All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Broadcast Ownership Regulation in a Border Era: An Analysis of how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is Shaping the Debate on Broadcast Ownership Limits
Unformatted Document Text:  16 of Section 202(h) in the passage shown above it would have ended this way. “The Commission shall repeal or modify any regulation it no longer determines to be in the public interest” (Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title II, Section 202(h). And even if the FCC did, as a result of the Act and the subsequent court rulings, have to provide evidence based on the state of competition in the relevant industries for the continued retention of broadcast ownership rules it does not mean that additional rationales based on other forms of enquiry were precluded. The Sources Cited in the Twelve Studies The twelve Media Ownership Working Group Studies were released by the FCC on October 1, 2002 and immediately made available on the FCC’s web site. As noted earlier, our intent here is not to critique the findings of these studies. Instead, we want to review the sources they cite to support the research they conducted and the conclusions they reached. By analyzing the sources they used we can see how these studies contribute to the FCC’s definition of the nature of the issue of broadcast ownership regulations. To better identify the sources that might provide the author(s) of a study with the theoretical foundations for their work a number of types of sources were eliminated from the analysis including: all federal government documents such as those issued by Congress and executive branch agencies. All court documents were also excluded along with public laws. Trade-press publications, corporate annual reports, and the output of media lobbying organizations, such as the National Association of Broadcasters and Newspaper Association of America, were also omitted from the analysis. Finally, industry directories and financial industry reports were dropped. The result was a focus on journals, books and other monographs, including research reports issued by university-based groups and independent think tanks.

Authors: Blevins, Jeffrey. and Brown, Duncan.
first   previous   Page 17 of 29   next   last



background image
16
of Section 202(h) in the passage shown above it would have ended this way. “The Commission
shall repeal or modify any regulation it no longer determines to be in the public interest”
(Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title II, Section 202(h). And even if the FCC did, as a result
of the Act and the subsequent court rulings, have to provide evidence based on the state of
competition in the relevant industries for the continued retention of broadcast ownership rules it
does not mean that additional rationales based on other forms of enquiry were precluded.
The Sources Cited in the Twelve Studies
The twelve Media Ownership Working Group Studies were released by the FCC on
October 1, 2002 and immediately made available on the FCC’s web site. As noted earlier, our
intent here is not to critique the findings of these studies. Instead, we want to review the sources
they cite to support the research they conducted and the conclusions they reached. By analyzing
the sources they used we can see how these studies contribute to the FCC’s definition of the
nature of the issue of broadcast ownership regulations.
To better identify the sources that might provide the author(s) of a study with the
theoretical foundations for their work a number of types of sources were eliminated from the
analysis including: all federal government documents such as those issued by Congress and
executive branch agencies. All court documents were also excluded along with public laws.
Trade-press publications, corporate annual reports, and the output of media lobbying
organizations, such as the National Association of Broadcasters and Newspaper Association of
America, were also omitted from the analysis. Finally, industry directories and financial
industry reports were dropped. The result was a focus on journals, books and other monographs,
including research reports issued by university-based groups and independent think tanks.


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your 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 17 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.