test 2 Flashcards
(37 cards)
purely economic model of news production
The probability of an event or issue becoming news goes:
down with cost of uncovering story
down with cost of assembling narrative
up with expected appeal
Purely journalistic theory of news production
The probability of an event or issue becoming news goes:
up w/ expected consequences of narrative
up w/ expected appeal.
Economics of News:
Gentzkow and Shapiro
Not an empirical paper (just theoretical)
Question: When do we get the “truth?”
(Again, difficult to study b/c don’t have exogenous shocks.)
Competition increases truth. (Easier to bribe off only a few
firms.)
Diversity increase truth. (Can see both sides of the coin.) A
suppresser will be revealed by their competitors.
Competition increases investment in news gathering.
However, this can increase selected viewership and soft news.
U.S. media tends to be:
More often privately owned
-PBS receives about 15% of its funding from the government
-NPR receives about 10%
-Many other countries have one station almost fully funded (TV tax)
Less regulated
-Over content. Europe now less regulated.
-Airwaves in the U.S. are owned by the public and licensed for use by private entities
-Differences blurred by new media, cable, satellite, and internet
The First Amendment
Previously discussed colonial press freedom
Zenger trial made seditious libel (written anti-government messages) prosecutions much more difficult
Constitution written without explicit protection of free speech
Federalist argument: opposed a Bill of Rights b/c worried that enumerating rights would limit them
Bill of Rights added four years after ratification
Applied to state governments through 14th Amendment in the 1920s(“incorporation”).
Thomas Jefferson on the Function of the Press
“[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every
man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am
convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without
government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of
happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the
former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as
powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretense
of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves
and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish
therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not
be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them.
If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and
Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become
wolves.”
What does the First Amendment Mean?
Sounds pretty straightforward:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
No prior restraint.
Long understood to not protect certain types of speech (e.g. fine
line between conduct and speech; sometimes speech bumps into
other rights; obscenity)
Constitutional interpretation varies
Common Law
English common law was adopted by the U.S. colonies. Still
cited in some states, many Supreme Court cases.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
(1765). Clarified English laws. Read in law school.
“Where blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatical,
seditious, or scandalous libels are punished by English law, the
liberty of the press, properly understood, is by no means
infringed or violated. The liberty of the press is indeed essential
to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no
previous restraints upon publication, and not in freedom from
censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has
undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the
public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: but
if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he
must take the consequences of his own temerity.”
Modern Law
-Near v. Minnesota (1931): struck down state
law that allowed gov’t to prohibit publication
of newspapers that were “malicious,
scandalous, and defamatory” and required
court approval to restart publication.
-But prohibition wasn’t “absolutely unlimited,”
and gov’t could limit publication of troop
movements, obscenity, and incitement to
violence.
-Pentagon Papers (1971) expanded gov’t burden
before prior restraint would be allowed (can’t
just say “national security”).
Example: Swift Agreement
Terrorist Tracking Finance Program (2001-20016)
Could track SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication) database.
NY Times obtained information, as did LA Times and WSJ. Legal
program. Democrats and Republicans tried to convince NYT to not
publish. They did anyway
British have more formal Defense Advisory
Notice system
Request editor to not publish information for national security reasons
All advisory, not legally enforceable
Generally complied with
new focus on…
sources
Libel
Truth is an absolute defense, per Zenger. Before 1964, false and defamatory statements about individuals were unprotected speech. Times vs. Sullivan established “malice” standard. Some falsity could be tolerated as part of pursuit of truth. Put burden of proof on gov’t officials.
Rules governing U.S. news
Regulatory:
Broadcast (not cable or internet) focused thus far, with increasing
relaxation over years.
Time limits (1976: at least 5% local, 5% news and public affairs,
10% non-entertainment, limit on ads): Obviously relaxed. Still
some restrictions, for example children’s TV. (What percent can
be ads now?)
Content restrictions: Wardrobe malfunctions. FCC initially fined
CBS over $500k for Superbowl incident. Later repealed.
Licensing: Renewal used to be more difficult. Now more
automatic.
Spectrum allocation: Big deal with HDTV, wifi, cell networks,
etc.; demand for more efficient use of broadcast spectrum.
Contrast to
Other Countries
Strict rules apply to commercial broadcasters in Europe
“Right of Reply” laws: give people criticized a right of access
to answer criticisms.
Germany: any broadcaster with at least 10% market share
must allocate a minimum of 260 minutes airtime/week to
minor parties
Britain: Formal requirements for impartiality (broadcast)
Campaign coverage regulations stricter (free airtime; ad
regulation, news content balance)
Also, direct newspaper subsidies for diversity (e.g., political
parties).
Why Pick on Broadcasters?
Airwaves belong to the public; broadcasters only licensed to use them
Limited available spectrum.
Interference (gov’ts first role was to regulate frequencies)
Radio and TV more pervasive than print (which can more easily be
shielded – only seen by one person)
Politicians also feared power of radio might be used against them
Airwaves belong to the public; broadcasters only licensed to use them
Limited available spectrum.
Interference (gov’ts first role was to regulate frequencies)
Radio and TV more pervasive than print (which can more easily be
shielded – only seen by one person)
Politicians also feared power of radio might be used against them
1941 FCC decision: ordered that a “radio broadcaster and …
station should be allowed neither to editorialize nor to take a
stand on any controversial matter.”
Reaction to Boston mayor receiving favorable coverage from local
radio station.
Used license renewal authority to enforce decision
We see very few license renewal requests be denied Does this mean the FCC has little power?
No, because powerful threat.
License was highly profitable, so stations feared losing them.
Generally self-censored, rather than direct gov’t
intervention.
Internal rules were often stricter than FCC’s.
Evolution of “Fairness”
Mayflower: “A broadcaster cannot be an advocate”
1948: allowed editorial positions provided the broadcaster
followed “the principles of balance and fairness in
providing time for discussions of controversial issues.”
1950: “Seekout Opposition Rule,” stations had a “duty to
seek out opposing points of views and encourage opposing
views” if a station editorialized on controversial issues.
1959: required that the station make an effort to provide a
“reasonable” opportunity for the expression of opposing
views whenever a station expressed its opinion.
1987, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine entirely.
Ownership/Concentration-Owner’s Role
Fear: Press used to further owner’s economic or political
interests ahead of those of consumers, especially as
news organizations become part of larger conglomerates
Historical cases where owner’s bias influences content of
news. LOTS of examples (see next slide).
Used to have hypothetical: What if Rupert Murdoch bought
CNN? Now we know: Fox News.
Examples: Partisan press; yellow journalism; endless crosspromotion
of programming.
Ownership Regulation
Ownership role is controlled by legal rules, especially in
broadcasting (DirecTV/Echostar merger canned by FCC; Murdoch
buyout ok.)
Lots of debate over ownership rules (Gentzkow & Shapiro)
Media companies are often covering/lobbying at same time
Democrats 2004 party platform (NOT 2012): “Because our
democracy thrives on public access to diverse sources of
information from multiple sources, we support measures to
ensure diversity, competition, and localism in media
ownership.”
FCC’s proposed changes provoked more debate and lawsuits
Rules Regarding Ownership
Mostly affected broadcasters
Could affect print if also owned TV
Early steps included breaking up the dominant
NBC radio networks (which led to the formation
of ABC) and prohibitions on owning local
affiliates.
Telecom Act of 1996 was pretty big deal: Lifted
40-station limit on radio network ownership
(Clear Channel jumped to over 1200 stations)
Informal Rules for Journalists: 3 pressures
Peer Pressure: Want to be professional, good journalist
Cognitive Pressure: Attitude Bias (next week)
Organizational Pressure: News business must follow
certain routines to work effectively on a day to day basis
(after that)
Professions
Not every job, historically.
Professions: Doctors, ministers, lawyers, professors, etc. Not every group in society. Many more
today.
Requires: (1) People make money in same way, (2) Membership regulated by professional association,
(3) People outside the organization cannot operate (e.g. must pass bar to operate as an attorney;
must have PhD to be tenure-track professor)
Arguments for:
similar standards, codify proper conduct, prestige (parental pressure?)
Arguments against:
decrease competition, maintain scarcity, shield work from criticism
Professions are “conspiracies against the laity”
–George Bernard Shaw