All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Access to the Media Versus Access to Audiences: The Distinction and its Implications for Media Regulation and Policy
Unformatted Document Text:  9 newspaper, for example is privately rather than publicly owned.” 17 Barron’s ultimate hope is for the construction of “a public forum model . . . within the context of privately owned mass media.” 18 A key detail of Barron’s argument (at least for this analysis) is that as he transfers the public forum principles into the realm of the mass media, he employs a slight shift in terminology. Specifically, he abandons the right of access to audiences language that is central to the public forum decisions and adopts instead language that focuses on the right of “access to the media,” or, in some cases, a right of “access to the press.” This is a subtle but important distinction, for instead of advocating a direct right of access to audiences, Barron is advocating a more indirect process, wherein speakers are granted a right of access to particular institutions (the media) in order to then (presumably) achieve access to audiences. This issue of a right of access to the media has found its way into the Supreme Court’s decision making on a number of occasions (though the right of access to the media has been both affirmed and rejected by the Court). For instance, in perhaps one of the most well known media access cases, Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 19 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the political editorial and personal attack rules (components of the Fairness Doctrine), which required broadcasters to provide political candidates with an opportunity to respond on-air to broadcast editorials against their candidacy, or other forms of criticism. This decision was premised in large part upon what were deemed the unique characteristics of the broadcast medium – specifically, the scarcity of available spectrum. The Court reached similar conclusions in CBS v. Federal Communications Commission, 20 upholding an FCC policy requiring that political candidates receive “reasonable access to . . . the use of a 17 Id. at 492. 18 Id. at 506. 19 395 U.S. 367 (1969). 20 435 U.S. 367, (1981).

Authors: Napoli, Philip.
first   previous   Page 9 of 24   next   last



background image
9
newspaper, for example is privately rather than publicly owned.”
17
Barron’s ultimate hope is for the
construction of “a public forum model . . . within the context of privately owned mass media.”
18
A key detail of Barron’s argument (at least for this analysis) is that as he transfers the public
forum principles into the realm of the mass media, he employs a slight shift in terminology. Specifically,
he abandons the right of access to audiences language that is central to the public forum decisions and
adopts instead language that focuses on the right of “access to the media,” or, in some cases, a right of
“access to the press.” This is a subtle but important distinction, for instead of advocating a direct right of
access to audiences, Barron is advocating a more indirect process, wherein speakers are granted a right of
access to particular institutions (the media) in order to then (presumably) achieve access to audiences.
This issue of a right of access to the media has found its way into the Supreme Court’s decision
making on a number of occasions (though the right of access to the media has been both affirmed and
rejected by the Court). For instance, in perhaps one of the most well known media access cases, Red Lion
Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission,
19
the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of the political editorial and personal attack rules (components of the Fairness Doctrine), which required
broadcasters to provide political candidates with an opportunity to respond on-air to broadcast editorials
against their candidacy, or other forms of criticism. This decision was premised in large part upon what
were deemed the unique characteristics of the broadcast medium – specifically, the scarcity of available
spectrum. The Court reached similar conclusions in CBS v. Federal Communications Commission,
20
upholding an FCC policy requiring that political candidates receive “reasonable access to . . . the use of a
17
Id. at 492.
18
Id. at 506.
19
395 U.S. 367 (1969).
20
435 U.S. 367, (1981).


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.