In 1999, the Federal Communications Commission changed the Local Television Ownership Rule, allowing a single company to own two television stations in the same media market. The new rules led to the creation of dozens of “duopolies” nationwide. This longitudinal case study analyzed the newscasts of one of the nation's first duopolies. The author sought to discover what kind of long-term impact ownership consolidation had on newscasts in Jacksonville, Florida. Using a quasi-experimental research design, the newscast content of two stations was compared when they were separately owned. After consolidation, content produced by the duopoly was compared with pre-consolidation newscasts. Sixty newscasts and 1,048 stories were analyzed to answer the question: Do the combined resources of two television stations translate into higher quality local coverage? Results were mixed.
The study empirically measured diversity and localism - two factors critical in the examination of broadcasting in the public interest. Diversity was operationally defined as range of topics, topic of “lead” stories, and range of voices. Results show the duopoly significantly increased its coverage of local government, politics, construction and growth but decreased its coverage of public safety and non-dominant groups. A shift away from crime coverage was seen for lead stories. There was no significant increase in the number of local sources or the diversity of sources (women and minorities) appearing in news coverage.
Localism was operationally defined as the amount of locally produced news, the geographic focus of coverage, the number of local reporters featured, and the amount of locally-produced enterprise reporting. Results show the number of stories and time dedicated to local news increased significantly after the duopoly was created. Allocation of reporters to news coverage did not increase. While the number of enterprise stories decreased, the amount of time dedicated to enterprise stories increased - a finding which has methodological implications for future researchers.
Results indicate that economies of scale achieved through local television consolidation may translate to higher quality coverage in some content areas but not others. The findings contribute empirical evidence to the long-standing debate between public interest versus free market theorists. Implications for policy-makers are examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules (2006, June). Federal Communications Commission News Release. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownerhsip.
2.
AhrensF. (2003, June 3). FCC eases media ownership rules. Washington Post, p. A1.
3.
AhrensF. (2004, June 29). Powell calls rejection of media rules a disappointment. Washington Post Online. from http://www.washingtonpost.com.
4.
AlbaranA. B. (2002). Media economics: Understanding markets, industries and concepts (2nd ed.). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Press.
5.
AllenR. C.GomeryD. (1985). Film history: Theory and practice.New York, NY: Newbery Award Records, Inc.
6.
AltschullJ. H. (1995). Agents of power: The media and public policy (2nd ed.). London: Longman Group Ltd.
7.
ArmasG. (2005, March 17). Bush names Kevin Martin new FCC chairman. BusinessWeek Online. Retrieved June 24, 2005, from http://www.businessweek.com.
8.
Associated Press v. United States 20 (326 U.S. 1 1945).
9.
AtwaterT. (1984). Product differentiation in local TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 61(4), 757–762.
10.
AtwaterT. (1986). Consonance in local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(4), 467–472.
11.
AufderheideP. (1999). Communications Policy and the public interest.New York: Guilford Press.
12.
BabbieE. (1979). The practice of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
13.
BagdikianB. H. (1997). The media monopoly (5th ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
14.
Barker-BenfieldS. (2000, July 7). Who wants to buy a TV building? Agent says former TV-25 headquarters could have plenty of uses. Florida Times-Union. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/archives/.
BeckerL. B.BeamR.RussialJ. (1978). Correlates of daily newspaper performance in New England. Journalism Quarterly, 55(1), 100–108.
17.
Bennett-HaigneyL. (2001). Will the media merger free-for-all extinguish women's voices?National NOW Times, 33(3), 16.
18.
BensonR. (2004, January 28). Statement before the FCC's Localism Task Force Public Hearing. San Antonio, Texas.
19.
BernsteinJ. M.LacyS.CassaraC.LauT-y (1990). Geographic coverage by local television news. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 663–671.
20.
BigmanS. (1948). Rivals in conformity: A study of two competing dailies. Journalism Quarterly, 25, 127–131.
21.
BishopR.HakanenE. A. (2002). In the public interest? The state of local television programming fifteen years after deregulation. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 26(3), 261–276.
22.
BozellL. B. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Diversity Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
23.
BrockG. W. (1994). Telecommunication Policy for the information age: From monopoly to competition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
BrooksA. (1997). Postfeminisms: Feminism, cultural theory and cultural forms.London: Routledge.
25.
BrownK.WilliamsG. (2002, September). Consolidation and advertising prices in local radio markets. Study #4: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
26.
BuddR.ThorpR.DonohewL. (1967). Content analysis of communication.New York: Macmillan.
27.
BushC. A. (2002, September). On the substitutability of local newspaper, radio and television advertising in local business sales. Study #10: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
28.
BusternaJ. C.HansenK. A.WardJ. (1991). Competition, ownership, newsroom and library resources in large newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 729–739.
29.
CampbellD.T.StanleyJ.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
30.
CarrrollR. L. (1980). Market size and TV news values. Journalism Quarterly, 66(1), 49–56, 128.
31.
CarrollR. L.TuggleC. A.McCollumJ. F.MitrookM. A.ArlingtonK. J.HoernerJ. M. (1997). Consonance in local television news program content: An examination of intermarket diversity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(1), 132–144.
32.
Chairman Martin Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Review of Media Ownership Rules (2005, June 13). Federal Communications Commission News Release. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership.
33.
ChambersT. (2003). Structural changes in small media markets. Journal of Media Economics, 16(1), 41–59.
34.
ChambersT.ReevesJ.HarpD. (2001). Story duplication in new television news management models. Unpublished manuscript.
35.
ChomskyN. (2002). Renewing Tom Paine's challenge. In McChesneyR. W.NicholsJ. (Eds.), Our media not theirs: The democratic struggle against corporate media.New York: Seven Stories Press.
36.
Communications Act of1934 (47 U.S.C. 310 1934).
37.
Communications Workers of America (2003, February 27). Comments delivered to the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership. Richmond, VA.
38.
CompaineB. M.GomeryD. (2000). Who owns the media? Competition and concentration in the mass media industry (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
Consumer Federation of America. (2002). Democratic Discourse in the DigitalInformation Age: Legal Principles and Economic Challenges in the Millennium. Retrieved December, 2002, from http://www.consumerfed.org/principals.pdf.
40.
CookT.CampbellD. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
CooperM. (2003). Media ownership and democracy in the digital information age: Promoting diversity with First amendment principles and market structure analysis.Stanford, CA: Center for Internet & Society, Stanford Law School.
42.
CoulsonD. C. (1994). Impact of ownership on newspaper quality. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 403–410.
43.
CoulsonD. C.HansenA. (1995). The Louisville-Courier-Journal news content after purchase by Gannett. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 205–215.
44.
CroteauD. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Competition Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
45.
CroteauD.HoynesW. (2001). The business of media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
46.
CunninghamB. C.AlexanderP. J. (2002, September). A theory of broadcast media concentration and commercial advertising. Study #6; FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
DavieW. R.LeeJ. S. (1993). Television news technology - Do more sources mean less diversity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(4), 453–464.
49.
DeVaultM. L. (1999). Liberating Method: Feminism and social research.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
50.
DeweyJ. (1927). The public and its problems.New York: Henry Holt and Company.
51.
EggertonJ. (2004, June 25). Court reverses ownership rules. Broadcasting & Cable. from http://www.freepress.net/news.
52.
EinsteinM. (2002, September). Program diversity and the program selection process onbroadcast network television. Study #5: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
53.
EinsteinM. (2004). Media diversity: Economics, ownership and the FCC.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
EntmanR. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics.New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
EpsteinE. J. (2000). News from nowhere: Television and the news (2nd ed.). Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
56.
ErlichM. C. (1995). The ethical dilemma of television news sweeps. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 10(1), 37–47.
57.
EverettS. C.EverettS. E. (1989). How readers and advertisers benefit from local newspaper competition. Journalism Quarterly, 66(1), 76-&
58.
EverittB. (1992). The analysis of contingency tables.New York: Chapman and Hall.
59.
FCC initiates third biennial review of broadcast ownership rules. (2002, September 12). Federal Communications Commission News Release. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership.
60.
FCC releases twelve studies on current media marketplace. (2002, October 1). Federal Communications Commission News Release. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownerhsip.
61.
FCC sets limits on media concentration. (2003, June 2). Federal Communications Commission News Release, from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership.
62.
Federal Communications Commission. (1946). Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees.
63.
Federal Communications Commission. (1960). Report re En Banc programming inquiry: 44 F.C.C. 2203.
64.
Federal Communications Commission. (1984). Revision of programming and commercialization policies, ascertainment requirements, and program log requirements for commercial television stations: 98 F.C.C. 2d 74.
65.
Federal Communications Commission. (1999). Report and Order. In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting.
66.
FoleyL. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Competition Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
67.
FowlerM. S.BrennerD. L. (1982). A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation. Texas Law Review, 60(2), 207–257.
68.
Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America (280 F.3d 1027 2002).
69.
FranklinM. A.AndersonD. A. (1990). Cases and materials on Mass Media Law.Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc.
70.
FratkinB. (2004, April). The deregulation of public service obligations in broadcasting. Paper presented at the Broadcast Educators Association (Law & Policy Division), Las Vegas, NV.
71.
FratrikM. R. (2003, January 2). Television local marketing agreements and local duopolies: Do they generate new competition and diversity? Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in Appendix to Comments of Coalition of Broadcasters et al., MM Docket 02–277.
72.
Future of Music Coalition (2002, November 18). Commercial radio station ownership consolidation shown to harm artists and the public, says FMC study. Retrieved March 2003, from http://www.futureofmusic.org.
73.
Gannett Co. Inc. (1999). News Release. 1100 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22234.
74.
GansH. (2003). Democracy and the news: Oxford University Press.
75.
GilensM.HertzmanC. (2000). Corporate ownership and news bias: Newspaper coverage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Journal of Politics, 62(2), 369–386.
76.
GilesB. (2003). Media ownership and the quality of news: As the Federal Communications commission considers changing rules, journalists need to pay better attention. Nieman Reports, 57(1), 3.
77.
GomeryD. (2000). Interpreting media ownership. In CompaineB. M.GomeryD. (Eds.), Who owns the media?: Competition and concentration in the mass media industry (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
78.
GomeryD. (2001, October). Ownership Policies, Diversity, and Localism. Remarks presented at the Roundtable on Media Ownership Policies: Federal Communications CommissionWashington, DC.
79.
GomeryD. (2002). The FCC's newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule: An analysis.Washington D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
H.R. 1665 (2004, February 15). The Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.
82.
HabermanS. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205–220.
83.
HarrellJ. (2000, January 11). Anchors Away: What if you started a TV station… and nobody watched?Folio Weekly, pp. 14–19.
84.
CollinsHill P. (2000). Black feminist though: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
85.
HolstiO.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
86.
HorowitzR. B. (1989). The irony of regulatory reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications.New York: Oxford University Press.
87.
HuntemannN. (1999). Corporate interference: The commercialization and concentration of radio post the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(4), 390–407.
88.
IrelandJ. (2003, February 27). Prepared statement of Jay Ireland. Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Diversity Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
KovachB.RosenstielT. (2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect.New York: Three Rivers Press.
91.
LabatonS. (2004, June 25). Court orders rethinking of rules allowing large media to expand. New York Times Online. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from http://www.nytimes.com.
92.
LabatonS. (2005). Deal maker named by Bush to lead F.C.C. New York Times Online. Retrieved June 24, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com.
93.
LacyS. (1988). The impact of intercity competition on daily newspaper content. Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 399–406.
94.
LacyS. (1989). A model of demand for news: Impact of competition on newspaper content. Journalism Quarterly, 66(1), 40–48.
95.
LacyS. (1991). Effects of group ownership on daily newspaper content. Journal of media Economics, 4(1), 35–47.
96.
LacyS.BlanchardA. (2003). The impact of public ownership, profits, and competition on number of newsroom employees and starting salaries in mid-sized daily newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 949–968.
97.
LemertJ. (1974). Content duplication by the networks in competing evening newscasts. Journalism Quarterly, 51(2), 238–244.
98.
LevyJ.Ford-LiveneM.LevineA. (2002, September). Broadcast television: Survivor in a sea of competition. Study #12: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper, from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
99.
LippmannW. (1922). Public Opinion.London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
100.
LitmanB. (1979). The television networks, competition and program diversity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 23(4), 393–409.
101.
ManorR. (2005, June 14). Media Firms' appeal denied. ChicagoTribune.com. Retrieved via internet June 23, 2005.
McChesneyR. W. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy.New York: Seven Stories Press.
104.
McChesneyR. W. (1999). Rich media, Poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
105.
McCombsM. E. (1987). Effect of monopoly in Cleveland on diversity of newspaper content. Journalism Quarterly, 64(4), 740–745.
106.
McCombsM. E. (1988). Concentration, monopoly, and content. In PicardR. G.McCombsM. E.WinterJ. P.LacyS. (Eds.), Press Concentration and Monopoly: New perspectives on newspaper ownership and operation.Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
107.
McConnellB. (2003). Where the deals are: New FCC rules make room for TV duopolies in 72 markets. Broadcasting & Cable, 133(22), 1.
108.
McKeanM. L.StoneV. A. (1992). Deregulation and competition: Explaining the absence of local broadcast news operations. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 713–723.
109.
McManusJ. M. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizens beware?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
110.
MillerV. B. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Diversity Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
111.
MinowN. (2003). Television and the public interest. Federal Communications Law Journal, 55(3), 395–406.
112.
NapoliP. (2001, October). Diversity and Localism: A policy analysis perspective. Remarks presented at the Roundtable on Media Ownership Policies: Federal Communications CommissionWashington, DC.
113.
National Association of Broadcasters. (2003). News release: Cascade of research demonstrates strong support for local radio. 1771 N. Street, NS, Washington D.C.
114.
NestvoldK. (1973). Diversity in local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 17(3), 345–352.
115.
Nielsen Media Research (2002, September). Consumer survey on media usage. Study #8: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper, from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
116.
NixonR. B.JonesR. L. (1956). The content of non-competitive vs. competitive newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 33, 299–314.
117.
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v Federal Communications Commission et al. (486 U.S. 1032 1988).
OwenB. (2003, February 27). Statement on Media ownership rules. Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Competition Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
120.
OwenB.MikkelsenK. W.MortimerR. O.BaumannM. G. (2003, January 30). Effect of common ownership or operation on television news carriage, quantity and quality. Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in Comments of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. et al., MB Docket 02–277.
121.
PattersonT. E. (1994). Out of Order.New York: Vintage Books.
122.
PattersonT. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy - and what news outlets can do about it.Cambridge, MA: Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
123.
PattersonT. E. (2002). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty.New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publisher.
PattonC. (1999b, December 13). Changing the channel: Recent sale another chapter in ABC's tumultuous tenure in Jacksonville. Florida Times-Union. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/archives/.
126.
PhanM. (2005, June 14). Media await new ownership rules. Newsday.com. Retrieved via internet June 23, 2005.
127.
PhillipsH. F. (2003, July 24). House overwhelmingly overturns FCC rules expanding ownership. San Jose Mercury News.
128.
Pinellas Broadcasting Co. v Federal Communications Commission (97 U.S. App. D.C. 236; 230 F.2d 204 1956).
129.
PoindexterP. M.McCombsM. E. (2000). Research in mass communications: A practical guide.Boston: Bedford-St. Martin's.
130.
PowersA. (2001). Toward monopolistic competition in U.S. local television news. The Journal of Media Economics, 14(2), 77–86.
131.
PritchardD. (2002, September). Viewpoint diversity in cross-owned newspapers and television stations: A study of news coverage in the 2000 Presidential campaign. Study #2: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
132.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (2001). Gambling with the future: Local newsrooms beset by sponsor interference, budget cuts, layoffs, and added programmingColumbia Journalism Review, Supplement (Nov/Dec), 1–16.
133.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (2002). On the road to irrelevance: Quality can be the compass to bring viewers backColumbia Journalism Review, Supplement (Nov/Dec), 89–104.
Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission (U.S. App. 3d Cir. (2004).
136.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling Alone.New York: Simon & Schuster.
137.
Radio Act of 1927, Sec. 3 Public Law 632, 69th Congress (1927).
138.
Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 US 367 1969).
139.
Report of the national advisory commission on civil disorders. (1968). New York: Bantam.
140.
RiffeD.LacyS.FicoF. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
141.
RintelsJ. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Competition Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
142.
RiskinV. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Diversity Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
143.
RobertsS.FrenetteJ.StearnsD. (2002, September). A comparison of media outlets and owners for ten selected markets (1960, 1980, 2000). Study #1: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper, from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
144.
S. 383 (2004, February 15). The Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.
SchrammW. (1956). Responsibility in Mass Communications.New York: Harper & Brothers.
148.
SchwartzmanA. J. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Diversity Issues Panel). Richmond, VA.
149.
SchwartzmanA. J. (2004). Statement of Media Access Project reacting to the U.S. Court of Appeals media ownership decision. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.mediaaccess.org/prometheus_decision.
150.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America (284 F.3d 148 2002).
151.
SingletonL. A.RockwellS. C. (2003). Silent voices: Analyzing the FCC “media voices” criteria limiting local radio-television cross-ownership. Communication Law and Policy, 8(4), 385–403.
152.
SinhaN.SteinL. (1995). Industrial structure and diversity in the media: A report on the impact of concentration, conglomeration and ownership on mass media content. Report commissioned by the Secretariat of Culture and Communication, Government of Chile.
153.
SmithL. K. (2003, August). In Whose Best Interest? FCC deregulation and local news: How cross-ownership, national caps, and duopolies are addressed in three commissioned studies. Paper presented at the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication (Radio-Television Journalism Division), Las Vegas, Nevada.
154.
SpavinsT. C.DenisonL.RobertsS.FrenetteJ. (2002, September). The measurement of local television news and public affairs programming. Study #7: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
155.
State of the News Media: Local Television News. (2004). Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.journalism.org.
156.
SturmJ. (2003, February 27). Statement before the Federal Communications Commission's Field Hearing on Broadcast Ownership (Localism Issues Panel). Richmond, VA. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No. 104–104 110 Stat. 56 (1996a).
157.
TurowJ. (1997). Media systems in society: Understanding industries, strategies, and power. hite Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA.
158.
WaldfogelJ. (2002, September). Consumer substitution among media. Study #3: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
159.
WilliamsG.BrownK.AlexanderP. (2002, September). Radio market structure and music diversity. Study #9: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
160.
WilliamsG.RobertsS. (2002, September). Radio industry review 2002: Trends in ownership, format, and finance. Study #11: FCC Media Ownership Working Group Paper. from http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/studies.html.
161.
WimmerR. D.DominickJ.R. (1994). Mass media research: An introduction.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
162.
WrightB. (2003). Big isn't bad. Feedback, 44(4, September), 63.
