The deregulation of commercial radio in the USA has had important consequences in two specific cases: the concentration of ownership and the removal of public interest requirements. A `corporatist' perspective has driven deregulation and has now achieved complete dominance over radio broadcasting in the USA. The most significant consequence of deregulation has been that `local' radio stations are completely insulated from any form of direct community influence that is not contained within channels created and controlled by industry. In the USA, the idea of `public interest' in radio broadcasting is now defined entirely in the terms of private industry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, Edmund L. (1992) `A New Tune for Radio: Hard Times', New York Times (16 March): 6.
2.
Bagdikian, Ben (1992) `Pap Radio', The Nation254 (13 April): 473.
3.
Bensman, Marvin (1990) Broadcast/Cable Regulation.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
4.
Bloomberg Business News (1995) `Radio Big Winner in U.S. Telecom Overhaul', Globe and Mail (22 Dec.): B4.
5.
Bloomquist, Randall (1996) `Do Not Attempt to Change that Dial'.City Paper (12 Jan.): 10-11.
6.
Bogart, Leo (1993) `Shaping a New Media Policy', The Nation257 (12 July): 57-60.
7.
Brotman, Stuart N. (1987) The Telecommunications Deregulation Sourcebook.Boston: Artech House.
8.
Brown, Duncan (1994) `The Academy's Response to the Call for a Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation', Critical Studies in Mass Communication11(3): 257-73.
9.
Carnevale, Mary Lu (1992a) `FCC Radio Ruling Turns on Big Players But Angers Minority Station Owners', Wall Street Journal (13 March): A4.
10.
Carnevale, Mary Lu (1992b) `Radio Industry Deregulation Recommended', Wall Street Journal (26 Feb.): B1.
11.
Ditingo, Vincent (1995) The Remaking of Radio.Boston: Focal Press.
12.
Dunaway, David K. (1992) `Save Our Stations', New York Times (23 May): A23.
13.
Dupree, Scotty (1996) `Westinghouse is Radio Active', Mediaweek (24 June): 2.
14.
Enchin, Harvey (1995) `Radio Network Delivers Local Spin', Globe and Mail (18 Oct.): B12.
15.
Fairchild, Charles (in press) Community Radio and Public Culture, being an Examination of Media Access and Equity in the Nations of North America.Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
16.
Farhi, Paul (1992) `New FCC Rules Allow Broadcasters to Own up to 60 Radio Stations', Washington Post (13 March): D1-3.
17.
Gallagher, John (1993) `Duopoly Rules Spur Radio Activity', Broadcasting (8 Feb.): 38-9.
18.
Gimein, Mark. (1996) `Brave New World'Mediaweek (5 Feb.): 2.
19.
Globe and Mail (1996) `What's News' (5 March): B6.
20.
Goddard, Peter (1995) `A Lone PRN Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness', Toronto Star (28 Oct.): H8.
21.
Hickey, Neil (1997) `So Big: The Telecommunications Act at Year One', Columbia Journalism Review (Jan./Feb.): 23-8.
22.
Landler, Mark (1992) `Radio's Empire Builders are Scanning the Dial', Business Week (29 June): 58-9.
23.
Lively, Donald (1991) Modern Communications Law.New York: Praeger.
24.
McChesney, Robert (1993) Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935.New York: Oxford University Press.
New York Times (1990) `Court Backs F.C.C. in Licensing Rules' (26 Aug.): 31.
27.
Rush, Don (1995) Pacifica Network News.Washington, DC: Pacifica Foundation.
28.
Sethi, S. Prakesh (1997) Advocacy Advertising and Large Corporations: Social Conflict, Big Business, the News Media, and Public Policy.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
29.
Stauber, John and Sheldon Rampton (1995) Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry.Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
30.
Streeter, Thomas (1994) Selling the Air: Property and the Politics of US Commercial Broadcasting', Media, Culture and Society16(1): 91-116.
31.
Tunstall, Jeremy (1986) Communications Deregulation: The Unleashing of America's Communications Industry.New York: Basil Blackwell.
32.
US Congress (1996) Telecommunications Act of 1996. 47 USC 151.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
