Invisible Hands or Public Spheres? Theoretical Foundations for U.S. Broadcast Policy

Citizenship Excess

“…Most media scholars believe that, as with food or medicine, the state ought to be involved in the process of selling and buying of media companies and that, as with food or medicine, the main principles behind media trade regulation should be a broad understanding of the negative effects that a substandard product will have on society's well-being. This is the primer for critical definitions of public interest, which argue that media are central to democracy because they create the space where public debate happens and broad political consensus is formed (McChesney 1993(McChesney , 2004McMurria 2009;Miller 2007;Napoli 2001;Noriega 2000;Perlman 2007;Schudson 2002; Simone and Fernback 2006;Valdivia 2010). Over the decades, the principles around which the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and, later, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated media have changed; the definition of "public interest" is after all subject to political control as well as social and historical transformation.2 Yet since the civil rights movement, these principles have included the recognition and protection of diversity of programming and the sense that to foster diversity in programming one needs to foster diversity in media employment and diversity in media ownership (Baker 1998;Corbett 1996;Eule 1990;Perlman 2007; Simone and Fernback 2006;Weinberg 1993).…”

“…This is the primer for critical definitions of public interest, which argue that media are central to democracy because they create the space where public debate happens and broad political consensus is formed (McChesney 1993(McChesney , 2004McMurria 2009;Miller 2007;Napoli 2001;Noriega 2000;Perlman 2007;Schudson 2002; Simone and Fernback 2006;Valdivia 2010). Over the decades, the principles around which the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and, later, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated media have changed; the definition of "public interest" is after all subject to political control as well as social and historical transformation.2 Yet since the civil rights movement, these principles have included the recognition and protection of diversity of programming and the sense that to foster diversity in programming one needs to foster diversity in media employment and diversity in media ownership (Baker 1998;Corbett 1996;Eule 1990;Perlman 2007; Simone and Fernback 2006;Weinberg 1993). So my position here is that a notion of public interest that includes the idea that minorities ought to own their own media is part of the FCC tradition, and what is surprising is how this tradition is rejected by the FCC when it comes to SLM.…”

Citizenship excess: Latinas/os, media, and the nation

“…Most media scholars believe that, as with food or medicine, the state ought to be involved in the process of selling and buying of media companies and that, as with food or medicine, the main principles behind media trade regulation should be a broad understanding of the negative effects that a substandard product will have on society's well-being. This is the primer for critical definitions of public interest, which argue that media are central to democracy because they create the space where public debate happens and broad political consensus is formed (McChesney 1993(McChesney , 2004McMurria 2009;Miller 2007;Napoli 2001;Noriega 2000;Perlman 2007;Schudson 2002; Simone and Fernback 2006;Valdivia 2010). Over the decades, the principles around which the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and, later, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated media have changed; the definition of "public interest" is after all subject to political control as well as social and historical transformation.2 Yet since the civil rights movement, these principles have included the recognition and protection of diversity of programming and the sense that to foster diversity in programming one needs to foster diversity in media employment and diversity in media ownership (Baker 1998;Corbett 1996;Eule 1990;Perlman 2007; Simone and Fernback 2006;Weinberg 1993).…”

“…This is the primer for critical definitions of public interest, which argue that media are central to democracy because they create the space where public debate happens and broad political consensus is formed (McChesney 1993(McChesney , 2004McMurria 2009;Miller 2007;Napoli 2001;Noriega 2000;Perlman 2007;Schudson 2002; Simone and Fernback 2006;Valdivia 2010). Over the decades, the principles around which the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and, later, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulated media have changed; the definition of "public interest" is after all subject to political control as well as social and historical transformation.2 Yet since the civil rights movement, these principles have included the recognition and protection of diversity of programming and the sense that to foster diversity in programming one needs to foster diversity in media employment and diversity in media ownership (Baker 1998;Corbett 1996;Eule 1990;Perlman 2007; Simone and Fernback 2006;Weinberg 1993). So my position here is that a notion of public interest that includes the idea that minorities ought to own their own media is part of the FCC tradition, and what is surprising is how this tradition is rejected by the FCC when it comes to SLM.…”