it seems a solid bet that whoever is named chairman will work to reverse the Republican push toward deregulation of media ownership and to restore strong government oversight of the media marketplace.

For all his talk of change, Obama appears every bit the traditional Democrat when it comes to the federal government's role as a regulator, and that would appear even more so in light of the meltdown of the financial markets, with so many charging that the government was asleep at the switch. Deregulation is the new dirty word in Washington.

Those traditional Democratic values discourage monopoly and domination by a few media giants in favor of ownership by many and a diversity of viewpoints.

That direction will please media buyers, who favor competition and diversity of media choice, which they believe keeps costs down, and it will prove a major annoyance to the large media conglomerates, many of which look to acquisition as their primary path to growth.

“It’s unlikely that the Obama administration, or an FCC chairman under Obama, would support any further relaxation of media ownership rules,” observes Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters. “The question is whether they will try to roll back some of the media ownership reform that has occurred over the last 10 or 12 years."

During his long campaign, Obama said little about media but he's made his position known on key issues. A year ago he wrote FCC chairman Kevin Martin to express concerns over mergers among media giants and how those mergers make it more difficult for minority-owned companies to compete with media giants.

“The Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in media and promote localism and, as a result, it is in no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation of the market,” he wrote.

In September, Obama urged Arbitron to delay the rollout of its new portable people meter for tracking radio listenership, in response to charges by critics that the new system undercounts minorities.

A new FCC direction more firmly opposed to consolidation could not come at a worse time for major media companies, which are suffering with the sagging economy. With revenues down, many see consolidation as their one path to recovery.

Says Wharton: "Given the difficult economic times facing media companies, it would be potentially financially devastating to a lot of broadcast companies if they were to enact a lot of tough regulations.”

One area the new FCC is likely to back away from is indecency, which has been a major issue during Martin's tenure. Flaps like the one several years ago over the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident, in which her breast was exposed, have gotten a lot of headlines, but indecency is an issue the agency has never handled well, and the sense is that Obama's FCC will steer clear of it.

“The FCC has twisted itself in knots figuring out how to regulate decency,” says Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York. “I have to believe an Obama administration will be more sensible.”

Popculturalist Bob Thompson, director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, agrees.

“My guess in an Obama administration is that we’ll see less of an emphasis on naughty words and more emphasis on trying to identify the public’s interest, which would include ownership--making sure multiple voices are heard--and some kind of protectionism of local broadcast stations."

Where Obama's FCC will fall on another issue, the Fairness Doctrine, is less clear. Phased out in 1987, it essentially required media outlets to provide equal coverage of issues. Liberal Democrats like Rep. Chuck Schumer of New York would like to see it brought back.

Without saying so directly, liberals see it as a way to gag Fox News, the right-leaning cable news network that seems to take special delight in working over what it perceives as the far left.

But the Fairness Doctrine has critics on both sides, and their chief argument is that in bending over to represent both sides, without offending either, media outlets risk obscuring the issues rather than articulating them.

“Given the explosion of media outlets and the diversity of voices, there’s no reason to bring back this relic,” says the NAB's Wharton. “The notion we have to have the government dictate what is fair coverage is anathema to what the First Amendment is all about.”

While Schumer and other supporters could well push for its return, their chances at success would seem slim, considering all the far weightier issues facing the new administration, led by the economy.