In recent years, many practitioners, policymakers, and scholars have embraced participatory politics in communications policymaking at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the expectation that mass involvement by the public will—and should—influence regulatory outcomes. However, calls for participation may not be sufficient; a commitment to public-spirited decision making among agency officials is also needed alongside procedural safeguards for participation. The following analysis uses a Habermasian framework to move beyond participatory politics and advocates for a deliberative understanding of the role of the public and policymakers in producing legitimate outcomes. Looking at legal and legislative history of the Commission and of administrative procedure more generally, the article reconsiders the value of agency discretion and turns attention to the importance of public participation in debates about communications regulation outside the rulemaking system. If members of the public generate, circulate, and make audible their opinions in a public sphere and agency officials are open to and active listeners of a public sphere, agency discretion can guide officials towards public-spirited rather than narrowly interested decisions. Overall, Habermas's model suggests that policymakers and public coproduce legitimacy in a process that is doubly challenging but arguably more profound.
Baker, C.E. ( 2007). Media concentration and democracy: Why ownership matters . New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Blevins, J.L., & Brown, D.H. ( 2006). Political issue or policy matter. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30(1), 21-41.
4.
Breyer, S.J. ( 1982). Regulation and its reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Calabrese, A. ( 2004a). The promise of civil society: A global movement for communication rights. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18, 317-329.
6.
Calabrese, A. ( 2004b). Stealth regulation: Moral meltdown and political radicalism at the Federal Communications Commission. New Media & Society, 6(1), 106-113.
7.
Clark, T.C. ( 1947). Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office .
8.
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §303 (1934).
9.
Cramton, R.C. ( 1972). The why, where and how of broadened public participation in the administrative process. Georgetown Law Review, 60, 525-550.
10.
Croley, S.P. ( 1998). Theories of regulation. Columbia Law Review, 98(1), 1-168.
11.
Cuellar, M.F. ( 2004, May). Rethinking public engagement in the administrative state. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Law and Society Association, Chicago.
12.
Engelman, R. ( 1996). Public radio and television in America: A political history . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
Federal Communications Commission. (2003a). FCC sets limits on media concentration-Unprecedented public record results in enforceable and balanced broadcast ownership rules (News Release). Washington, DC: Author.
14.
Federal Communications Commission. (2003b). 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission’s broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MB Docket 02-277 (Report & Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) . Washington, DC: Author.
15.
Fraser, N. ( 1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80.
16.
Gellhorn, W. ( 1940). Administrative procedure in government agencies. Monograph of the attorney general’s committee on administrative procedures (Part 3-Federal Communications Commission). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
17.
Gellhorn, W. ( 1986). The Administrative Procedure Act: The beginnings. Virginia Law Review, 72(2), 219-233.
18.
Gilens, M., & Hertzman, C. ( 2000). Corporate ownership and news bias: Newspaper coverage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Journal of Politics, 62, 369-385.
19.
Habermas, J. ( 1996a). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1992)
20.
Habermas, J. ( 1996b). Popular sovereignty as procedure. In Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (pp. 463-490). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1988)
21.
Habermas, J. ( 1996c). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21-30). Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
22.
HBO v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9 (1977).
23.
Holman, J. ( 2005, September). Strength in numbers? Public participation in the media ownership proceeding at the Federal Communication Commission . Paper presented at the 33rd Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy, Arlington, VA.
24.
Horwitz, R.B. ( 1989). The irony of regulatory reform: The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Husselbee, L.P. ( 1997, July). Media’s coverage of itself: How eight major newspapers covered the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.
26.
Jackson, R.H. ( 1941). Attorney general’s report on the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1941report.html
27.
Johnson, S.M. ( 1998). The Internet changes everything: Revolutionizing public participation and access to government information through the Internet. Administrative Law Review, 50, 277-338.
28.
Kerwin, C. ( 2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
29.
Klinenberg, E. ( 2007). Fighting for air: The battle to control America’s media. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.
30.
Landis, J.M. ( 1938). The administrative process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Lippmann, W. ( 1997). Public opinion (1st Free Press ed.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1922)
32.
Martin, K. ( 2007). Statement on 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review-Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
33.
McChesney, R.W. ( 1993). Telecommunications, mass media, & democracy: The battle for the control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
McChesney, R.W. ( 2004a). Media policy goes to main street: The uprising of 2003 . Communication Review, 7, 223-258.
35.
McChesney, R.W. ( 2004b). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
36.
McGregor, M.A. ( 2006). When the "public interest" is not what interests the public. Communication Law & Policy, 11(207), Unpaged.
37.
Mosco, V. ( 1996). The political economy of communication: Rethinking and renewal. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
38.
NBC v. FCC, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
39.
NCCB v. FCC, 436 U.S. 775 (1978).
40.
Noveck, B. S. (2004). The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory Law Journal, 53(2), 433-518. President’s Committee on Administrative Management (PCAM). (1937). Report of the committee with studies of administrative management in the federal government, submitted to the President and to the Congress in accordance with Public law no. 739, 74th Congress, 2d session. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
41.
Storer v. FCC, 351 U.S. 192 (1956).
42.
Streeter, T. ( 1996). Selling the air: A critique of the policy of commercial broadcasting in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
