This study investigates whether market conditions affect the provision of public affairs programming by television broadcasters. The study examined a random sample of 112 commercial broadcast stations in order to determine whether station characteristics, market size and demographics, and competitive conditions affect the quantity of public affairs programming provided. The results suggest that market conditions have very little effect on the quantity of public affairs programming provided by individual broadcast stations and that if regulators wish to increase the amount of public affairs programming in the digital broadcasting realm, specific government-mandated programming requirements may be necessary.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters . 1998. Charting the Digital Broadcasting Future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
2.
Baker, C. Edwin . 1997. “Giving the Audience What It Wants.”Ohio State Law Journal58(2): 311-417.
3.
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, Section 3003, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).
4.
Benton Foundation . 1998. “What's Local about Local Broadcasting.” Available: www.benton.org/Television/whatslocal.html.
5.
BIA Research . 1999. Investing in Television Market Report. 3rd. Edition. Chantilly, VA: BIA Research.
6.
Brennan, Timothy J.1983. “Economic Efficiency and Broadcast Content Regulation.”Federal Communications Law Journal35(2):117-138.
7.
Busterna, John C.1980. “Ownership, CATV and Expenditures for Local Television News.”Journalism Quarterly57:287-291.
8.
Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 416, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934).
9.
Duggan, Ervin S. 1991. “Digital Audio Broadcasting: Getting It Finished and Getting It Right.” Remarks before the Annenberg Washington Program, April 11.
10.
Federal Communications Commission . 1976. Amendment to Section 0.281 of the Commission's Rules: Delegations of Authority to the Chief, Broadcast Bureau, 59 FCC 2d 491.
11.
Federal Communications Commission . 1984. Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Log Requirements for Commercial Television Stations, 1984 FCC LEXIS 2105.
12.
Federal Communications Commission . 1999a. The Public and Broadcasting. Report prepared by the Mass Media Bureau. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
13.
Federal Communications Commission . 1999b. Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees, 1999 FCC LEXIS 6487.
14.
Fowler, Mark S. , and Brenner, Daniel L.1982. “A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation.”Texas Law Review, 60:1-51.
15.
Horwitz, Robert B. 1989. The Irony of Regulatory Reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Kunkel, Dale . 1998. “Policy Battles over Defining Children's Educational Television.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences557:39-53.
17.
Lacy, Stephen , and Riffe, Daniel. 1994. “The Impact of Competition and Group Ownership on Radio News.”Journalism Quarterly71(3):583-593.
18.
Moonves, L. 1998. Statement before the Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters, Washington, DC, April 14. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom/aprmtg/transcript-am.htm.
19.
Napoli, Philip M.1997. “A Principal-Agent Approach to the Study of Media Organizations: Toward a Theory of the Media Firm.”Political Communication14(2):207-219.
20.
Napoli, Philip M.1999a. “Deconstructing the Diversity Principle.”Journal of Communication49(4):7-34.
21.
Napoli, Philip M.1999b. “The Marketplace of Ideas Metaphor in Communications Regulation.”Journal of Communication49(4):151-169.
22.
Napoli, Philip M.1999c. “The Unique Nature of Communications Regulation: Evidence and Implications for Communications Policy Analysis.”Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media43(4):565-581.
23.
Napoli, Philip M.2000. “The Localism Principle under Stress.”Info2(6):573-582.
24.
Napoli, Philip M. 2001. Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
25.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
26.
Riffe, Daniel , Stephen Lacy, and Frederick G. Fico. 1998. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 151 et. Seq.) (Feb. 8, 1996).
