The Supreme Court Defines the Marketplace of Ideas

Hopkins, W. Wat

doi:10.1177/107769909607300105

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 Blasi (1977), Ingber (1984), Bagdikian (2000), and others have elaborated on this argument, and it has been accepted as a central justification for broadcast regulation (Federal Communications Commission, 2003).…”

Section: Implications For Media Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and Truth in the Market for News

Gentzkow

Shapiro

2008

Journal of Economic Perspectives

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, we evaluate the case for competition in news markets from the perspective of economics. First, we consider the simple proposition that when more points of view are heard and defended, beliefs will converge to the truth. This concept of "competition" is several steps removed from market competition among actual media firms, but it has played a prominent role in the legal arguments for a free press. We then explore three mechanisms by which increasing competition, or more precisely increasing the number of independently-owned firms, can limit bias or distortions that originate on the supply-side of the media market: First, when governments attempt to manipulate news, competition can increase the likelihood that the media remain independent. Second, when news providers have an interest in manipulating consumers' beliefs, diversity in such incentives can reduce the risk of information being suppressed or distorted. Third, competition may drive firms to invest in providing timely and accurate coverage. Overall, we argue that there are robust reasons to expect competition to be effective in disciplining supply-side bias. Next, we ask how the effect of competition changes when distortions originate on the demand side of the market -- when consumers themselves demand biased or less socially relevant news. We find that increased competition may or may not improve welfare in these cases, though we caution against using this as a justification for concentrating media power in the hands of state-controlled or regulated firms.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Media Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and Truth in the Market for News

Gentzkow

Shapiro

2008

Journal of Economic Perspectives

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The flexibility in interpretation is telling in that it reflects the degree to which the marketplace of ideas metaphor has remained, in many ways, contestable terrain in communications policymaking. We see no more consistency in the FCC's interpretation of the metaphor than we do in the academic literature or in the Supreme Court's interpretation (Hopkins, 1996;Sweeney, 1984). Given the nature of the metaphor's origins, there seems little likelihood of a consensus being reached regarding its appropriate interpretation in communications policymaking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…This is an important gap in the literature, given the growing body of research demonstrating that how metaphors are actually interpreted and used can have a significant impact on decision outcomes (e.g., Bosmajian, 1992;Hibbitts, 1994). The little we do know about the application of the marketplace of ideas concept has come from research that has focused on the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the metaphor (Hopkins, 1996;Sweeney, 1984). These studies have found that the court has never explicitly defined the marketplace of ideas (Hopkins, 1996), and that the metaphor typically has been used to uphold consumers' and citizens' rights to receive information (Sweeney, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The little we do know about the application of the marketplace of ideas concept has come from research that has focused on the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the metaphor (Hopkins, 1996;Sweeney, 1984). These studies have found that the court has never explicitly defined the marketplace of ideas (Hopkins, 1996), and that the metaphor typically has been used to uphold consumers' and citizens' rights to receive information (Sweeney, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Marketplace of Ideas Metaphor In Communications Regulation

Napoli

1999

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "marketplace of ideas" metaphor has been interpreted from democratic and economic theory perspectives. These different interpretive approaches emphasize different policy objectives and have been associated with divergent regulatory philosophies. To reach a deeper understanding of how regulators have interpreted and applied the marketplace of ideas metaphor, I analyzed the use of the metaphor over the past 33 years by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I conducted content analysis on each FCC decision, from mid-1965FCC decision, from mid- through mid-1998 which the "marketplace of ideas" terminology was used. The results suggest that the metaphor typically has been used within the context of deregulatory actions, and that, in recent years, the Commission increasingly has focused on the economic theory dimension of the metaphor. However, the results for the 33-year period indicate no significant relationship between the type of regulatory action taken and the theoretical interpretation of the marketplace of ideas metaphor employed.The "marketplace of ideas" metaphor is one of the foundation concepts in communications regulation. As such, it has been the subject of intensive scrutiny and analysis in legal, academic, and policy circles (e.g.A key point that emerges from these analyses is that the metaphor contains elements of both democratic theory and economic theory. This duality has allowed widely divergent interpretations of the metaphor to develop. My central concern in this paper is that these different theoretical approaches emphasize different policy objectives. Economic theory-based interpretations of the marketplace of ideas emphasize efficiency, consumer satisfaction, and competition, whereas democratic theory-based interpretations emphasize citizen knowledge, informed decisionmaking, and effective self-government. Within discussions of the marketplace of ideas metaphor, economic theory-based interpretations typically have been associated with arguments against government regulation of the communications industry, whereas democratic theory-based interpretations typically have been asso-

show abstract

“…However, as Hopkins noted, the Supreme Court since the 1970s has greatly increased its references to the marketplace, often defining it as existing in small settings: conferences, classrooms, areas being picketed, mail systems, and even state fairs. 115 The marketplace Fly worked for has assumed new definitions while the Court still considers it relevant. 116 The author is a distinguished service professor emeritus in the College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida.…”

Section: Nudged Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

James Lawrence Fly’s Fight for a Free Marketplace of Ideas

Edwardson

1997

American Journalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Supreme Court Defines the Marketplace of Ideas

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Competition and Truth in the Market for News

Competition and Truth in the Market for News

The Marketplace of Ideas Metaphor In Communications Regulation

James Lawrence Fly’s Fight for a Free Marketplace of Ideas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About