Proactive media policy in an age of content abundance

Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 363-382

  Goodman, Ellen P ^a  

^a and law in the military   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904775053     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410614407     Document Type: Chapter

References (82)

1. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).
2. Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. New York: Routledge.
3. Baker, C. E. (1998). The media that citizens need. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147, 317-408.
4. Baker, C. E. (2002). Media, markets, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Barstow, D., & Stein, R. (2005, March 13). "Under Bush, a new age of prepackaged news." The New York Times, p. A1.
6. Baudrillard, J. (1990). Mass media culture. In P. Foss & J. Pefanis (Eds.), Revenge of the crystal: Selected writings on the modern object and its destiny: 1968-1983 (pp. 63-97). London: Pluto Press.
7. Brookes, M. (2004).Watching alone: Social capital and public service broadcasting. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/pdf/watching_alone.pdf
8. Carnegie Commission. (1967). Public television:Aprogram for action.New York: Harper & Row.
9. Cooper, M. (2004). Media ownership and democracy in the digital information age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for the Internet and Society.
10. Copps, M. (2003). Dissent to 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. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A5.pdf
11. Croteau, D., & Hoynes,W. (2001). The business of media: Corporate media and the public interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
12. Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Federal Communications Commission. (1960).Report and statement of policy re: Commission en banc programming inquiry, 44 F.C.C. 2303.
14. Federal Communications Commission. (1971). Primer on ascertainment of community problems by broadcast applicants, 27 F.C.C.2d 650.
15. Federal Communications Commission. (1979). Cable television syndicated program exclusivity rules, 71 F.C.C.2d 1004.
16. Federal Communications Commission. (1984). Revision of programming and commercialization policies, ascertainment requirements, and program log requirements for commercial television stations, 98 F.C.C.2d 1075.
17. Federal Communications Commission. (2003a). 2002 biennial regulatory review-review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to Section 202, report and order and notice of proposed rulemaking, 18 F.C.C.R. 13,620.
18. Federal Communications Commission. (2003b). FCC sets limits on media concentration: Unprecedented public record results in enforceable and balanced broadcast ownership rules. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-235047A1.pdf
19. Federal Communications Commission. (2004a). Broadcast localism, notice of inquiry, 19 F.C.C.R. 12,425.
20. Federal Communications Commission. (2004b). FCC annual assessment of the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming, tenth annual report, 19 F.C.C.R. 1606.
21. FederalCommunications Commission. (2005). Annual assessment of the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video programming, eleventh annual report. Retrieved October 14, 2005, from http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-13A1.pdf
22. Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984).
23. Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broad. Co., 309 U.S. 134 (1940).
24. Fiss, O. (1987). Why the state? Harvard Law Review, 100, 781, 788-794.
25. Fowler, M. S., & Brenner, D. L. (1982). A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60, 207-257.
26. Fox Entertainment Group. (2003). Comments in 2002 biennial regulatory review-Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202, MB Docket No. 02-277.
27. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FederalCommunications Commission, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
28. Friedland, L. A., & Nichols, S. (2002). Measuring civic journalism's progress: A report across a decade of activity. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/research/measuringcj.pdf
29. Gans, H. J. (2003). Democracy and the news. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Gitlin, T. (2003). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. New York: Owl Books.
31. Goldstein, A. (2004, May 20). "GAOsays HHS broke laws with Medicare videos." The Washington Post, p. A1.
32. Goodman, E. P. (2002). Bargains in the information marketplace:The use of government subsidies to regulate newmedia. Journal of Telecommunication & High Technology Law, 1, 217-292.
33. Goodman, E. P. (2004). Media policy out of the box: Content abundance, attention scarcity, and the failures of digital markets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19, 1389-1472.
34. Hunter, D. (2002). Philippic.com. California Law Review, 90, 611-671.
35. Hunter, D., & Lastowka, F. G. (2004). Amateur-to-amateur. William & Mary Law Review, 46, 951-1030.
36. Kandel, N. (2003, December). Presentation delivered at the Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning, Metrics, and the Public Interest Conference, Donald McGannon Communication Research Center, Fordham University, New York.
37. Katz, E. (1998). And deliver us from segmentation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 456, 22-33.
38. Krattenmaker,T.G., & Powe, L. A., Jr. (1985).The Fairness Doctrine today:Aconstitutional curiosity and an impossible dream. Duke Law Journal, X, 151-176.
39. Krotoszynski, R. J., Jr., & Blaiklock, R. M. (2000). Enhancing the spectrum: Media power, democracy, and the marketplace of ideas. Illinois Law Review, 2000, 813-885.
40. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
41. Ledbetter, J. (1997). Made possible by ...: The death of public broadcasting in the United States. New York: Norton.
42. McMasters, P. (1997). A First Amendment perspective on public journalism. In J. Black (Ed.), Mixed news: The public/civic/communitarian journalism debate (pp. 188-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. McQuail, D. (2003). McQuail's mass communication theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Meiklejohn, A. (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government.New York: Harper Brothers.
45. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
46. Napoli, P. M. (1999). Deconstructing the diversity principle. Journal of Communication, 48, 7-34.
47. Napoli, P. M. (2001). Foundations of communications policy: Principles and process in the regulation of electronic media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
48. Napoli, P. M. (2003). Audience economics: Media institutions and the audience marketplace. New York: Columbia University Press.
49. Napoli, P. M., & Gillis, N. (2005, November). Reassessing communications research's potential contribution to communications policy:The case of media ownership and the diversity index. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Boston.
50. National Association of Broadcasters and Network Affiliated Stations Alliance. (2002). Comments filed in 2002 biennial regulatory review-Review of the Commission's broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to Section 202, MB Docket No. 02-277, 39-40.
51. National Center for Outreach. (2004). Outreach pipeline. Retrieved October 16, 2004, from http://www.nationaloutreach.org/PIPELINE/Pipeline.pdf
52. NBC v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
53. Owen,B. M. (2003).Regulatory reform:TheTelecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC media ownership rules. Michigan State University/Detroit College of Law Review, X, 671-700.
54. Owen, B. M. (2004). Confusing success with access: "Correctly" measuring concentration of ownership and control in mass media and online services. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=54302
55. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Penguin.
56. Price, M. E. (1995).Television, the public sphere, and national identity.New York: Oxford University Press.
57. Prindle, G. M. (2003). No competition: How radio consolidation has diminished diversity and sacrificed localism. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 14, 279-325.
58. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004).
59. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
60. Rowland, W. D., Jr. (1993). The institution of U.S. public broadcasting. In E. M. Noam & J. Waltermann (Eds.), Public television in America (pp. 113-144). Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation.
61. Sabato, L. (1991). Feeding frenzy: How attack journalism has transformed American politics. New York: Free Press.
62. Scannell, P. (1995). Britain: Public service broadcasting, from national culture tomulticulturalism. In M. Raboy (Ed.), Public broadcasting for the 21st century (pp. 23-41). Luton, England: University of Luton Press.
63. Shapiro, A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the Internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world. New York: Public Affairs.
64. Sinclair Broad. Group Inc. v. FCC, 284 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
65. Starr, P. (2004). The creation of the media: Political origins of modern communications. New York: Basic Books.
66. Stevenson, N. (1995). Understanding media cultures: Social theory and mass communication. London: Sage.
67. Stucke, M. E., & Grunes, A. P. (2001). Antitrust and the marketplace of ideas. Antitrust Law Journal, 69, 249-302.
68. Sullivan, K. M. (1989). Unconstitutional conditions. Harvard Law Review, 102, 1415-1506.
69. Sunstein, C. R. (1993). Democracy and the problem of free speech. New York: Free Press.
70. Sunstein, C. R. (1997). Free markets and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
71. Sunstein, C. R. (2000). Television and the public interest. California Law Review, 88, 499-564.
72. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73. Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 105 F.3d 723, 724 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
74. Tracey, M. (1998). The decline and fall of public service broadcasting. New York: Oxford University Press.
75. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
76. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Section 24: Information and Communications. Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/inforcomm.pdf
77. U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 396(a)(6) (2000).
78. Webster, J. G., & Phalen, P. F. (1994). Victim, consumer, or commodity? Audience models in communications policy. In J. S. Ettema& D.C. Whitnsey (Eds.),Audiencemaking:Howthe media create the audience (pp. 19-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Werbach, K. (in press).The implications of video P2P on network usage in video peer to peer. In E. Noam & D. Gerbarg (Eds.), Peer to peer as a distribution medium. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
80. Will, G. F. (2005, March 3). "Cut Buster loose." TheWashington Post, p. A25.
81. Yoo, C. S. (2003a). Rethinking the commitment to free, local television. Emory Law Journal, 52, 1579-1717.
82. Yoo,C. S. (2003b).The rise and demise of the technology-specific approach to the First Amendment. Georgetown Law Journal, 91, 245-356.