On media concentration and the diversity question

Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 9-56

  Horwitz, Robert B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894937935     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410614407     Document Type: Chapter

References (148)

1. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
2. Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
3. Amendment of Section 73.3555 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations. 100 FCC 2d 74 (1985).
4. Amendment of Section 73.658[g] of the Commission's Rules-The Dual Network Rule. MM Docket No. 00-108. Report and Order (2001).
5. Amendment of Sections 3.35, 3.240, and 3.636 of Rules and Regulations Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations. Report and Order. 18 FCC 288 (1953).
6. Amendment of Sections 73.35, 73.240, and 73.636 of Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, Report and Order. 45 FCC 1476 (1964).
7. Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants. 57 FCC 2d 418 (1976).
8. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945).
9. Aufderheide, P. (1999).Communications policy and the public interest:The Tele communications Act of 1996. New York: Guilford.
10. Aufderheide, P. (2002). Competition and commons: The public interest in and after the AOL-Time Warner merger. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 515-531.
11. Bagdikian, B. (1983). The media monopoly. Boston: Beacon.
12. Bagdikian, B. (1997). The media monopoly (5th ed.). Boston: Beacon.
13. Baker, C. E. (1995). Turner broadcasting: Content-based regulation of persons and presses. In D. J. Hutchinson, D. A. Strauss, & G. R. Stone (Eds.), The Supreme Court Review 1994 (pp. 57-128). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Baker, C. E. (2001). Media, markets, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Baker, C. E. (2002). Media concentration: Giving up on democracy. Florida Law Review, 54, 839-919.
16. Bar, F., Cohen, S., Cowhey, P., DeLong, B., Kleeman, M., & Zysman, J. (1999). Defending the Internet revolution in the broadband era:When doing nothing is doing harm (Working Paper No. 137). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
17. Barnouw, E. (1966). A history of broadcasting in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Beebe, J. H. (1977). Institutional structure and program choices in television markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 15-37.
19. Benkler, Y. (1999). Free as the air to common use: First amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain. N.Y.U. Law Review, 74, 354-446.
20. Berry, S., & Waldfogel, J. (2001). Do mergers increase product variety? Evidence from radio broadcasting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, cxvi, 1009-1025.
21. Bork, R. H. (1978). The antitrust paradox: A policy at war with itself. New York: Basic Books.
22. Busterna, J. C. (1988). Television station ownership effects on programming and idea diversity: Baseline data. Journal of Media Economics, 1, 63-74.
23. Cable Holdings of Georgia v. Home Video, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 1389 (N.D. Cal. 1989), aff 'd, 903 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1990).
24. Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub.L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).
25. Celler-Kefauver Amendment to the Clayton Act, 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-899, 64 Stat. 1125, codified at 15 U.S.C. $ 18 (1994).
26. Center for Digital Democracy. (n.d.). How broadband systems will narrow the net. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.democraticmedia.org/narrownet.html
27. Chapman Radio and Television Co. (1970). 24 FCC 2d 282.
28. Clayton Antitrust Act. (1914). Ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730.
29. Coase, R. (1959). The FCC. Journal of Law and Economics, 2, 1-40.
30. Commission on Freedom of the Press. (1947). A free and responsible press, a general report on mass communication: Newspapers, radio, motion pictures, magazines, and books. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Communications Act, Pub. L. No. 416, 73rd Congress, S. 3285 (1934).
32. Compaine, B. M. (2000). Distinguishing between concentration and competition. In B. M. Compaine & D. Gomery (Eds.),Who owns the media? Competition and concentration in the mass media industry (3rd ed., pp. 537-581). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Congressional Research Service. (1988). Statistical analysis of FCC survey data: Minority broadcast station ownership and minority broadcasting. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
34. Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Civil Rights Forum, Center for Digital Democracy, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Media Access Project. (2002).Comments in the Matter of Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspaper (MM Docket No. 01-235) and Newspaper/Radio Cross-Ownership Waiver Policy (MM Docket No. 96-197). Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.mediaaccess.org/filings/ consumers_union_et_al_nbco_comments.pdf
35. Continuing Appropriations Act for FiscalYear 1988, Pub. L.No. 100-201, 101 Stat. 1329 (1987).
36. Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Philadelphia, 91 F. 3d 586 (3rd Cir. 1996).
37. Cooper, M. (2003). Media ownership and democracy in the digital information age: Promoting diversity with first amendment principles and market structure analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Center for Internet & Society.
38. Curran, J. (2000). Rethinking media and democracy. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (3rd ed., pp. 120-154). London: Arnold.
39. Denver Area Education Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
40. Downie, Jr., L., & Kaiser, R.G. (2002). The truth about the news: American journalism in peril. New York: Knopf.
41. Dubin, J., & Spitzer, M. L. (1995).Testing minority preferences in broadcasting. Southern California Law Review, 68, 841-884.
42. Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. New York: Holt.
43. Ekelund, R. B., Ford,G. S., & Jackson, J.D. (1999). Is radio advertising a distinct local market? An empirical analysis. Review of Industrial Organization, 14, 239-256.
44. Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Entman, R., & Wildman, S. (1992). Reconciling economic and non-economic perspectives on media policy: Transcending the 'marketplace of ideas.' Journal of Communication, 42(1), 5-19.
46. Equal Employment Opportunity Processing Guidelines for Broadcast Renewal Applicants. (1980). 45 Fed. Reg. 16335.
47. Erwin v. Daley, 92 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 1996).
48. Farhi, P. (1994,November 29).Atelevision trend:Audiences in Black and White; viewers split on racial lines as networks find diversity sells-but critics see cultural risks.The Washington Post, p. A1.
49. FCC. (1984). Brief for the FCC in Steele v. FCC. 1985. (D.C. Cir. No. 84-1176) (1985) (en banc).
50. FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775 (1978).
51. Fife, M. (1984). FCC policy on minority ownership in broadcasting: A political systems analysis of regulatory policymaking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
52. Fiss,O. (1996). Liberalism divided: Freedom of speech and the many uses of state power. Boulder, CO: Westview.
53. Fowler, M., & Brenner, D. (1982). A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60, 207-257.
54. Fox Television Stations v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
55. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
56. Gainesville Media, Inc. (1978). 70 FCC 2d 143, Rev. Bd.
57. Graham, K. (1997). Personal history/Katherine Graham. New York: Knopf.
58. Grant, A. E. (1994). The promise fulfilled? An empirical analysis of program diversity on television. Journal of Media Economics, 7, 51-64.
59. Grutter v. Bollinger, U.S. Supreme Court, Slip Opinion, No. 02-241, Decided June 23, 2003.
60. Hamilton, J.T. (2004). All the news that's fit to sell:How the market transforms information into news. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61. Hazlett, T. (1990). The rationality of U.S. regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 133-175.
62. Herman, E. S., & McChesney, R. (1997). The global media: The new missionaries of corporate capitalism. Washington, DC: Cassell.
63. Hill, C., & Landro, L. (2000, January 12). Does everybody have to own everything? Behind the vast media octopus of AOL and TimeWarner, there's a simpler strategy. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
64. Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Vintage.
65. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996).
66. Horwitz, R. B. (1991).The first amendment meets some newtechnologies: Broadcasting, common carriers and free speech in the 1990s. Theory and Society, 20, 21-72.
67. Horwitz, R. B. (1994). Judicial review of regulatory decisions: The changing criteria. Political Science Quarterly, 109, 133-169.
68. Horwitz, R. B. (1997). Broadcast reform revisited: Reverend Everett C. Parker and the WLBT case [Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. FCC]. The Communication Review, 2, 311-348.
69. House of Representatives Conference Report. (1982). No. 97-765. 97th Cong., 2d Sess.
70. In the Matter of the Application of Great Lakes Broadcasting Co. (1929). 3 FRC Annual Report 32.
71. Kaniss, P. C. (1991). Making local news. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Kubey, R., Shifflet, M.,Weerakkody, N., & Ukeiley, S. (1995). Demographic diversity on cable: Have the newcable channels made difference in the representation of gender, race, and age? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 459-471.
73. Lamprecht v. FCC, 958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
74. Lande, R. H. (1982).Wealth transfers as the original and primary concern of antitrust: The efficiency interpretation challenged. The Hastings Law Journal, 34, 67-151.
75. Lessig, L., & Lemley, M. (1999).Written ex parte of Professor Mark A. Lemley and Professor Lawrence Lessig in the matter of application for consent to the transfer of control of licenses MediaOne Group, Inc. toAT&TCorp. FCC, CS Docket No. 99-251.Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/1999/exa91207.doc
76. Levin, H. J. (1970). Competition, diversity, and the television group ownership rule. Columbia Law Review, 70, 791-835.
77. Levin, H. J. (1980). Fact and fancy in television regulation: An economic study of policy alternatives. New York: Sage.
78. Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (1995). Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects. White Plains, NY: Longman.
79. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
80. Mason, L., Bachen, C. M., & Craft, S. L. (2001). Support for FCC minority ownership policy: Howbroadcast station owner race or ethnicity affects news and public affairs programming diversity. Communication Law & Policy, 6, 37-73.
81. Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
82. Mid-Florida Television Corp. (1978). 69 FCC 2d 607.
83. Millon,D. (1988).The Shermanact and the balance of power. Southern California Law Review, 61, 1219-1292.
84. Napoli, P. (1999). Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 7-34.
85. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. (1968). Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Dutton.
86. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
87. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC, 555 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
88. Nesvold, H.P. (n.d.).Communications breakdown:Developing an antitrust model formultimedia mergers and acquisitions. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.vii.org/papers/peter.htm
89. Network Programming Inquiry. (1960). 25 Fed. Reg. 7295.
90. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
91. Noam, E. M. (n.d.). Media concentration in the United States: Industry trends and regulatory responses. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.vii.org/papers/medconc.htm
92. Noll, R., Peck, M., & McGowan J. (1973). Economic aspects of television regulation.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
93. Nondiscrimination in the Employment Policies and Practices of Broadcast Licensees. (1976). 60 FCC 2d 226.
94. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (2002). In the matter of 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, cross ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, rule and policies concerning multiple ownership of radio broadcast stations in local markets, definition of radio markets. MB Docket No. 02-227, MM Dockets 02-235, 01-317, 00-244.
95. Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
96. Petition for Rulemaking to Require Broadcast Licensees to Show Nondiscrimination in their Employment Practices. (1968). 13 FCC 2d 766.
97. Police Association v. City of New Orleans, 100 F.3d 1159 (5th Cir. 1996).
98. Police v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
99. Policies and Rules Regarding Minority and Female Ownership of Cable Television Facilities. (1982). 52 Rad. Reg. 2d P&F 1469.
100. Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings. (1965). 1 FCC 2d 393.
101. Powell, M. (1998, April 22).Willful denial and first amendment jurisprudence. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_speeches_1998.html
102. Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants. (1971). 27 FCC 2d 650.
103. Project for Excellence in Journalism (2001, November/December). Special report: Local tv news. Columbia Journalism Review. Supplement.
104. PrometheusRadio Project v. FCC,No. 03-3388, etc. US Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir. Decided September 3, 2003.
105. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, No. 03-3388, etc. US Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir. Decided August 24, 2004.
106. Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees. (1946).Washington, DC: FederalCommunications Commission.
107. Red Lion Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
108. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
109. Report and Order. (1970). 23 FCC 2d 382; rescinded, Network Financial Interest and Syndication Rules. 1995. 60 Fed. Reg. 48,907.
110. Report and Order. (2003). In the matter of 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, cross ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, rule and policies concerning multiple ownership of radio broadcast stations in local markets, definition of radio markets. MB Docket No. 02-227, MM Dockets 02-235, 01-317, 00-244.
111. Report on Chain Broadcasting. (1941). Pursuant to Commission Order No. 37, Docket No. 5060. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
112. Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting: Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (1995). 10 FCC Rcd. 3524.
113. Rosen, P. T. (1980). The modern stentors: Radio broadcasters and the federal government, 1920-1934. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
114. Schurz Communications v. FCC, 982 F.2d 1043 (7th Cir. 1992).
115. Schwartz, B. (1959). Comparative television and the chancellor's foot. Georgetown Law Journal, 47, 655-699.
116. Second Report and Order. (1974). 50 FCC 2d 1046.
117. Seiter, E. (1999). Television and new media audiences. New York: Oxford University Press.
118. Shurberg Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 876 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
119. Siebert, F. S., Peterson,T., & Schramm,W. (1956). Four theories of the press:Authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
120. Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC, 284 F.3d 148 (DC Cir. 2002).
121. Spitzer, M. L. (1991). Justifying minority preferences in broadcasting. Southern California Law Review, 64, 293-361.
122. Stahlman v. FCC, 126 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1942).
123. Statement of Policy on MinorityOwnership of BroadcastingFacilities. (1978). 68FCC2d 979.
124. Steele v. FCC, 770 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
125. Steiner, P. O. (1952). Program patterns and preferences, and the workability of competition in radio broadcasting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 194-223.
126. Sunstein, C. (1993). Democracy and the problem of free speech. New York: Free Press.
127. Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
128. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1977).Window dressing on the set:Women and minorities in television. Washington, DC: The Commission on Civil Rights.
129. Tifft, S. E., & Jones, A. (1999). The trust: The private and powerful family behind the New York Times. Boston: Little, Brown.
130. Time Warner v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
131. Tunstall, J., & Machin D. (1999).The Anglo-American media connection.New York: Oxford University Press.
132. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
133. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).
134. TV9, Inc. v. FCC, 495 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
135. U.S. v. Syufy Enterprises, 712 F. Supp. 1386 (N.D. Cal. 1989); aff 'd 903 F2d 659 (9th Cir. 1990).
136. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
137. United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948).
138. United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956).
139. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. (1992). Horizontal merger guidelines. Retrieved September 17, 2004, from http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/horiz_book/hmg1.html
140. Waklshlag, J., & Adams,W. J. (1985). Trends in program variety and the prime time access rule. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 23-34.
141. Waldfogel, J., & Siegelman, P. (1999). Race and radio: Preference externalities, minority ownership, and the provision of programming to minorities. Philadelphia: The Wharton School.
142. Waterman,D. (1992). 'Narrowcasting' and 'broadcasting' on non-broadcast media: A program choice model. Communication Research, 19, 3-28.
143. Waterman, D. (2000). CBS-Viacom and the effects of media mergers: An economic perspective. Federal Communications Law Journal, 53, 531-550.
144. West Michigan Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 735 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1027 (1985).
145. Winerip, M. (1998, January 11). Looking for an 11 o'clock fix. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 30-63.
146. Winter Park Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 873 F.2d 347 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
147. Wittmer v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1996).
148. Wysocki, Jr., B. (2000, January 31). Cyberspace Inc.: More companies cut risk by collaborating with their 'enemies': Many Internet operations co-invest in bid to insure at least a slice of success. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A10.