Television station ownership effects on programming and idea diversity: Baseline data

Busterna, John C.

doi:10.1080/08997768809358172

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chamberlin (1954) said counting the number of sellers in an area does not measure competition well. Nevertheless, the measure has been used successfully to gauge the impact of newspaper competition on electoral outcomes (Vermeer, 1992) and diversity of public opinion (Lasorsa, 1991), as well as local television news competition impact on content (Busterna, 1980(Busterna, , 1988 and financial expenditures (Lacy, Atwater, Qin, & Powers, 1988).…”

Section: Existing Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Operationalizing Newspaper and Television News Competition

Lacy¹,

Vermeer²

1995

Journal of Media Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Existing Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Operationalizing Newspaper and Television News Competition

Lacy¹,

Vermeer²

1995

Journal of Media Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A recent study of radio ownership rules employed a case study method (Williams, 1998). Other studies have analyzed the relationship between ownership and content (Busterna, 1988) using content analysis. The scope of this study required exploring the effects of deregulation in several markets across time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, the concern about the influence of ownership in content has focused on issues related to the amount and type of available news programming (Bates & Chambers, 1996;Busterna, 1988;Gormley, 1976;Lacy & Riffe, 1994;McKean &Stone, 1992) and the relationship between staff and content (Albarran & Ludwig, 1995;Riffe & Shaw, 1990). Critics of deregulation often link the homogenization of media content with the concentration of ownership across markets (Bagdikian, 1985;McChesney, 1997).…”

Section: Linking Radio Market Structure and Radio Market Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Losing Owners: Deregulation and Small Radio Markets

Chambers¹

2001

Journal of Radio Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a dramatic shift in the philosophy of broadcast regulation. After decades of managing the local radio market structure with policies of ownership regulation, Congress and the FCC have mandated policies of ownership deregulation. This study examines the effect of deregulation policies on the small market radio industry. Recent research has explored issues of radio market structure and performance in larger markets; however, few studies have examined the impact of policy in smaller markets. This study analyzed 52 metropolitan statistical areas with populations less than 125,000. The study used regression analysis to identify the effect of deregulation on the number and type of radio owners in the small markets. Overall, the results revealed that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had a dramatic impact on the number of local radio owners in the small markets.

show abstract

“…Levin (1970) was largely critical of the claims made for the group ownership rule in terms of its effects on competition and diversity (though he admitted to a paucity of good data on content diversity). J.C. Busterna (1988) found no significant relationship between the effects of TV/newspaper cross-ownership on the diversity of issues covered in the news. Writing in 1985, Jacob Waklshlag and William Jenson Adams (1985) found that the introduction of the Prime Time Access Rule, enacted in 1970 by the FCC to encourage local production, was largely responsible for a sharp decline in network program diversity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

On Media Concentration and the Diversity Question

Horwitz

2005

The Information Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate mergers and the consolidation of ownership in the American communications arena have long been sources of concern. US regulatory and antitrust policy traditionally attempted to secure a "diversity of voices" structurally, largely through rules regarding ownership. Although the meaning of diversity was always problematic and under-theorized, the Federal Communications Commission long set ceilings on the numbers of broadcast outlets any single person or corporation could own and enacted cross-ownership rules such as a prohibition against a corporation owning a newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same market. These rules, and the FCC's authority to make them, were upheld, occasionally even compelled, by the federal appellate courts. In the last 20 years, however, legal trends, in conjunction with political developments, have undermined the diversity rationales behind ownership rules and associated structural regulations of mass media.Paradoxically, even as media corporations are becoming larger and presumably more powerful, ownership regulations are being rescinded or struck down. This paper explains this history. It concludes with a suggestion that the First Amendment metaphor of marketplace of ideas is misplaced and how our thinking about media ownership and diversity might be better served by the metaphor of a mixed media system.

show abstract

Television station ownership effects on programming and idea diversity: Baseline data

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Operationalizing Newspaper and Television News Competition

Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Operationalizing Newspaper and Television News Competition

Losing Owners: Deregulation and Small Radio Markets

On Media Concentration and the Diversity Question

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About