The unique nature of communications regulation: Evidence and implications for communications policy analysis

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 565-581

  Napoli, Philip M ^a  

^a FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000500526     PISSN: 08838151     EISSN: 15506878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08838159909364510     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Aufderheide, P. (1992). Cable television and the public interest. Journal of Communication, 42(1), 52-63.
2. Bagdikian, B.H. (1997). The media monopoly (5th ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
3. Baseman K.C., & Owen, B.M. (1982). A framework for economic analysis of electronic media concentration issues. Prepared for the National Cable Television Association for submission in FCC docket no. 82-434. Washington, DC: Economists Inc.
4. Bechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, 957 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
5. Bechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
6. Bhagwat, A. (1995). Of markets and media: The First Amendment, the new mass media, and the political components of culture. North Carolina Law Review, 74, 141-216.
7. Bonder, T. (1984). A "better" marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Federal Communications Law Journal, 36, 27-67.
8. Brennan, T.J. (1992). Integrating communication theory into media policy: An economic perspective. Telecommunications Policy, 16(6), 460-474.
9. Broadcast regulation - Quantifying the public interest standard: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983).
10. Broadcasting Public Responsibility Act of 1981, H.R. 4726, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).
11. Broadcasting Public Responsibility and Deregulation Act of 1983, H.R. 2370, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983).
12. Brotman, S.N. (1989). Executive branch communications policymaking: Reconciling function and form with the Council of Communications Advisors. Federal Communications Law Journal, 42, 51-78.
13. Coase, R.H. (1959). The Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Law & Economics, 2, 1-40.
14. Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 416.
15. Comstock, G., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M., & Roberts, D. (1978). Television and human behavior. New York: Columbia University Press.
16. Corn-Revere, R. (1993). Economics and media regulation. In A. Alexander, J. Owers, R. Carveth (Eds.), Media economics: Theory and practice (pp. 71-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Cronauer, A. (1994). The Fairness Doctrine: A solution in search of a problem. Federal Communications Law Journal, 47, 51-76.
18. Entman, R.M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Entman, R.M., & Wildman, S.S. (1992). Reconciling economic and non-economic perspectives on media policy: Transcending the "marketplace of ideas." Journal of Communication, 41(1), 5-19.
20. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). About EPA. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ epahome.epa.htm.
21. Faulhaber, G.R. (1987). Telecommunications in turmoil: Technology and public policy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
22. Federal Communications Commission (1949). Editorializing by broadcast licensees, 13 FCC 1246.
23. Federal Communications Commission (1964). Multiple ownership of standard, FM and television broadcast stations, 45 FCC 1476.
24. Federal Communications Commission (1970). In the matter of amendment of sections 73.35, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission's rules relating to multiple ownership of standard, FM, and television broadcast stations, first report and order, 22 FCC 2d. 306.
25. Federal Communications Commission (1985). Inquiry into section 73.1910 of the Commission's rules and regulations concerning the general Fairness Doctrine obligations of broadcast licensees, 102 FCC 2d 145.
26. Federal Communications Commission (1993). In the matter of evaluation of the syndication and financial interest rules, second report and order, 8 FCC 3282.
27. Federal Communications Commission (1998a). FCC home page. Available: http:// www.fcc.gov/.
28. Federal Communications Commission (1998b). About the FCC. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/ aboutfcc.html.
29. Federal Trade Commission (1998). Vision, mission & goals. Available: http://www.ftc.gov/ ftc.mission.htm.
30. Fowler, M.S., & Brenner, D.L. (1982). A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60, 1-51.
31. Golub, W.W. (1948). Staff report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Gormley, W.T. (1976). The effects of newspaper-television cross-ownership on news homogeneity. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute for Research in Social Science.
33. Graber, D.A. (1984). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman.
34. Haddock, D.D.,. & Polsby, D.D. (1990). Bright lines, the Federal Communications Commission's duopoly rule, and the diversity of voices. Federal Communications Law Journal, 42, 331-364.
35. Hagelin, T.M., & Wimmer, K.A. (1986). Broadcast deregulation and administrative responsibility to monitor policy change: An empirical study of the elimination of logging requirements. Federal Communications Law Journal, 38, 201-282.
36. Hagins, J. (1996). The inconvenient public interest: Policy challenges in the age of information. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 83-92.
37. Hale v. FCC, 425 F.2d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
38. Hamilton, J.T. (1996). Private interests in "public interest" programming: An economic assessment of broadcaster incentives. Duke Law Journal, 45, 1177-1192.
39. Hazlett, T.W. (1990). The rationality of U.S. regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Journal of Law & Economics, 31, 133-175.
40. Hazlett, T.W. (1997). Physical scarcity, rent seeking, and the First Amendment. Columbia Law Review, 97, 905-943.
41. Hazlett, T.W., & Sosa, D.W. (1997). "Chilling" the Internet? Lessons from FCC regulation of radio broadcasting. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 4. Available: http://www.law.umich.edu/mttlr/volfour/Hazlettfr.html.
42. Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
43. Hundt, R.E. (1996). The public airwaves: What does the public interest require of television broadcasters? Duke Law Journal, 45, 1089-1128.
44. Kahn, A.E. (1988). The economics of regulation: Principles and institutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Kim, H. (1995). The politics of deregulation: Public participation in the FCC rulemaking process for DBS. Telecommunications Policy, 19(1), 51-60.
46. Kim, J. (1998, April). Empirical testing on an unasked question in Turner v. FCC: Do must-carry rules enhance diversity? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Broadcast Education Association, Las Vegas, NV.
47. Krasnow, E.G., Longley, L.D., & Terry, H.A. (1982). The politics of broadcast regulation (3rd. ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
48. Lamprecht v. Federal Communications Commission, 958 F.2d 382 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
49. Lavey, W.C. (1993). Inconsistencies in applications of economics at the Federal Communications Commission. Federal Communications Law Journal, 45, 437-490.
50. Lichty, L.W. (1962). The impact of the FRC and FCC commissioners' background on the regulation of broadcasting. Journal of Broadcasting, 6, 97-110.
51. Linker, J. (1983). Public intervenors and the public airwaves: The effect of interest groups on FCC decisions. In J.J. Havick (Ed.), Communications policy and the political process (pp. 149-170). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
52. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. Federal Communications Commission 141 F.2d 344 (D.C.Cir, 1998).
53. Mayton, W.T. (1989). The illegitimacy of the public interest standard at the FCC. Emory Law Journal, 38(3), 715-769.
54. McChesney, R.W. (1993). Telecommunications, mass media, and democracy: The battle for the control of U.S. broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press.
55. McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
56. McGarity, T.O. (1991). Reinventing rationality: The role of regulatory analysis in the federal bureaucracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Minow, N.N. (1978). Address by Newton N. Minow to the National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC. In F. Kahn (Ed.), Documents of American broadcasting (4th ed., pp. 207-217). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
58. Minow, N.N., & LaMay, C.L. (1995). Abandoned in the wasteland: Children, television and the First Amendment. New York: Hill and Wang.
59. Mueller, M. (1995). Why communications policy is passing "mass communication" by: Political economy as the missing link. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12(4), 457-472.
60. Napoli, P.M. (1997a). Regulatory behavior and the Federal Communications Commission: An analysis of broadcast policy making and enforcement activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
61. Napoli, P.M. (1997b). Rethinking program diversity assessment: An audience-centered approach. Journal of Media Economics, 10(4), 59-74.
62. Napoli, P.M. (1998). Government assessment of FCC performance: Recurring patterns and implications for recent reform efforts. Telecommunications Policy, 22(5), 409-418.
63. Napoli, P.M. (in press). Foundations in Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
64. Nossiter, B.D. (1985, October 26). The FCC's big giveaway show. The Nation, pp. 402-404.
65. Patterson, T.E. (1980). The mass media election: How Americans choose their president. New York: Praeger.
66. Pratte, A., & Whiting, G. (1986). What newspaper editorials have said about deregulation of broadcasting. Journalism Quarterly, 63(3), 497-502.
67. President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization (1971). A new regulatory framework: Report on selected independent regulatory agencies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
68. The Public Interest in Broadcasting: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (May 13, 15, 1991).
69. Read, W.H. & Weiner, R.A. (1996). FCC reform: Governing requires a new standard. Federal Communications Law Journal, 49(2), 289-324.
70. Reagan, M.D. (1987). Regulation: The politics of policy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
71. Schurz Communications v. Federal Communications Commission, 982 F.2d 1043 (1992).
72. Shipan, C.R. (1997). Designing judicial review: Interest groups, Congress, and communications policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
73. Simon, T., Atwater, T., & Alexander, R. (1988, August). FCC broadcast content regulation: Policymaking in a vacuum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Portland, OR.
74. "Slippery slope" seen; Chong objects to quantifying broadcast public interest obligations (1996, September 26). Communications Daily, p. 7.
75. Sophos, M. (1990). The public interest, convenience, or necessity: A dead standard in an era of broadcast deregulation? Pace Law Review, 10(3), 661-705.
76. Stempel, G.H. (1973). Effects on performance of a cross-media monopoly. Journalism Monographs, 29.
77. Streeter, T. (1996). Selling the air: A critique of the policy of commercial broadcasting in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78. Sullivan, K.M. (1995). Free speech and unfree markets. UCLA Law Review, 42, 949-965.
79. Sunstein, C.R. (1993). Democracy and the problem of free speech. New York: Free Press.
80. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior (1972). Television and growing up: the impact of televised violence: Report to the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
81. Syracuse Peace Council v. Federal Communications Commission, 867 F.2d 654 (1989).
82. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No, 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
83. Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994).
84. Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, 117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997).
85. "We are going to do it"; Hundt wants to quantify TV-radio public interest obligation. (1996, September 25). Communications Daily, p. 4.
86. Webster, J.G. & Phalen, P.F. (1994). Victim, consumer, or commodity? Audience models in communication policy. In J.S. Ettema and D.C. Whitney (Eds.), Audiencemaking: How the media create the audience (pp. 19-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
87. "'What's local about local broadcasting?' A joint report of the Media Access Project & the Benton Foundation" (1998). Available: http://www.benton.org/Policy/TV/whatslocal.html.
88. Williams, W.W., Jr. (1993). Impact of commissioner background on FCC decisions, 1975-1990. In R.J. Spitzer (Ed.), Media and public policy (pp. 43-60). Westport, CT: Praeger.