Media Concentration and Democracy Why Ownership Matters
On June 2, 2003, the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission took a predictable step in its seemingly unstoppablemovementtowardmedia deregulation. Itannounced a major relaxation of its already relaxed rules restricting media concentration.1 The communications sector, the FCC found...
Đã lưu trong:
| Tác giả chính: | |
|---|---|
| Định dạng: | Sách |
| Ngôn ngữ: | English |
| Được phát hành: |
Cambridge University Press
2013
|
| Những chủ đề: | |
| Truy cập trực tuyến: | http://scholar.dlu.edu.vn/thuvienso/handle/DLU123456789/35595 |
| Các nhãn: |
Thêm thẻ
Không có thẻ, Là người đầu tiên thẻ bản ghi này!
|
| Thư viện lưu trữ: | Thư viện Trường Đại học Đà Lạt |
|---|
| Tóm tắt: | On June 2, 2003, the Republican-dominated Federal Communications
Commission took a predictable step in its seemingly unstoppablemovementtowardmedia
deregulation. Itannounced a major relaxation
of its already relaxed rules restricting media concentration.1 The
communications sector, the FCC found, is rife with competition. Ownership
concentration presents little threat. More surprisingly, reducing
restrictions on media mergers produced a storm of protest, from both
the left and right, involving more vocalized public opposition than any
FCC action ever. The FCC basically ignored nearly two million people of
all political persuasions who registered their opposition.2 William Safire
argued that “concentration of [media] power . . . should be anathema to
conservatives.”3 Safire creditedmuch of the effectiveness of “the growing
grass roots” movement “against giantism” in the media to “right-wing
outfits,” although he also noted the role of progressives including Bill
Moyers.4 Opposition was notwithout at least temporary effect.Congress
partially reversed the FCC action.5 Then the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals found most of the remainder unjustified, sending the relaxed
rules back to the FCC for reconsideration.6 |
|---|