Public participation and agency discretion in rulemaking at the Federal Communications Commission

Journal of Communication Inquiry

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 337-353

  Gangadharan, Seeta Peña ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Broadcast policy; Deliberation; Federal Communications Commission; Habermas; Media ownership; Participation; Regulation; Rule making

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349545761     PISSN: 01968599     EISSN: 15524612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0196859909340348     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Baker, C.E. (2007). Media concentration and democracy: Why ownership matters. New York: Cambridge University Press
2. Blevins, J.L., & Brown, D.H. (2006). Political issue or policy matter. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30 (1). 21-41
3. Breyer, S.J. (1982). Regulation and its reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
4. Calabrese, A. (2004 a). The promise of civil society: A global movement for communication rights. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18, 317-329
5. Calabrese, A. (2004 b). Stealth regulation: Moral meltdown and political radicalism at the Federal Communications Commission. New Media & Society, 6 (1). 106-113
6. Clark, T.C. (1947). Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office
7. Cramton, R.C. (1972). The why, where and how of broadened public participation in the administrative process. Georgetown Law Review, 60, 525-550
8. Croley, S.P. (1998). Theories of regulation. Columbia Law Review, 98 (1). 1-168
9. Cuellar, M.F. (2004, May). Rethinking public engagement in the administrative state. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Law and Society Association, Chicago
10. Engelman, R. (1996). Public radio and television in America: A political history. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
11. Federal Communications Commission. (2003 a). FCC sets limits on media concentration-Unprecedented public record results in enforceable and balanced broadcast ownership rules (News Release). Washington, DC: Author
12. Federal Communications Commission. (2003 b). 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket 02-277 (Report & Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). Washington, DC: Author
13. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80
14. Gellhorn, W. (1940). Administrative procedure in government agencies. Monograph of the attorney general's committee on administrative procedures (Part 3-Federal Communications Commission). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office
15. Gellhorn, W. (1986). The Administrative Procedure Act: The beginnings. Virginia Law Review, 72 (2). 219-233
16. Gilens, M., & Hertzman, C. (2000). Corporate ownership and news bias: Newspaper coverage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Journal of Politics, 62, 369-385
17. Habermas, J. (1996 a). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1992 )
18. Habermas, J. (1996 b). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (pp. 463-490). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1988 )
19. Habermas, J. (1996 c). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21-30). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
20. Holman, J. (2005, September). Strength in numbers? Public participation in the media ownership proceeding at the Federal Communication Commission. Paper presented at the 33rd Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, Arlington, VA
21. Horwitz, R.B. (1989). The irony of regulatory reform: The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press
22. Husselbee, L.P. (1997, July). Media's coverage of itself: How eight major newspapers covered the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago
23. Jackson, R.H. (1941). Attorney general's report on the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1941report.html
24. Johnson, S.M. (1998). The Internet changes everything: Revolutionizing public participation and access to government information through the Internet. Administrative Law Review, 50, 277-338
25. Kerwin, C. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (2 nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press
26. Klinenberg, E. (2007). Fighting for air: The battle to control America's media. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt
27. Landis, J.M. (1938). The administrative process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
28. Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion (1 st Free Press ed.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1922)
29. Martin, K. (2007). Statement on 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission
30. McChesney, R.W. (1993). Telecommunications, mass media, & democracy: The battle for the control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press
31. McChesney, R.W. (2004 a). Media policy goes to main street: The uprising of 2003. Communication Review, 7, 223-258
32. McChesney, R.W. (2004 b). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press
33. McGregor, M.A. (2006). When the "public interest" is not what interests the public. Communication Law & Policy, 11 (207). Unpaged
34. Mosco, V. (1996). The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
35. Noveck, B. S. (2004). The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory Law Journal, 53(2), 433-518
36. President's Committee on Administrative Management (PCAM). (1937). Report of the committee with studies of administrative management in the federal government, submitted to the President and to the Congress in accordance with Public law no. 739, 74th Congress, 2d session. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office
37. Streeter, T. (1996). Selling the air: A critique of the policy of commercial broadcasting in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
38. Young, I.M. (2006). De-centering deliberative democracy. Kettering Review, 24 (3). 43-53