The Associated Press Antitrust Suit: A Philosophical Clash over Ownership of First Amendment Rights

Abstract

In this article Professor Blanchard examines the Associated Press antitrust suit of the early 1940s in terms of its protagonists, Chicago newspaper leaders Robert McCormick and Marshall Field. The analysis avoids traditional antitrust terms and instead examines the suit as part of an effort by the federal government to use the antitrust law to implement a public-interest interpretation of the First Amendment. Professor Blanchard also looks at McCormick's attempt to obtain special legislation from Congress to void the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Field. She concludes that, although the government's efforts to use the First Amendment to force the news agency to serve a broader public interest were successful, the Associated Press emerged from the suit stronger than before the legal action.

Social Democracy or Corporate Libertarianism? Conflicting Media Policy Narratives in the Wake of Market Failure

“…Media policy debates rose to the fore, as reformers called into question the reigning laissez‐faire relationship between U.S. media, the public, and the state. Progressive policy initiatives included the Supreme Court's antitrust ruling against the Associated Press (Blanchard, ), which called for government protection of “diverse and antagonistic voices” in the media; the 1946 Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Blue Book, which outlined broadcasters' public service responsibilities; the 1947 Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press, which established democratic benchmarks for journalism, and finally the 1949 Fairness Doctrine, which defined broadcasters' basic public interest obligations (Pickard, 2008).…”

Laying Low the Shibboleth of a Free Press

“…The court case began in 1943 and generated fierce debate. Those siding with the newspaper industry stressed libertarian interpretations of the First Amendment that, they believed, rendered the industry immune to antitrust interventions (Blanchard 1987). Ultimately the case was decided by a threejudge panel in federal district court: the panel ruled two to one against the AP on a relatively novel line of argumentation that was nonetheless supported by important precedents, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's contention that democracy required the maintenance of an open marketplace of ideas.…”

Reopening the Postwar Settlement for U.S. Media: The Origins and Implications of the Social Contract Between Media, the State, and the Polity

“…According to this latter view, government should defer to market operations to dictate who has access to media, thus privileging media owners and producers over everyone else. While progressives sought a positive nurturing of healthy discourse, media owners and publishers wanted a strictly hands‐off regulatory approach (Blanchard, 1987). Despite key court decisions to the contrary, the latter view won decisively.…”